UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`__________________________________
`
`META PLATFORMS, INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`JAWBONE INNOVATIONS, LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Filed: January 29, 2024
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2023-01130
`U.S. Patent No. 11,122,357
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`PETITIONERS’ REQUEST FOR REHEARING
`UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`__________________________________
`
`META PLATFORMS, INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`JAWBONE INNOVATIONS, LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Filed: January 29, 2024
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2023-01130
`U.S. Patent No. 11,122,357
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`PETITIONERS’ REQUEST FOR REHEARING
`UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Meta Platforms, Inc. v. Jawbone Innovations, LLC
`IPR2023-01130 – U.S. Patent 11,122,357
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`
`
`
`
`INTRODUCTION ------------------------------------------------------------------- 1
`
`LEGAL STANDARD --------------------------------------------------------------- 2
`
` BACKGROUND -------------------------------------------------------------------- 3
`
` ARGUMENT ------------------------------------------------------------------------ 4
`
`
`
`The Decision’s Interpretation of “Substantially Similar
`Responses to Noise” Is Improperly Narrow ------------------------------ 4
`
`
`
`
`
`The Decision Improperly Limited the Claims to
`Instances Where Noise Responses Must Be
`“Substantially Similar” in Directions Away from the
`Noise Direction ------------------------------------------------------- 6
`
`The Decision Improperly Limited the Claims to
`Instances Where Noise Responses Must Be
`“Substantially Similar” for All Frequencies ---------------------- 9
`
`
`
`The Decision Misapprehends the Operation of the Prior Art --------- 11
`
`
`
`
`
`The Decision Misunderstands Brandstein as
`Summing Signals, When It Actually Subtracts
`Signals ---------------------------------------------------------------- 11
`
`The Decision Misunderstands Brandstein as
`Eliminating Noise from the First Virtual Microphone,
`When It Actually Passes Noise Substantially Similar
`to The Second Virtual Microphone, for Cancellation ---------- 14
`
`
`
`CONCLUSION --------------------------------------------------------------------- 15
`
`i
`
`
`
`Meta Platforms, Inc. v. Jawbone Innovations, LLC
`IPR2023-01130 – U.S. Patent 11,122,357
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
` Page(s)
`
`Cases
`Kingston Tech. Co., Inc. v. Securewave Storage Sols., Inc.,
`IPR2020-00139, Paper 12 (PTAB Mar. 23, 2020) ............................................... 5
`Microsoft Corp. v. Uniloc 2017 LLC,
`IPR2019-00744, Paper 11 (PTAB Sept. 4, 2019) ................................................. 5
`Polaris Innovations Ltd. v. Brent,
`48 F.4th 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2022) ............................................................................. 9
`Pulse Elecs., Inc. v. U.D. Elec. Corp.,
`860 F. App’x 735 (Fed. Cir. 2021) ....................................................................... 9
`Ultratec, Inc. v. CaptionCall, LLC,
`872 F.3d 1267 (Fed. Cir. 2017) ............................................................................ 2
`Statutes
`35 U.S.C. § 103(a) ..................................................................................................... 3
`Other Authorities
`37 C.F.R. § 42.71(c) ................................................................................................... 2
`37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d) .............................................................................................. 1, 2
`
`
`ii
`
`
`
`Meta Platforms, Inc. v. Jawbone Innovations, LLC
`IPR2023-01130 – U.S. Patent 11,122,357
`Petitioner Meta Platforms, Inc. (“Meta”) respectfully requests rehearing pur-
`
`suant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d) for claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 11,122,357 (Ex.
`
`1001, “the ’357 patent”)1. The Board previously instituted on the same grounds for
`
`petitioner Amazon.com, Inc. (“Amazon”) in IPR2023-00251 (“Amazon IPR”).
