UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`__________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`__________________________________________________________________
`
`
`
`AMAZON.COM, INC.,
`
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`JAWBONE INNOVATIONS, LLC,
`
`Patent Owner.
`
`
`Patent No. 11,122,357
`Filing Date: August 5, 2013
`Issue Date: September 14, 2021
`
`Inventor: Gregory C. Burnett
`Title: FORMING VIRTUAL MICROPHONE ARRAYS USING
`DUAL OMNIDIRECTIONAL MICROPHONE ARRAY (DOMA)
`
`
`
`
`__________________________________________________________________
`
`PATENT OWNER’S PRELIMINARY RESPONSE
`
`Case No. IPR2023-00251
`__________________________________________________________________
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`__________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`__________________________________________________________________
`
`
`
`AMAZON.COM, INC.,
`
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`JAWBONE INNOVATIONS, LLC,
`
`Patent Owner.
`
`
`Patent No. 11,122,357
`Filing Date: August 5, 2013
`Issue Date: September 14, 2021
`
`Inventor: Gregory C. Burnett
`Title: FORMING VIRTUAL MICROPHONE ARRAYS USING
`DUAL OMNIDIRECTIONAL MICROPHONE ARRAY (DOMA)
`
`
`
`
`__________________________________________________________________
`
`PATENT OWNER’S PRELIMINARY RESPONSE
`
`Case No. IPR2023-00251
`__________________________________________________________________
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2023-00251
`PATENT NO. 11,122,357
`
`Page(s)
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`
`I.
`INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................... 1
`THE ’357 PATENT ......................................................................................... 1
`II.
`III. THE RELEVANT ALLEGED PRIOR ART .................................................. 2
`A.
`Brandstein (Ex. 1003) ........................................................................... 2
`B.
`Gannot (Ex. 1004) ................................................................................. 2
`IV. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION ............................................................................ 3
`V.
`LEVEL OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART ............................................. 3
`VI. ARGUMENT ................................................................................................... 3
`A.
`Legal Standard ....................................................................................... 3
`B.
`Ground 1: Brandstein and Gannot Do Not Render Obvious
`Claims 1-20 ........................................................................................... 5
`1.
`Petitioner’s Combination Does Not Disclose or Render
`Obvious “a signal processor. . . to apply a varying linear
`transfer function between the first and second
`microphone signals;” as Required by Claims 1-20 ..................... 5
`Ground 2: Brandstein, Gannot, and Griffiths-Jim Do Not
`Render Any Claims Obvious ................................................................. 8
`D. Ground 3: Brandstein, Gannot, and McCowan Do Not Render
`Any Claims Obvious ............................................................................. 9
`VII. CONCLUSION ................................................................................................ 9
`
`
`C.
`
`i
`
`
`
`IPR2023-00251
`PATENT NO. 11,122,357
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
` Page(s)
`
`Cases
`Apple Inc. v. Samsung Elecs. Co.,
`839 F.3d 1034 (Fed. Cir. 2016) ............................................................................ 4
`Forest Lab’ys, LLC v. Sigmapharm Lab’ys, LLC,
`918 F.3d 928 (Fed. Cir. 2019) .............................................................................. 4
`Graham v. John Deere Co. of Kansas City,
`383 U.S. 1 (1966) .............................................................................................. 3, 4
`KSR Int’l Co. v. Telefex Inc.,
`550 U.S. 398 (2007) .............................................................................................. 4
`Statutes
`35 U.S.C. § 103 .......................................................................................................... 4
`
`
`
`ii
`
`
`
`IPR2023-00251
`PATENT NO. 11,122,357
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`On November 21, 2022, Amazon.com, Inc. (“Petitioner”) filed a Petition
`
`requesting inter partes review of claims 1-20 (“Challenged Claims”) of U.S. Patent
`
`No. 11,122,357 (the “’357 Patent”) (Ex. 1001). Paper 1 (“Petition” or “Pet.”). The
`
`declaration of Richard M. Stern, Ph.D. (Ex. 1002) accompanied the Petition. On
`
`December 8, 2022, the Board issued a Notice of Filing Date Accorded for the
`
`Petition and set the time for filing patent owner’s preliminary response. Paper 5.
`
`The Board should deny the Petition because the Petition fails to show a
`
`reasonable probability of success as to any claim. In particular, the Petition does not
`
`show that Brandstein and Gannot render obvious “a signal processor . . . to apply a
`
`varying linear transfer function between the first and second microphone signals” as
`
`recited in both independent claims of the ’357 Patent.
