`
`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
`
`