`
`Upon institution in IPR2023-00251, Meta filed this copycat petition (“Pet.”) and
`
`moved for joinder, but the Amazon IPR terminated before Patent Owner (“PO”) filed
`
`its Preliminary Response (Paper 9, hereinafter “POPR”) here and the motion for
`
`joinder was withdrawn. In its Decision on Institution (Paper 10, hereinafter “Deci-
`
`sion”), the Board reversed itself and denied institution. In doing so, the Board mis-
`
`apprehended the scope of the claims, narrowing the term noise response in a way
`
`that directly conflicts with the ’357 patent and the Board’s prior institution decision,
`
`and misapprehended Brandstein’s (Ex. 1003) teachings. Meta respectfully submits
`
`that the clear legal errors and erroneous factual findings in the Decision require re-
`
`hearing. Upon rehearing, the Board should institute trial.
`
`
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`The Board’s Decision denying institution is based on an overly narrow inter-
`
`pretation of the term noise response and misapprehension of key prior art
`
`
`1 Unless otherwise noted, citations to Papers and Exhibits are to those filed in this
`
`IPR proceeding (IPR2023-1130).
`
`1
`
`
`
`Meta Platforms, Inc. v. Jawbone Innovations, LLC
`IPR2023-01130 – U.S. Patent 11,122,357
`disclosures. Specifically, the Decision improperly narrows the claims to require
`
`noise responses that are substantially similar in nearly all directions and for all fre-
`
`quencies, despite the fact that the ’357 patent describes examples placing noise
`
`sources at specific directions, and the plain and ordinary understanding that a re-
`
`sponse to noise is in the direction of that noise. Moreover, the Decision misreads
`
`how the prior art operates to cancel noise, including: (1) misunderstanding Brand-
`
`stein to sum virtual microphone signals, when it actually subtracts them, and (2)
`
`misunderstanding Brandstein’s first virtual microphone to eliminate noise, when it
`
`actually must pass noise substantially similar to the second virtual microphone for
`
`noise cancellation to occur.
`
` LEGAL STANDARD
`
`“A party dissatisfied with a decision may file” a request for rehearing, “iden-
`
`tify[ing] all matters the party believes the Board misapprehended or overlooked.” 37
`
`C.F.R. § 42.71(d). The Board reviews its decision for abuse of discretion. 37 C.F.R.
`
`§ 42.71(c). “The Board abuses its discretion if the decision: (1) is clearly unreason-
`
`able, arbitrary, or fanciful; (2) is based on an erroneous conclusion of law; (3) rests
`
`on clearly erroneous fact findings; or (4) involves a record that contains no evidence
`
`on which the Board could rationally base its decision.” Ultratec, Inc. v. CaptionCall,
`
`LLC, 872 F.3d 1267, 1272 (Fed. Cir. 2017).
`
`2
`
`
`
`Meta Platforms, Inc. v. Jawbone Innovations, LLC
`IPR2023-01130 – U.S. Patent 11,122,357
` BACKGROUND
`
`The Board previously granted institution of a substantively identical petition
`
`on the same patent, on the same grounds, and on the same arguments. On November
`
`21, 2022, Amazon filed IPR2023-00251 challenging all claims of the ’357 patent.
`
`PO submitted a Preliminary Response on March 8, 2023 in the Amazon IPR. Two
`
`weeks later, on March 22, 2023, PO served a complaint against Meta in the Western
`
`District of Texas asserting the ’357 patent, among seven other patents. The Board
`
`granted institution of the Amazon IPR on June 1, 2023, finding it had “demon-
`
`strate[d] a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner will prevail in establishing that
`
`claims 2, 3, 7–12, 16, 17, and 20 are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over the
`
`combination of Brandstein and Gannot” and “that claims 4, 5, 6, 13, 14, 18, and 19
`
`are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over the combination of Brandstein, Gan-
`
`not, and McCowan.”
`
`Less than one month later, on June 27, 2023, Meta filed a “copycat” petition
`
`that contained identical grounds and arguments as the Amazon IPR petition (Paper
`
`1) and moved to join and consolidate this IPR proceeding with the Amazon IPR
`
`(Paper 2). In its motion to join, Meta explained that by filing a copycat, it was at-
`
`tempting to “streamline discovery and briefing” and “promote judicial efficiency in
`
`determining patentability without prejudicing Patent Owner.” (Id. at 1-2.) Meta
`
`agreed to undertake an “understudy” to Amazon if joined, and would only “actively
`
`3
`
`
`
`Meta Platforms, Inc. v. Jawbone Innovations, LLC
`IPR2023-01130 – U.S. Patent 11,122,357
`participat[e] substantively… if Amazon terminates its involvement after joinder.”