`
`II. THE ’357 PATENT
`The ’357 Patent discloses and claims apparatuses for implementing “dual
`
`omnidirectional microphone array noise suppression.” ’357 Patent, Abstract. The
`
`prior art was concerned with “nulling out noise sources” to reduce noise. Id. By
`
`contrast, the ’357 Patent seeks to remove speech from its noise signal. Id.; see also
`
`id., 4:61-5:4. This highly effective removal of speech from the noise signal enables
`
`the invention to effectively remove noise from its speech signal. Id., Abstract.
`
`1
`
`
`
`IPR2023-00251
`PATENT NO. 11,122,357
`The ’357 Patent uses at least two physical microphones to generate virtual
`
`microphones which have similar noise responses and dissimilar speech responses.
`
`’357 Patent, Abstract; 3:54-67. In embodiments, one of the signals will have a null
`
`in the direction of speech, which results in a “clean” noise signal. Id., 4:1-13, 5:1-4.
`
`With speech removed from the noise signal, the noise signal can then, in turn, be
`
`used to effectively remove noise from the speech. Id., 13:1-13.
`
`III. THE RELEVANT ALLEGED PRIOR ART
`A. Brandstein (Ex. 1003)
`Microphone Arrays: Signal Processing Techniques and Applications, (Ex.
`
`1003, “Brandstein”) is a collection of articles discussing topics in microphone
`
`arrays. Ex. 1003 at 5. Brandstein purports to have been published in 2001. Id. at 4.
`
`Petitioner primarily relies on the paper “Robust Adaptive Beamforming” as
`
`reproduced in Brandstein. See Brandstein at 87-99.
`
`B. Gannot (Ex. 1004)
`Signal Enhancement Using Beamforming and Nonstationarity with
`
`Applications to Speech by Sharon Gannot, David Burshtein, and Ehud Weinstein
`
`(Ex. 1004, “Gannot”) is a paper purportedly published in August 2001. Gannot
`
`discusses a “sensor array located in an enclosure, where arbitrary transfer functions
`
`(TFs) relate the source signal and the sensors.” Ex. 1004 at 1614. Rather than
`
`2
`
`
`
`IPR2023-00251
`PATENT NO. 11,122,357
`estimating the transfer functions, Gannon provides a method of estimating “the TFs
`
`ratios.” Id.
`
`IV. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
`For the purposes of this Preliminary Response only, Patent Owner believes
`
`that claim construction is not required to resolve any issues.
`
`V. LEVEL OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART
`For the purposes of this Preliminary Response only, Patent Owner utilizes
`
`Petitioner’s proposed level of skill in the art—“a minimum of a bachelor’s degree in
`
`computer engineering, computer science, electrical engineering, mechanical
`
`engineering, or a similar field, and approximately three years of industry or academic
`
`experience in a field related to acoustics, speech recognition, speech detection, or
`
`signal processing. Work experience could substitute for formal education, and
`
`additional formal education could substitute for work experience (citation omitted).”
`
`Pet. at 24.
`
`VI. ARGUMENT
`A. Legal Standard
`The question of obviousness is resolved on the basis of underlying factual
`
`determinations, including: (1) the scope and content of the prior art, (2) any
`
`differences between the claimed subject matter and the prior art, (3) the level of skill
`
`in the art, and (4) where in evidence, so called secondary considerations. Graham
`
`3
`
`
`
`IPR2023-00251
`PATENT NO. 11,122,357
`v. John Deere Co. of Kansas City, 383 U.S. 1, 17–18 (1966). A claim is only
`
`unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103 if “the differences between the subject matter
`
`sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole
`
`would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having
`
`ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains.” KSR Int’l Co. v.
`
`Telefex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 406 (2007) (quoting 35 U.S.C. § 103).
`
`“An invention is not obvious simply because all of the claimed limitations
`
`were known in the prior art at the time of the invention. Instead, we ask ‘whether
`
`there is a reason, suggestion, or motivation in the prior art that would lead one of
`
`ordinary skill in the art to combine the references, and that would also suggest a
`
`reasonable likelihood of success.’” Forest Lab’ys, LLC v. Sigmapharm Lab’ys, LLC,
`
`918 F.3d 928, 934 (Fed. Cir. 2019). “Of course, concluding that the references are
`
`within the scope and content of the prior art to be considered for obviousness does
`
`not end the inquiry. Graham makes clear that the obviousness inquiry requires a
`
`determination whether the claimed invention would have been obvious to a skilled
`
`artisan.” Apple Inc. v. Samsung Elecs. Co., 839 F.3d 1034, 1050 n.14 (Fed. Cir.
`
`2016).
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`IPR2023-00251
`PATENT NO. 11,122,357
`B. Ground 1: Brandstein and Gannot Do Not Render
`Obvious Claims 1-20
`Petitioner’s Combination Does Not Disclose or
`1.
