UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`__________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`__________________________________________________________________
`
`
`
`META PLATFORMS, 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. IPR2023-01130
`__________________________________________________________________
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`IPR2023-01130
`PATENT NO. 11,122,357
`
`Page(s)
`
`
`I.
`INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................... 1
`THE ’357 PATENT ......................................................................................... 2
`II.
`III. THE RELEVANT ALLEGED PRIOR ART .................................................. 5
`A.
`Brandstein (Ex. 1003) ........................................................................... 5
`B.
`Gannot (Ex. 1004) ................................................................................. 6
`IV. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION ............................................................................ 6
`V.
`LEVEL OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART ............................................. 7
`VI. ARGUMENT ................................................................................................... 7
`A.
`Legal Standard ....................................................................................... 7
`B.
`Ground 1: Brandstein and Gannot Do Not Render Obvious
`Claims 1-20 ........................................................................................... 8
`1.
`Petitioner’s Combination Does Not Disclose or Render
`Obvious “wherein the first virtual microphone and the
`second virtual microphone are distinct virtual
`directional microphones with substantially similar
`responses to noise and substantially dissimilar responses
`to speech” as recited in independent Claims 1 and 15................ 8
`Petitioner Does Not Identify Any Motivation to
`Combine Embodiments and References Within
`Brandstein .................................................................................14
`Ground 2: Brandstein, Gannot, and Griffiths-Jim Do Not
`Render Any Claims Obvious ............................................................... 18
`D. Ground 3: Brandstein, Gannot, and McCowan Do Not Render
`Any Claims Obvious ........................................................................... 18
`VII. CONCLUSION ..............................................................................................19
`
`
`C.
`
`2.
`
`ii
`
`

`

`IPR2023-01130
`PATENT NO. 11,122,357
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
` Page(s)
`
`Cases
`Apple Inc. v. Samsung Elecs. Co.,
`839 F.3d 1034 (Fed. Cir. 2016) ............................................................................ 8
`Application of Arkley, 455 F.2d. 586 (C.C.P.A. 1972) ............................................ 14
`Belden Inc. v. Berk-Tek LLC,
`805 F.3d 1064 (Fed. Cir.2015) ........................................................................... 16
`Forest Lab’ys, LLC v. Sigmapharm Lab’ys, LLC,
`918 F.3d 928 (Fed. Cir. 2019) .............................................................................. 8
`Graham v. John Deere Co. of Kansas City,
`383 U.S. 1 (1966) .............................................................................................. 7, 8
`KSR Int’l Co. v. Telefex Inc.,
`550 U.S. 398 (2007) .............................................................................................. 8
`Net MoneyIN, Inc. v. VeriSign, Inc.,
`545 F.3d 1359 (Fed. Cir. 2008) .......................................................................... 14
`Statutes
`35 U.S.C. § 103 .......................................................................................................... 7
`
`
`iii
`
`

`

`IPR2023-01130
`PATENT NO. 11,122,357
`
`EXHIBIT LIST
`
`Description of Document
`Order Granting Dismissal with Prejudice, Jawbone
`Innovations, LLC v. Amazon.com Inc., No. 3:22-cv-06727-
`TLT, Dkt. 107 (N.D. Cal. Jul. 26, 2023)
`Declaration of Akbar M. Sayeed, Ph.D.
`Curriculum Vitae of Akbar M. Sayeed, Ph.D.
`Excerpts of MICROPHONE ARRAYS: SIGNAL PROCESSING
`TECHNIQUES AND APPLICATIONS, Ch. 18, Future Directions
`in Microphone Array Processing (Michael Brandstein &
`Darren Ward eds., Springer-Verlag 2001) (“Brandstein”)
`
`Exhibit No.
`2001
`
`2002
`2003
`2004
`
`
`
`
`
`
`iv
`
`

`

`IPR2023-01130
`PATENT NO. 11,122,357
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`On June 27, 2023, Meta Platforms, Inc. (“Meta” or “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 2 (“Petition” or “Pet.”).
`
`The Ddeclaration of Richard M. Stern, Ph.D. (Ex. 1002) accompanied the Petition.
`
`On July 13, 2023, the Board issued a Notice of Filing Date Accorded for the Petition
`
`and set the time for filing patent owner’s preliminary response. Paper 4.
`
`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 “wherein the first virtual
`
`microphone and the second virtual microphone are distinct virtual directional
`
`microphones with substantially similar responses to noise,” as recited in both
`
`independent claims of the ’357 Patent. To the contrary, the cited portions of
`
`Brandstein contemplate a Griffiths-Jim beamformer in which a top path passes
`
`through speech and where “all other signals are attenuated,” and a bottom path
`
`that suppresses speech and where “all other signals are passed through.” In other
`
`words, the top path nulls out noise, and the bottom path nulls out speech. This
`
`sharply contrasts with the ’357 Patent invention where the first virtual microphone
`
`includes both speech and noise, such that a second virtual microphone with a
`
`substantially similar noise response may be used to cancel the noise, and is exactly
`
`1
`
`