`
`(Id. at 1, 6-7.)
`
`On August 8, 2023, before ruling on Meta’s petition and the accompanying
`
`joinder motion, the Board terminated the Amazon IPR proceeding based on settle-
`
`ment, and a few weeks later, Meta moved to withdraw its motion for joinder as moot
`
`(Paper 8). PO then filed a Preliminary Response (hereinafter “POPR”) to Meta’s
`
`IPR petition on October 12, 2023, in which it raised for the first time several new
`
`arguments that it did not raise in the Amazon IPR. Relying on these new arguments,
`
`the Board denied institution of Meta’s petition on December 28, 2023.
`
`Meta timely submits this Request for Rehearing.
`
` ARGUMENT
` The Decision’s Interpretation of “Substantially Similar
`Responses to Noise” Is Improperly Narrow
`
`Despite stating the Board “do[es] not construe the claims” at p. 14, the Deci-
`
`sion limited the claims to require the noise responses to be substantially similar in
`
`directions away from the noise direction, and for all frequencies. In other words, the
`
`Board requires the noise response to encompass all responses to non-target signals,
`
`not just the noise. The Board previously understood the claims only required that
`
`the noise response be substantially similar in the noise direction, and granted insti-
`
`tution based on a substantively identical Petition in the Amazon IPR. However, the
`
`4
`
`
`
`Meta Platforms, Inc. v. Jawbone Innovations, LLC
`IPR2023-01130 – U.S. Patent 11,122,357
`Board reversed itself, denying institution in the instant proceeding.2 The Board’s
`
`denial of institution is based on an erroneous conclusion of law, and should be re-
`
`versed.
`
`
`2 Meta filed a copycat petition of the Amazon IPR to streamline the proceedings and
`
`conserve the Board’s finite resources. See, e.g., Kingston Tech. Co., Inc. v. Se-
`
`curewave Storage Sols., Inc., IPR2020-00139, Paper 12 at 10-11 (PTAB Mar. 23,
`
`2020) (recognizing copycats conserve resources). In doing so, Meta could not sub-
`
`stantively change the Amazon IPR without risking discretionary denial. See, e.g.,
`
`Microsoft Corp. v. Uniloc 2017 LLC, IPR2019-00744, Paper 11 (PTAB Sept. 4,
`
`2019) (denying institution of a later petition that was similar to, but not identical, to
`
`an earlier instituted petition). Jawbone had received the benefit of the Board’s insti-
`
`tution decision granting the Amazon IPR, and reformulated its POPR arguments for
`
`the instant proceeding, essentially arguing two POPRs for the same petition. Had
`
`Jawbone waited to settle with Amazon until after Meta’s identical IPR was instituted
`
`and joined, Meta would be party to an active proceeding. The Decision’s denial of
`
`Meta’s IPR incentivizes patent owners to engage in litigation tactics like Jawbone’s,
`
`e.g., timing its lawsuits in waves and settling with early defendants before the insti-
`
`tution dates of later copycat defendants. This practice is counter to the Board’s ef-
`
`forts to streamline proceedings and conserve its resources.
`
`5
`
`
`
`Meta Platforms, Inc. v. Jawbone Innovations, LLC
`IPR2023-01130 – U.S. Patent 11,122,357
`The Decision Improperly Limited the Claims to
`
`Instances Where Noise Responses Must Be
`“Substantially Similar” in Directions Away
`from the Noise Direction
`
`The Petition establishes that Brandstein’s interference is noise that occurs at
`
`a single direction (at ~45 degrees). (Pet. at 29-30 (annotating Brandstein’s Fig. 5.2,
`
`reproduced below with Petitioner’s annotations).)
