`By: Lisa Nguyen
`
`David Tennant
`
`Eric E. Lancaster
`
`Daniel Margolis
`
`Grace Wang
`
`Alan Billharz
`
`Colby Davis
`Allen & Overy LLP
`550 High Street
`Palo Alto, CA 94301
`Telephone: 650-388-1724
`Facsimile: 202-683-3999
`Email: AO_Meta_Jawbone@AllenOvery.com
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`__________________________________
`
`META PLATFORMS, INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`JAWBONE INNOVATIONS, LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`
`
`
`
`
`Filed: June 27, 2023
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2023-01130
`U.S. Patent No. 11,122,357
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW OF CLAIMS 1-20 OF
`U.S. PATENT NO. 11,122,357 PURSUANT TO
`35 U.S.C. §§ 311–319, 37 C.F.R. § 42
`
`
`
`Meta Platforms, Inc. v. Jawbone Innovations, LLC
`IPR Petition – U.S. Patent 11,122,357
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`INTRODUCTION --------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1
`
`
`
`BACKGROUND -------------------------------------------------------------------- 3
`
` Griffiths and Jim Publish Their Seminal GSC Article in
`1982. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- 3
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Over the Next Two Decades, the GSC was Used in
`Microphone Arrays to Reduce Noise. ------------------------------------- 6
`
`Published in 2001, Brandstein Illustrates How to Use a GSC
`with a Microphone Array to Reduce Noise. ------------------------------ 7
`
`Contemporaneously, Gannot Taught Adapting the GSC to
`Handle Arbitrary Transfer Functions. ------------------------------------ 10
`
`Other Concepts in the ’357 Patent Were Well Known. ---------------- 13
`
`
`
`
`
`Filtering and Summing in the Time Domain Were
`Well Known. --------------------------------------------------------- 13
`
`Delaying Signals Based on Geometry to Adjust for
`Differences in Arrival Times Was Well Known. --------------- 14
`
`
`
`THE ’357 PATENT ---------------------------------------------------------------- 16
`
`
`
`The ’357 Patent Discloses Nothing Innovative. ------------------------- 16
`
`
`
`
`
`The ’357 Patent Purports to Distinguish Itself from
`the Prior Art by Using a Virtual Microphone
`Designed to Capture Only Noise, Which Had Been
`Known for Decades. ------------------------------------------------ 16
`
`The ’357 Patent Concedes It Relies on Known
`Techniques to Form Virtual Microphones from
`Physical Microphones. ---------------------------------------------- 16
`
`i
`
`
`
`Meta Platforms, Inc. v. Jawbone Innovations, LLC
`IPR Petition – U.S. Patent 11,122,357
`The ’357 Patent Discloses Formulas for the
`Purportedly Innovative Set of Virtual Microphones,
`But These Formulas Rely on Near-Field Design. --------------- 18
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`The Claims Recite Generic Virtual Microphones and
`Generic Signal Processing. ------------------------------------------------ 20
`
`The Claims Were Not Carefully Scrutinized During
`Prosecution. ------------------------------------------------------------------ 21
`
`
`
`STATEMENT OF RELIEF REQUESTED ------------------------------------- 22
`
` Grounds ---------------------------------------------------------------------- 22
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`The Earliest Priority Date the ’357 Patent Claims Is June
`13, 2007. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- 22
`
`The References Are Prior Art. --------------------------------------------- 23
`
`The Asserted References Are Analogous Art. -------------------------- 23
`
` LEVEL OF ORDINARY SKILL ------------------------------------------------- 24
`
`
`
`CLAIM CONSTRUCTION ------------------------------------------------------- 24
`
` GROUNDS OF UNPATENTABILITY ----------------------------------------- 25
`
` Ground 1: Brandstein and Gannot ---------------------------------------- 25
`
`
`
`Claim 1 --------------------------------------------------------------- 25
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Preamble ------------------------------------------------------ 25
`
`First Virtual Microphone Comprising a
`Combination of Signals from First and Second
`Physical Microphones --------------------------------------- 26
`