`

`IPR2023-01130
`PATENT NO. 11,122,357
`the type of “conventional array[] and algorithm[], which seek to reduce noise by
`
`nulling out noise sources” that the ’357 Patent distinguishes.
`
`The Board should further deny the Petition because Petitioner fails to identify
`
`any reason or motivation that a POSITA would combine the multiple papers and
`
`embodiments within Brandstein on which the Petition relies to underpin its
`
`combination and for various limitations.
`
`II. THE ’357 PATENT
`The ’357 Patent discloses and claims methods for noise suppression in dual
`
`omnidirectional microphone arrays. Unlike “conventional arrays and algorithms
`
`which seek to reduce noise by nulling out noise sources,” the ’357 Patent uses
`
`omnidirectional microphone arrays “to form two distinct virtual directional
`
`microphones which are configured to have very similar noise responses and very
`
`dissimilar speech responses.” ’357 Patent, Abstract. While “conventional multi-
`
`microphone systems attempt to increase the [signal-to-noise ratio] of the user’s
`
`speech by ‘steering’ the nulls of the system to the strongest noise sources[, t]his
`
`approach is limited in the number of noise sources removed by the number of
`
`available nulls.” Id., 1:58-62. Counterintuitively, in the ’357 Patent, “[t]he only null
`
`formed by the DOMA is one used to remove the speech of the user from [the second
`
`virtual microphone]”. Id. at 5:15-16 (emphasis added). However, the similarity of
`
`the ’357 Patent’s virtual microphones’ noise responses allow them to be cancelled
`
`2
`
`

`

`IPR2023-01130
`PATENT NO. 11,122,357
`while leaving the speech response intact, “resulting in excellent noise suppression
`
`performance and minimal speech removal and distortion.” Id. at 8:16-18; 10:44-60.
`
`The ’357 Patent discloses a noise suppression apparatus that creates two
`
`virtual microphones V1 and V2 based on the signals generated by two
`
`omnidirectional microphones.
`
`𝑉𝑉1(𝑧𝑧)=𝑂𝑂1(𝑧𝑧)𝑧𝑧−𝛾𝛾–𝛽𝛽𝑂𝑂2(𝑧𝑧)
`𝑉𝑉2(𝑧𝑧)= 𝑂𝑂2(𝑧𝑧)–𝑧𝑧−𝛾𝛾𝛽𝛽𝑂𝑂1(𝑧𝑧)
`𝛽𝛽=𝑑𝑑1𝑑𝑑2
`𝛾𝛾= 𝑑𝑑2− 𝑑𝑑1𝑐𝑐
` .𝑓𝑓𝑠𝑠 (samples)
`
`Id. at 11:7, 12:20. In these equations, β and γ are defined as follows:
`
`
`
`Id. at 11:10-12. “The distances d1 and d2 are the distances from O1 and O2 to the
`
`speech source,” respectively, and “γ is their difference divided by c, the speed of
`
`sound, and multiplied by the sampling frequency fs.” Id., 11:19-22.
`
`In the analog frequency domain, the equations for V1 and V2 are written as
`
`follows:
`
`where 𝑧𝑧=𝑒𝑒𝑗𝑗2𝜋𝜋𝜋𝜋and 𝜏𝜏= 𝑑𝑑2− 𝑑𝑑1𝑐𝑐
`
`
`
`
`
`. Ex. 2004, 30.
`
`3
`
`

`

`IPR2023-01130
`PATENT NO. 11,122,357
`The ’357 Patent discloses that the apparatus “works very well because the
`
`noise (far-field) responses of V1 and V2 are very similar while the speech (near-field)
`
`responses are very different.” Id. at 17:21-23.
`
`The ’357 Patent discloses polar plots depicting similar noise responses which
`
`may be cancelled while leaving dissimilar speech responses intact. For instance,
`
`Figures 10 and 12 show the linear responses of virtual microphones V2 and V1,
`
`respectively, to noise from a source at 1 meter:
`
`’357 Patent, 11:44-46, 13:44-46, FIGS. 10, 12.
`
`Figures 9 and 11 show the linear responses of virtual microphones V2 and V1,
`
`respectively, to speech at a distance of 0.1 meter at an angle of zero degrees:
`
`
`
`4
`
`