`
`
`
`This means the virtual microphones’ noise responses refer to their responses in the
`
`noise direction. (Id.) Brandstein’s noise responses must be substantially similar in
`
`the noise direction, which meets the substantially similar claimed requirement. (Id.)
`
`PO, for the first time in its POPR, alleged that the claims now have a different
`
`meaning. PO presented green shadings of Brandstein’s Fig. 5.3 (reproduced below
`
`with PO’s green annotations) ranging in different directions including away from
`
`
`
`
`
`6
`
`
`
`Meta Platforms, Inc. v. Jawbone Innovations, LLC
`IPR2023-01130 – U.S. Patent 11,122,357
`Brandstein’s noise at 45 degrees. (POPR at 13.) PO labeled its green shadings as
`
`“noise responses,” even though the green shadings include other responses away
`
`from the noise direction. (Id.)
`
`
`
`PO pointed to purported differences between the green responses, to argue they are
`
`not substantially similar and therefore cannot meet the claims. (Id.) PO implicitly
`
`construes the claims to require noise responses to be substantially similar for all
`
`non-target directions, even for directions away from the noise itself. The Board was
`
`incorrect to credit PO’s argument. (See Decision at 24.)
`
`A response to noise must come from the direction of that noise, not from di-
`
`rections away from that noise. (See Pet. at 29-30.) There is no dispute that noise
`
`has no special meaning. (Pet. at 24 (“no claim terms require construction”); POPR
`
`7
`
`
`
`Meta Platforms, Inc. v. Jawbone Innovations, LLC
`IPR2023-01130 – U.S. Patent 11,122,357
`at 6 (“claim construction is not required to resolve any issues”); Decision at 14 (“we
`
`do not construe the claims”).)
`
`Petitioner’s understanding is consistent with the patent. Nowhere do the
`
`claims or the patent suggest that a noise response can come from a direction away
`
`from a noise direction. Nor does the patent specify the noise must occur from more
`
`than one direction. To the contrary, Fig. 1 of the ’357 patent depicts a “single noise
`
`source 101” located at one direction from the physical microphones, and having a
`
`“direct path to the microphones.” (Ex. 1001, 6:11-22.) Moreover, the ’357 patent
`
`defines “noise” without any reference to direction. (Id., 5:55-56 (defining noise as
`
`“unwanted environmental acoustic noise”); Ex. 1002 at ¶93.) Thus, a noise response
`
`is just that—a response to noise. A noise response does not encompass a response
`
`to all non-target directions including directions away from noise.
`
`Consistent with the patent’s broad use of noise and Fig. 1 embodiment, and
`
`as explained in the Petition, Brandstein’s interference is noise that occurs at a single
`
`direction at ~45 degrees. (Pet. at 29-30; Ex. 1003 at Fig. 5.2 (reproduced supra);
`
`see also Pet. at 8-10, 62-63, 65-66; Ex. 1002 at ¶¶49-53, 95-97, 160-161, 169.) An
`
`examination of Fig. 5.3 in the noise direction of 45 degrees shows that both re-
`
`sponses have gain between -5 and -10 dB. The Decision is therefore incorrect to
`
`credit PO’s implicit requirement for the noise responses to be substantially similar
`
`8
`
`
`
`Meta Platforms, Inc. v. Jawbone Innovations, LLC
`IPR2023-01130 – U.S. Patent 11,122,357
`in directions away from the noise direction of 45 degrees.3 (See Decision at 23-24.)
`
`As explained in the Petition and above, Brandstein’s noise originates from a single
`
`direction (just like Fig. 1 of the ’357 patent), and the responses of each virtual mi-
`
`crophone to the noise in that direction are substantially similar. (See Pet. at 28-30.)