`Render Obvious “a signal processor. . . to apply a
`varying linear transfer function between the first
`and second microphone signals;” as Required by
`Claims 1-20
`Claim 1 and its dependent claims (2-14) and claim 15 and its dependent claims
`
`(16-20) recite “a signal processor . . . to apply a varying linear transfer function
`
`between the first and second microphone signals.”1
`
`Petitioner admits that Brandstein does not disclose this limitation but argues
`
`that it would be obvious over Brandstein in view of Gannot. Pet. at 33-35. Petitioner
`
`therefore argues that Gannot “discloses applying a varying linear transfer function
`
`between the first and second microphone signals” and that a POSITA would use
`
`Gannot’s algorithm. Id. at 33. However, as discussed below, Gannot does not
`
`disclose the use of a varying linear transfer function—instead, it is directed towards
`
`using an estimate of the ratio of two unknown transfer functions. Petitioner provides
`
`no evidence that the estimated ratio vector is itself a varying linear transfer function.
`
`Accordingly, the Petition fails to show that this limitation is obvious.
`
`
`1 Amazon relies on its claim 1 arguments with respect to claim 15 and its dependents.
`
`Pet. at 60-63.
`
`5
`
`
`
`IPR2023-00251
`PATENT NO. 11,122,357
`According to Petitioner, Gannot “sets forth a more-robust GSC solution that
`
`can handle source-to-microphone acoustic paths with arbitrary transfer functions.”
`
`Id. at 33-34. Petitioner cites to Gannot’s general discussion of transfer functions. Id.
`
`at 34 (citing Gannot at 1615-17).
`
`However, while Gannot discusses transfer functions, it does not apply a
`
`varying linear transfer function as claimed. Instead, Gannot applies an estimated
`
`ratio of unknown, arbitrary transfer functions. Gannot at 1615 (“We then show that
`
`a suboptimal algorithm can be implemented by estimating the TFs ratios instead of
`
`estimating the actual TFs.”) (emphasis added).
`
`Indeed, Gannot is explicitly directed to estimating and using the ratio of
`
`unknown TFs instead of the actual transfer functions. Id. It explains that
`
`“Unfortunately, we usually do not have access to the actual TFs. . . . Later, we show
`
`how we can estimate the TFs ratio.” Id. at 1618. As Gannot further explains, “the
`
`knowledge of the TFs ratios . . . is sufficient to implement the sidelobe canceler.” Id.
`
`Gannot goes on to demonstrate how to estimate the ratio when the TFs are unknown.
`
`Id. at 1619-21. Gannot does not describe the ratio as a transfer function, but rather
`
`as a vector. Gannot at 1619 (referring to “TFs ratio vector H”).
`
`Petitioner provides no evidence that the estimated ratio vector is a varying
`
`linear transfer function. Instead, Petitioner identifies only Am as a possible transfer
`
`function. Pet. at 34. Am is not described as a varying linear transfer function, and
`
`6
`
`
`
`IPR2023-00251
`PATENT NO. 11,122,357
`Petitioner makes no showing that it is. Moreover, as Gannot explains, the estimated
`
`ratio vector Hm takes the place of Am. Gannot at 1618 (“Thus, the knowledge of the
`
`TFs ratios Hm(ejw) = Am(ejw)/A1(ejw) is sufficient to implement the sidelobe
`
`canceler.”), 1620, Fig. 4. In any event, Am is not used within Gannot’s algorithm,
`
`which is described at Fig. 4:
`
`
`
`Gannot at 1620.
`
`As Gannot concludes, “the use of TFs ratio rather than the TFs themselves
`
`. . . improves the efficiency and robustness of the algorithm since shorter filters can
`
`be used.” Id. at 1624.
`
`As shown above, the algorithm does not mention or use transfer functions,
`
`only the transfer function ratio vector H. Petitioner does not address this deficiency.
`
`7
`
`
`
`IPR2023-00251
`PATENT NO. 11,122,357
`Pet. at 33-35. Accordingly, Gannot does not disclose applying a varying linear
`
`transfer function between the first and second microphone signals.
`
`Gannot further does not render obvious applying a varying linear transfer
`
`function between the first and second microphone signals. As explained above,
`
`Gannot is directed to and encourages its readers to use the TF ratio, rather than a
`
`transfer function. Indeed, Gannot explains that avoiding the use of transfer functions
`
`“improves the efficiency and robustness of the algorithm.” Gannot at 1624. Gannot
`
`thus explicitly teaches away from applying a transfer function.
`
`Petitioner provides no other arguments regarding this limitation.
`
`Accordingly, the Petition fails to show a reasonable likelihood that Amazon’s
`
`combination discloses or renders obvious this limitation and the Board should deny
`
`institution.