`

`IPR2023-01130
`PATENT NO. 11,122,357
`
`
`
`’357 Patent, 11:40-42, 13:39-41, FIGS. 9, 11.
`
`Figure 9 shows a null in the linear response of virtual microphone V2 to speech
`
`at zero degrees, “where the speech is typically expected to be located.” Id., 11:42-
`
`45. As shown in Figure 10, “[t]he linear response of V2 to noise is devoid of or
`
`includes no null, meaning all noise sources are detected.” Id., 11:47-49. This
`
`configuration ensures that virtual microphone V2 will detect all of the noise in front
`
`of the user so that it can be removed, which is an advantage over “conventional
`
`systems that can have difficulty removing noise in the direction of the mouth of the
`
`user.” Id., 11:59-60. In addition, “the superior noise suppression made possible
`
`using this system more than compensates for the initially poorer SNR,” or signal to
`
`noise ratio, of the virtual microphones. Id., 13:11-13.
`
`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
`
`5
`
`

`

`IPR2023-01130
`PATENT NO. 11,122,357
`arrays. Ex. 1003 at 5. Brandstein purports to have been published in 2001. Id. at 4.
`
`As discussed below, infra Section VI.B.2, Brandstein is not a single reference, it is
`
`a collection of different papers by different authors reproduced as a collection.
`
`Petitioner primarily relies on the paper “Robust Adaptive Beamforming” as
`
`reproduced in Brandstein as Chapter 5. See Brandstein at 87-99. Petitioner also
`
`relies on other papers for certain limitations and teachings for the proposed
`
`combination. See infra Section VI.B.2
`
`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
`
`estimating the transfer functions, Gannot 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.
`
`6
`
`

`

`IPR2023-01130
`PATENT NO. 11,122,357
`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 23-24.
`
`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
`
`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
`
`7
`
`

`

`IPR2023-01130
`PATENT NO. 11,122,357
`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).
`
`B. Ground 1: Brandstein and Gannot Do Not Render
`Obvious Claims 1-20
`Petitioner’s Combination Does Not Disclose or
`1.
`Render Obvious “wherein
`the
`first virtual
`microphone and the second virtual microphone are
`distinct virtual directional microphones with
`substantially similar responses
`to noise and
`substantially dissimilar responses to speech” as
`recited in independent Claims 1 and 15.
`The Petition argues that Brandstein alone discloses this limitation based on
`
`the description related to the Griffiths-Jim beamformer (GJBF) depicted in Figs. 5.1
`
`8
`
`

`

`IPR2023-01130
`PATENT NO. 11,122,357
`and 5.2 (Pet at 28-30 (citing Ex. 1003 at 87-90)), a cherry-picked statement related
`
`to an evaluation set-up for the paper’s proposed modification of a GJBF. (Pet at 29
`
`(citing Ex. 1003 at 101)), and Dr. Stern’s conclusory opinions (Pet at 28-30 (citing
`
`Ex. 1002, ¶¶ 94-97). Petitioner does not argue that this limitation is inherent or
`
`disclosed in view of any reference other than Brandstein.
`
`But, even if the outputs of the GJBF’s top and bottom branches are distinct
`
`virtual microphones, the petition fails to identify any actual disclosure where their
`
`noise responses are substantially similar – there is none. Instead, the petition GJBF-
`
`based arguments assume that any system with a virtual microphone that nulls
`
`speech, and another that does not, automatically satisfies the claim. But the speech
`
`response is only half of the limitation. Petitioner fails to show any disclosure
`
`wherein virtual microphones have “substantially similar responses to noise.”
`
`At the outset, the GJBF described in Brandstein has a very different design
`
`than the patented invention, because its top path is designed to isolate speech instead
`
`of capturing both speech and noise (such that the noise may be cancelled using
`
`another virtual microphone with a substantially similar noise response). Ex. 2004,
`
`¶ 42. Brandstein clearly states that for the top path “[t]he [fixed beamformer] is
`
`designed to form a beam in the look direction so that the target signal is passed
`
`[through] and all other signals are attenuated” while for the bottom path “the
`
`[blocking matrix] forms a null in the look direction so that the target signal is
`
`9
`
`