`
`
`
`The Decision Improperly Limited the Claims to
`Instances Where Noise Responses Must Be
`“Substantially Similar” for All Frequencies
`
`The Petition establishes that Brandstein’s deep nulls in the interference (noise)
`
`direction for different frequencies means the noise responses are substantially simi-
`
`lar. (Pet. at 29-30 (reproducing and annotating Brandstein’s Fig. 5.2, showing the
`
`deep nulls for 500 Hz, 1 kHz, and 2 kHz).) As explained below in Section IV.B, the
`
`deep nulls reflect the noise cancellation that occurs when subtracting the two virtual
`
`
`3 To the extent the Board relies on the embodiment shown in Figs. 9-12 of the ’357
`
`patent to require noise must occur in different directions, this is counter to the pa-
`
`tent’s express definition of “noise.” “Embodiments in the specification—even if
`
`there is only one embodiment—cannot limit the scope of the claims absent the
`
`patentee’s words or expressions of manifest exclusion or restriction.” Pulse Elecs.,
`
`Inc. v. U.D. Elec. Corp., 860 F. App’x 735, 737 (Fed. Cir. 2021) (internal quotation
`
`marks omitted); see also Polaris Innovations Ltd. v. Brent, 48 F.4th 1365, 1377 (Fed.
`
`Cir. 2022) (finding it improper to import a limitation from an embodiment).
`
`9
`
`
`
`Meta Platforms, Inc. v. Jawbone Innovations, LLC
`IPR2023-01130 – U.S. Patent 11,122,357
`microphone signals. This means the noise responses are substantially similar for
`
`different frequencies, which meets the claims.
`
`In its POPR (with the prior institution decision as a roadmap), PO argued for
`
`the first time that Brandstein does not meet the claims because PO’s green shadings
`
`for one frequency are not substantially similar for both virtual microphones. (POPR
`
`at 13.) In effect, by relying on a single frequency with some alleged differences, PO
`
`implicitly construed the claims to require noise responses to be substantially similar
`
`for all frequencies. It was error for the Decision to credit PO’s argument. (See
`
`Decision at 23-24.)
`
`Nowhere do the claims or the patent require the responses to noise to be sub-
`
`stantially similar for all frequencies. Instead, as explained above, the ’357 patent
`
`defines “noise” broadly as any “unwanted environmental acoustic noise,” which im-
`
`poses no frequency requirements on the noise. (Ex. 1001, 5:55-56; Ex. 1002 at ¶93.)
`
`Nor does the patent suggest that a difference at a single frequency would mean that
`
`the responses to noise cannot be substantially similar.
`
`The Decision is therefore incorrect to credit PO’s implicit interpretation of the
`
`claims, as it wrongly requires the noise responses to be substantially similar for all
`
`frequencies.
`
`10
`
`
`
`Meta Platforms, Inc. v. Jawbone Innovations, LLC
`IPR2023-01130 – U.S. Patent 11,122,357
`
`The Decision Misapprehends the Operation of the Prior Art
`
`The Board’s Decision also rests on clearly erroneous factual findings and mis-
`
`apprehends Brandstein’s beamformer operation. The Decision’s errors involve two
`
`aspects: 1) mischaracterizing the overall beamformer output in Fig. 5.2 as being ob-
`
`tained by summing the virtual microphones, when it is actually subtracting them4;
`
`and 2) misunderstanding the first virtual microphone to attenuate noise, when it only
`
`attenuates other “signals,” not noise, as noise must be included for subsequent can-
`
`cellation. The Board’s denial of institution should therefore be reversed.
`
`
`
`The Decision Misunderstands Brandstein as
`Summing Signals, When It Actually Subtracts
`Signals
`
`It was error for the Board to conclude that Brandstein Fig. 5.2 “does not lead
`
`to an inference that the individual microphone responses have similar responses to
`
`noise.” (See Decision at 24.) The Board applies an incorrect understanding that
`
`Brandstein sums the virtual microphone signals, stating:
`
`“[i]n effect, Petitioner is arguing that knowing that the sum of two num-
`bers is equal to ‘2’ necessarily means that each number is ‘1’, as op-
`posed, for example, to one number being ‘2’ and the other ‘0’.”
`
`
`4 The limitation at issue (substantially similar responses to noise) is different from
`
`another limitation recited in the claims, requiring summing of the first and second
`
`microphone signals in the time domain.