`
`C. Ground 2: Brandstein, Gannot, and Griffiths-Jim Do Not
`Render Any Claims Obvious
`Ground 2 is directed to dependent claims 4, 13, 14, 18, and 19, and utilizes
`
`Petitioner’s Ground 1 arguments for the independent claims on which those claims
`
`rely. Pet. at 66-68. As discussed above, Petitioner has failed to show that claim 1 or
`
`15 are obvious under Ground 1. Petitioner’s Ground 2 arguments do not remedy
`
`this deficiency. Accordingly, the Petition does not present a reasonable likelihood
`
`of prevailing with respect to any claim as to Ground 2.
`
`
`
`8
`
`
`
`IPR2023-00251
`PATENT NO. 11,122,357
`D. Ground 3: Brandstein, Gannot, and McCowan Do Not
`Render Any Claims Obvious
`Ground 3 is directed to dependent claims 4, 5, 6, 13, 14, 18, and 19, and
`
`utilizes Petitioner’s Ground 1 arguments for the independent claims on which those
`
`claims rely. Pet. at 66. As discussed above, Petitioner has failed to show that claims
`
`1 or 15 are obvious under Ground 1. Petitioner’s Ground 3 arguments do not remedy
`
`this deficiency. Accordingly, the Petition does not present a reasonable likelihood
`
`of prevailing with respect to any claim as to Ground 3.
`
`VII. CONCLUSION
`As discussed above, Petitioner’s combination fails to disclose or render
`
`obvious a key limitation of each claim of the ’357 Patent, and therefore, does not
`
`anticipate or render obvious any claims. The Board should, therefore, deny the
`
`Petition.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Dated: March 8, 2023
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`By:
`
`/
`/Peter Lambrianakos
`
`
`Peter Lambrianakos (Reg. No. 58,279)
`Lead Counsel for Patent Owner
`FABRICANT LLP
`411 Theodore Fremd Avenue,
`Suite 206 South
`Rye, New York 10580
`Tel. 212-257-5797
`Fax. 212-257-5796
`Email: plambrianakos@fabricantllp.com
`
`9
`
`
`
`IPR2023-00251
`PATENT NO. 11,122,357
`CERTIFICATE OF WORD COUNT
`The undersigned hereby certifies that the portions of the above-captioned
`
`PATENT OWNER’S PRELIMINARY RESPONSE specified in 37 C.F.R. § 42.24
`
`has 1,756 words in compliance with the 14,000 word limit set forth in 37 C.F.R.
`
`§ 42.24. This word count was prepared using Microsoft Word for Office 365.
`
`
`
`
`
`March 8, 2023
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`By:
`
`/
`/Peter Lambrianakos
`
`
`Peter Lambrianakos (Reg. No. 58,279)
`Lead Counsel for Patent Owner
`FABRICANT LLP
`411 Theodore Fremd Avenue,
`Suite 206 South
`Rye, New York 10580
`Tel. 212-257-5797
`Fax. 212-257-5796
`Email: plambrianakos@fabricantllp.com
`
`10
`
`
`
`IPR2023-00251
`PATENT NO. 11,122,357
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`A copy of the foregoing Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response has been
`
`served on Petitioner’s counsel of record as follows:
`
`Colin B. Heideman
`Email: 2cbh@knobbe.com
`Email: BoxSEAZN2L1925LP6@knobbe.com
`Nathan D. Reeves
`Email: 2ndr@knobbe.com
`Logan P. Young
`Email: 2lpy@knobbe.com
`KNOBBE MARTENS, OLSON & BEAR, LLP
`925 Fourth Avenue, Suite 2500
`Seattle, Washington 98104
`
`Joseph R. Re
`Email: 2jrr@knobbe.com
`KNOBBE MARTENS, OLSON & BEAR, LLP
`2040 Main Street, 14th Floor
`Irvine, California 92614
`
`Attorneys for Amazon.com, Inc.
`
`
`
`March 8, 2023
`
`
`
`
`
`By:
`
`/
`/Peter Lambrianakos
`
`
`Peter Lambrianakos (Reg. No. 58,279)
`Lead Counsel for Patent Owner
`FABRICANT LLP
`411 Theodore Fremd Avenue,
`Suite 206 South
`Rye, New York 10580
`Tel. 212-257-5797
`Fax. 212-257-5796
`
`
`
`
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
Still Working On It
This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.
Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.
A few More Minutes ... Still Working
It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.
Thank you for your continued patience.
This document could not be displayed.
We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
Set your membership
status to view this document.
With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll
get a whole lot more, including:
- Up-to-date information for this case.
- Email alerts whenever there is an update.
- Full text search for other cases.
- Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.
One Moment Please
The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.
Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.
Your document is on its way!
If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.
Sealed Document
We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.
If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.
Access Government Site