`

`IPR2023-01130
`PATENT NO. 11,122,357
`suppressed and all other signals are passed through.” Ex. 1003 at 88 (emphasis
`
`added). In other words, the fixed beamformer (top path) passes speech through (the
`
`target signal) and attenuates noise, while the blocking matrix (bottom path)
`
`suppresses speech and passes noise through. These are exactly the type of
`
`“conventional arrays and algorithms, which seek to reduce noise by nulling out noise
`
`sources” (i.e. by attenuating noise in the top path) distinguished by the ’357 Patent.
`
`’357 Patent at 5:10-11; Ex. 2004, ¶ 42. This is very different than the invention of
`
`the ’357 Patent, in which the first virtual microphone passes through both speech
`
`and noise, such that another virtual response with a “substantially similar” noise
`
`response may be used to cancel noise while preserving speech. A virtual microphone
`
`that attenuates noise clearly does not have a “substantially similar” noise response
`
`to one that passes noise through.
`
`Indeed, Petitioner admits that “[t]he two virtual microphones have very
`
`different responses to the target signal: the first virtual microphone is designed to
`
`form a beam that captures the target signal, while the second virtual microphone
`
`includes a blocking matrix designed to block the target signal.” Pet. at 29
`
`(emphasis added). Petitioner does not show any disclosure that the first virtual
`
`microphone is also designed to capture noise, and entirely fails to reconcile this
`
`position with the requirement for a substantially similar response to noise in both
`
`virtual microphones.
`
`10
`
`

`

`IPR2023-01130
`PATENT NO. 11,122,357
`Petitioner’s purported support for this limitation amounts to unsupported
`
`conclusions that any GJBF meets this limitation based on the dissimilarity of speech
`
`responses without substantively addressing the requirement for substantially similar
`
`noise responses.
`
`First, Petitioner argues that “[t]he two virtual microphones also have similar
`
`responses to noise so that in the final subtraction output the noise cancels out,” citing
`
`to Dr. Stern’s declaration ¶ 95. Pet. at 29. At the outset, Dr. Stern’s opinions on this
`
`point are not entitled to any weight since they are conclusory and merely parrot the
`
`petition. Compare id. with Pet. at 29. This argument amounts to an unsupported
`
`assumption that all systems in which noise is ultimately cancelled necessarily have
`
`virtual microphones with similar noise responses. Ex. 2004, ¶ 43. It also completely
`
`ignores Brandstein’s explanation that it uses a “multiple input canceller” (“MC”)
`
`which “generate[s] replicas of components correlated with the interferences” that are
`
`“subtracted from a delayed output signal [] of the fixed beamformer” based on which
`
`“the target signal is enhanced and undesirable signals such as ambient noise and
`
`interferences are suppressed.” Ex. 1003 at 88-89. In other words, instead of using
`
`virtual microphones with substantially similar noise responses, Brandstein’s GJBF
`
`attempts to isolate speech in the top path as much as possible, then uses the MC to
`
`subtract only those noise components of the bottom path that are “correlated with
`
`the interferences.” Id.; see also Ex. 2004, ¶ 43. Petitioner’s speculation cannot stand
`
`11
`
`

`

`IPR2023-01130
`PATENT NO. 11,122,357
`in the face of Brandstein’s teachings that it does not use substantially similar noise
`
`responses to cancel noise as Petitioner assumes, and its expert cannot cure that
`
`deficiency.
`
`Second, Petitioner argues that “[t]he different responses to the target signal
`
`and similar responses to noise are evident from Figure 5.2, which shows the
`
`directivity pattern for the final output of an example Griffiths-Jim beamformer:
`
`
`
`Pet. at 29-30. Petitioner further argues that “[t]he deep null reflects that subtracting
`
`the two virtual microphones’ outputs cancels the interference, which confirms that
`
`the virtual microphones’ responses to the interference are similar.” But this figure
`
`does not support Petitioner’s assertion. At the outset, Figure 5.2 shows the overall
`
`directivity of an exemplary GJBF at three different frequencies (i.e. the combination
`
`of both the top and bottom path), not the directivity of either virtual microphone.
`
`That directivity merely has an area of significantly reduced gain in the direction of
`
`an interference (i.e. a noise source). Ex. 2004, ¶ 44. This reflects the overall result
`
`of the system in attenuating noise; it discloses nothing about the comparative
`
`12
`
`