`
`11
`
`
`
`Meta Platforms, Inc. v. Jawbone Innovations, LLC
`IPR2023-01130 – U.S. Patent 11,122,357
`(Id. (emphasis added).) But this is contrary to the undisputed teachings in Brand-
`
`stein, which clearly show the two virtual microphone signals are subtracted, not
`
`summed. (Pet. at 27-28, reproducing Brandstein Fig. 5.1 showing that the second
`
`virtual microphone signal is subtracted from the first virtual microphone signal.)
`
`Not even PO disputes this point, and the subtraction is acknowledged elsewhere in
`
`the Decision. (Id. at 5, 9-10, 29-30, 36-37; Ex. 1002 at ¶¶40, 50-53, 95-97, 108-109;
`
`POPR at 12-13; Decision at 16, 19.)
`
`
`
`As explained in the Petition, Brandstein Fig. 5.1’s teaching of subtracting vir-
`
`tual microphone signals, combined with the corresponding overall response in Fig.
`
`5.2, make clear that Brandstein meets the limitation “substantially similar responses
`
`to noise.” (Pet. at 28-30 (with annotations to Fig. 5.2 reproduced below).) Specifi-
`
`cally, Fig. 5.2 depicts a deep null in the interference (noise), direction. (Id. at 30.)
`
`Critically, because the two virtual microphone signals are subtracted to obtain the
`
`responses in Fig. 5.2, the deep null in the noise direction establishes that the noise is
`12
`
`
`
`
`
`Meta Platforms, Inc. v. Jawbone Innovations, LLC
`IPR2023-01130 – U.S. Patent 11,122,357
`“cancel[ed] out.” (Id. at 29.) As the Petition explains, in order to “cancel[]” the
`
`response to noise from the first virtual microphone signal, the second virtual micro-
`
`phone signal must have “essentially the same” response to noise. (Id. at 30.)
`
`
`
`Despite summarizing Petitioner’s position in the Decision at p. 19, and previ-
`
`ously granting institution based on an identical argument in the Amazon IPR, the
`
`Decision denied institution of the instant proceeding. The basis of the Board’s denial
`
`is rooted in on a misapprehension of the Petition. The Decision mischaracterized
`
`Petitioner’s argument as boiling down to: “the sum of two numbers is equal to ‘2’
`
`necessarily means that each number is ‘1’.” (Decision at 24.)
`
`This was not stated or suggested anywhere in the Petition, nor was it even a
`
`characterization advanced by PO. Instead, Petitioner’s argument comes down to a
`
`different statement: When the difference between two numbers (i.e., the first and
`
`second virtual microphones) is zero (i.e., reflected by the deep null at the noise), the
`
`two numbers are essentially the same (i.e., the responses to noise are substantially
`
`similar). (See Pet. at 10, 30; Ex. 1002 at ¶53.) In other words, the deep null (Fig.
`
`5.2) in the interference (noise) direction means the noise is canceled out at the output
`
`of Fig. 5.1’s subtraction. For that cancellation to occur, the two virtual microphone
`
`responses must be nearly identical. Thus, in the direction of the interference (noise),
`
`the responses of the first and second virtual microphones are substantially similar.
`
`13
`
`
`
`Meta Platforms, Inc. v. Jawbone Innovations, LLC
`IPR2023-01130 – U.S. Patent 11,122,357
`For this reason, the Decision clearly erred in determining that Brandstein does
`
`not meet this limitation.
`
`
`
`The Decision Misunderstands Brandstein as
`Eliminating Noise from the First Virtual
`Microphone, When It Actually Passes Noise
`Substantially Similar to The Second Virtual
`Microphone, for Cancellation
`
`The Decision also erred in concluding Brandstein’s two virtual microphones
`
`cannot have substantially similar responses to noise, based on PO’s argument that
`
`the first virtual microphone “attenuates noise.” (See Decision at 23 (stating Brand-
`
`stein “only passes the target signal (i.e., voice) and attenuates all other signals (i.e.,
`
`noise),” crediting the POPR’s argument at pp. 10-11 that Brandstein’s first virtual
`
`microphone “passes speech through… and attenuates noise”).) Brandstein’s first
`
`virtual microphone does not pass “only” speech. Nowhere does Brandstein state that
`
`“only” speech is passed, nor does it state that noise is eliminated or even attenuated.
`
`Brandstein’s first virtual microphone cannot eliminate noise, as the Decision
`
`concludes at p. 23. If it did, the first virtual microphone signal would already be free
`
`of noise, and that would defeat the purpose of Brandstein’s structure having a second
`
`virtual microphone for canceling the noise passed by the first virtual microphone.
`
`Moreover, the amounts of noise passed by Brandstein’s virtual microphones
`
`are substantially similar. That is, even if it were attenuated, the noise passed through
`
`the first virtual microphone is still substantially similar to the noise passed by the
`
`14
`
`
`
`Meta Platforms, Inc. v. Jawbone Innovations, LLC
`IPR2023-01130 – U.S. Patent 11,122,357
`second virtual microphone. As explained in different parts of the Petition at pp. 8-
`
`10, 28-30, Brandstein’s virtual microphones have substantially similar responses to
`
`noise, so that the noise is canceled when the virtual microphone signals are sub-
`
`tracted. (See also Pet. at 2-5, 36; Ex. 1002 at ¶¶34-35, 40, 48, 53, 97, 108-109.) In
`
`other words, without substantially similar responses to noise, there would be no
`
`point to having Brandstein’s subtraction, which undisputedly cancels the noise by
`
`subtracting the second virtual microphone’s noise-only signal from the first virtual
`
`microphone’s target-plus-noise signal. (See Pet. at 8-10, 28-30; POPR at 11 (ac-
`
`knowledging that Brandstein’s first virtual microphone (top path) requires subtrac-
`
`tion of noise components for cancellation).)
`
`If the Decision were correct that the virtual microphones’ responses to noise
`
`are not substantially similar, that would mean Brandstein’s subtraction does not
`
`actually cancel noise, which would defeat the purpose of Brandstein’s second virtual
`
`microphone. (See Pet. at 5, 9-10, 29-30, 36; Ex. 1002 at ¶¶40, 95-97, 108-109.) The
`
`Board’s conclusion is therefore contrary to Brandstein’s teachings that the first vir-
`
`tual microphone must pass noise substantially similar to the second virtual micro-
`
`phone, for noise cancellation.
`
` CONCLUSION
`
`For the reasons above, Petitioner respectfully requests that the Board grant
`
`this request for rehearing and institute trial.
`
`15
`
`
`
`Meta Platforms, Inc. v. Jawbone Innovations, LLC
`IPR2023-01130 – U.S. Patent 11,122,357
`Respectfully submitted,
`Allen & Overy, LLP
`
`/Lisa Nguyen/
`Lisa Nguyen (Reg. No. 58,018)
`Counsel for Petitioner,
`META PLATFORMS, INC.
`
`
`January 29, 2024
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`16
`
`
`
`Meta Platforms, Inc. v. Jawbone Innovations, LLC
`IPR2023-01130 – U.S. Patent 11,122,357
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`I hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoing Request for Re-
`
`hearing is being served on January 29, 2024, on counsel of record for Patent Owner
`
`as addressed below:
`
`Peter Lambrianakos
`Vincent J. Rubino, III
`Alfred R. Fabricant
`Enrique W. Iturralde
`Richard Cowell
`Jacob Ostling
`FABRICANT LLP
`411 Theodore Fremd Avenue,
`Suite 206 South
`Rye, New York 10580
`Telephone: (212) 257-5797
`Facsimile: (212) 257-5796
`Email: PTAB@fabricantllp.com
`Email: plambrianakos@fabricantllp.com
`Email: vrubino@fabricantllp.com
`Email: ffabricant@fabricantllp.com
`Email: eiturralde@fabricantllp.com
`Email: rcowell@fabricantllp.com
`Email: jostling@fabricantllp
`
`January 29, 2024
`
`Allen & Overy, LLP
`/Lisa Nguyen/
`Lisa Nguyen (Reg. No. 58,018)
`Counsel for Petitioner,
`META PLATFORMS, INC.
`
`17
`
`
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