`

`IPR2023-01130
`PATENT NO. 11,122,357
`responses to noise of the top or bottom path within that system (which are not even
`
`depicted in the figure). Id. In any case, contrary to Petitioner’s speculation,
`
`Brandstein contemplates this result based on subtracting elements of noise
`
`(generated by a multiple input canceller by taking “replicas of components
`
`correlated with the interferences”) from an FBF signal that already has as little noise
`
`as possible, not based on any “substantially similar” noise response. Id.
`
`Moreover, while speculating about the noise responses based on the overall
`
`output, Petitioner conspicuously omits contradictory disclosure in Figure 5.3
`
`immediately following the cited portion. Unlike Figure 5.2, Figure 5.3 actually does
`
`depict the directivity of the fixed beamformer (top path) and blocking matrix (bottom
`
`path) in relation to a target signal (i.e. speech). A POSITA would plainly understand
`
`that their noise responses (highlighted in green) are not substantially similar.
`
`Ex. 2004, ¶ 45; 1003 at 90. As Brandstein’s chapter 5 does not disclose any
`
`equations with which to determine the responses of its top and bottom branches, Fig.
`
`
`
`13
`
`

`

`IPR2023-01130
`PATENT NO. 11,122,357
`5.3 is the only disclosure of those responses outside the above-cited discussion that
`
`noise in the FBF (top branch) is attenuated compared to the BM (bottom branch).
`
`Ex. 2004, ¶ 45. It is telling that Petitioner chose to ignore this figure in favor of one
`
`which does not even depict the directivities of its alleged “virtual microphones” at
`
`all.
`
`
`
`The Petition fails to show any disclosure of “wherein the first virtual
`
`microphone and the second virtual microphone are distinct virtual directional
`
`microphones with substantially similar responses to noise,” as required by every
`
`independent claim, and should therefore be denied.
`
`2.
`
`Petitioner Does Not Identify Any Motivation to
`Combine Embodiments and References Within
`Brandstein
`Brandstein (Ex. 1003) is not a single reference. It is a collection of different
`
`papers by different authors, each reproduced as a chapter in Brandstein. Each paper
`
`is a separate reference, and contains separate embodiments, for which the Petitioner
`
`bears the burden of showing a reason or motivation to combine. See Application of
`
`Arkley, 455 F.2d. 586, 587-88 (C.C.P.A. 1972); see also Net MoneyIN, Inc. v.
`
`VeriSign, Inc., 545 F.3d 1359, 1371 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (“Thus, it is not enough that
`
`the prior art reference . . . includes multiple, distinct teachings that the artisan might
`
`somehow combine to achieve the claimed invention.”). The Petition relies on at
`
`least two different papers within Brandstein, each of which pertains to distinct
`
`14
`
`

`

`IPR2023-01130
`PATENT NO. 11,122,357
`embodiments. But the petition entirely fails to articulate (or even assert) any reason
`
`or motivation for a POSITA to combine those distinct references and embodiments
`
`within those references. The petition therefore fails as a threshold matter and must
`
`be denied on this basis.
`
`The Petition relies on at least two different articles within the Brandstein
`
`collection: “Superdirective Microphone Arrays,” by Bitzer and Simmer, collected as
`
`Chapter 2; and “Robust Adaptive Beamforming,” by Hoshuyama and Sugiyama,
`
`collected as Chapter 5; see e.g. Pet. at 7 (citing to Ex. 1003 at 87 regarding “Robust
`
`Adaptive Beamforming” by Hoshuyama and Sugiyama); Pet. at 14 (citing to Ex.
`
`1003 at 25 regarding “Superdirective Microphone Arrays,” by Bitzer and Simmer).1
`
`Petitioner’s proposed combination is based on, among other things, its
`
`assertion that “[d]elaying signals based on geometry to adjust for differences in
`
`arrival times was well known,” and its assumption that a POSITA would incorporate
`
`a “near-field design” in a GSC. See Pet. at 14-15 (“When the source of the target
`
`signal is close enough to the array, instead of treating the signal’s wavefront as a
`
`
`1 The Petition further relies on “Robust Localization in Reverberant Rooms,” by
`DiBiase et al, collected as Chapter 8; and “Acoustic Echo Cancellation for
`Beamforming Microphone Arrays,” by Walter L. Kellermann, collected as Chapter
`13 for dependent claims. See Pet. at 39 (citing to Ex. 1003 at 159 regarding “Robust
`Localization in Reverberant Rooms” by DiBiase et al.); Pet. at 48 (citing to Ex. 1003
`at 290 regarding “Acoustic Echo Cancellation for Beamforming Microphone
`Arrays” by Walter L. Kellermann).
`
`15
`
`

`

`IPR2023-01130
`PATENT NO. 11,122,357
`plane, it may be useful to account for the spherical geometry of the wavefront— i.e.,
`
`to use a near-field design. [] Near-field designs were well known before the ’357
`
`Patent…”); see also Pet. at 18-20 (arguing that the ’357 Patent implementation of
`
`virtual microphones reflects “the standard near-field design”). But while the Petition
`
`primarily relies on “Robust Adaptive Beamforming” by Hoshuyama and Sugiyama,
`
`it does not contend that article discloses the near-field design incorporated in its
`
`proposed combination. Id.; see also Pet. at 28-30. Instead, the Petition relies on the
`
`“Superdirective Microphone Arrays,” article by Bitzer and Simmer for the
`
`proposition that embodiments of other embodiments within Brandstein could be
`
`implemented with a near-field design. Pet. at 14 (citing Ex. 1003, 25). But the
`
`Petition does not even assert that a POSITA would have any reason or motivation to
`
`modify any embodiment within “Robust Adaptive Beamforming” based on the
`
`alleged “standard near-field design” discussed in “Superdirective Microphone
`
`Arrays.” At most, the Petition argues that near-field designs were “well known
`
`before the ’357 Patent.” Pet. at 14. Even if true, that would not be a sufficient basis
`
`for a POSITA to implement any particular embodiment described in “Robust
`
`Adaptive Beamforming” with a near-field design for receiving speech. Belden Inc.
`
`v. Berk-Tek LLC, 805 F.3d 1064, 1073 (Fed. Cir.2015) (“[O]bviousness concerns
`
`whether a skilled artisan not only could have made but would have been motivated
`
`to make the combinations or modifications of prior art to arrive at the claimed
`
`16
`
`

`

`IPR2023-01130
`PATENT NO. 11,122,357
`invention.”) The Petition therefore fails as a threshold matter to identify a reason or
`
`motivation to combine for its proposed combination.
`
`The Petition further omits articles within Brandstein that challenge its
`
`uncritical combination of bits and pieces throughout the collection. “Future
`
`Directions in Microphone Array Processing,” by Dirk Van Compernolle, collected
`
`as chapter 18 discusses these problems at length: “[a]fter 20 years of active research,
`
`however, we cannot claim that microphone array processing has had the success
`
`many of us hoped for, and many will wonder when the great breakthrough in
`
`microphone array processing will finally come, if ever. . . . However, too often the
`
`same problems that were considered too hard ten or twenty years ago are still set
`
`apart for ’future research.’ Admitted weaknesses to proposed solutions are similar
`
`to the ones that we have been struggling with for a long time. Generally speaking,
`
`we may say that many proposed solutions add to our understanding but lack
`
`robustness in order to make a bright future for themselves.” Ex. 2004 at 389. Von
`
`Compernolle goes on to explain that “[i]t is especially difficult to come up with
`
`tractable mathematical models for this complex environment. The result of this
`
`complex situation is that a lot of research effort has gone into and continues to go
`
`into the search for optimal beamforming strategies that rely on extra assumptions
`
`and constraints. Sadly enough, this all too often leads to solutions that lack
`
`robustness when evaluated in a variety of real-life situations . . . we should admit to
`
`17
`
`

`

`IPR2023-01130
`PATENT NO. 11,122,357
`ourselves that robustness has been, and still is today, one of the main issues.” Id. at
`
`390.
`
`Given the Petition’s failure to assert any reason or motivation to combine the
`
`references and embodiments within Brandstein on which it relies for its combination,
`
`and particularly in view of discussion in other articles challenging any such
`
`combination, the Petition fails as a threshold matter and must be denied.
`
`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 Claims 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.
`
`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
`
`18
`
`

`

`IPR2023-01130
`PATENT NO. 11,122,357
`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.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`Dated: October 12, 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
`Email: plambrianakos@fabricantllp.com
`
`19
`
`

`

`IPR2023-01130
`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 3,816 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.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`October 12, 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
`
`20
`
`

`

`IPR2023-01130
`PATENT NO. 11,122,357
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
` A copy of the foregoing Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response and Exhibits
`
`2002 through 2