`Second Virtual Microphone -------------------------------- 27
`
`Substantially Similar Responses to Noise and
`Substantially Dissimilar Responses to Speech ----------- 28
`
`ii
`
`
`
`Meta Platforms, Inc. v. Jawbone Innovations, LLC
`IPR Petition – U.S. Patent 11,122,357
`A Signal Processor Operative to Combine
`Microphone Signals by Filtering and Summing
`in the Time Domain ----------------------------------------- 31
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Applying a Varying Linear Transfer Function ----------- 33
`
`Generating an Output Signal with Reduced
`Noise ---------------------------------------------------------- 36
`
`Claim 2 --------------------------------------------------------------- 37
`
`Claim 3 --------------------------------------------------------------- 38
`
`Claim 4 --------------------------------------------------------------- 39
`
`Claim 5 --------------------------------------------------------------- 41
`
`
`
`
`
`Claim 5 Encompasses Standard Near-Field
`Time-Alignment. -------------------------------------------- 42
`
`Brandstein Discloses or Renders Obvious
`Standard Near-Field Time-Alignments for the
`GSC. ----------------------------------------------------------- 43
`
`Claim 6 --------------------------------------------------------------- 49
`
`Claim 7 --------------------------------------------------------------- 52
`
`Claim 8 --------------------------------------------------------------- 52
`
`Claim 9 --------------------------------------------------------------- 53
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` Claim 10 -------------------------------------------------------------- 53
`
` Claim 11 -------------------------------------------------------------- 55
`
` Claim 12 -------------------------------------------------------------- 56
`
` Claim 13 -------------------------------------------------------------- 57
`
` Claim 14 -------------------------------------------------------------- 59
`
`iii
`
`
`
`Meta Platforms, Inc. v. Jawbone Innovations, LLC
`IPR Petition – U.S. Patent 11,122,357
` Claim 15 -------------------------------------------------------------- 61
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Preamble ------------------------------------------------------ 61
`
`First Virtual Microphone ----------------------------------- 61
`
`Second Virtual Microphone -------------------------------- 61
`
`Substantially Similar Responses to Noise and
`Substantially Dissimilar Responses to Speech ----------- 62
`
`Virtual Microphone Array with a Single Null ----------- 62
`
`Signal Processor --------------------------------------------- 63
`
`Applying a Varying Linear Transfer Function ----------- 63
`
`Generating an Output Signal with Reduced
`Noise ---------------------------------------------------------- 64
`
` Claim 16 -------------------------------------------------------------- 65
`
` Claim 17 -------------------------------------------------------------- 65
`
` Claim 18 -------------------------------------------------------------- 66
`
` Claim 19 -------------------------------------------------------------- 66
`
` Claim 20 -------------------------------------------------------------- 67
`
`
`
`
`
`Ground 2: Brandstein, Gannot, and Griffiths-Jim ---------------------- 67
`
`Ground 3: Brandstein, Gannot, and McCowan ------------------------- 69
`
` SECONDARY CONSIDERATIONS OF
`NONOBVIOUSNESS ------------------------------------------------------------- 72
`
` DISCRETIONARY DENIAL UNDER §314(A) IS NOT
`APPROPRIATE. -------------------------------------------------------------------- 73
`
`
`
`Co-Pending Litigation Does Not Warrant Discretionary
`Denial (Fintiv) --------------------------------------------------------------- 73
`iv
`
`
`
`Meta Platforms, Inc. v. Jawbone Innovations, LLC
`IPR Petition – U.S. Patent 11,122,357
`Factor 1: Potential Stay --------------------------------------------- 73
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Factor 2: Proximity of Trial to FWD ----------------------------- 76
`
`Factor 3: Investment in Parallel Proceeding --------------------- 76
`
`Factor 4: Overlapping Issues --------------------------------------- 77
`
`Factor 5: The Parties ------------------------------------------------ 77
`
`Factor 6: Other Circumstances ------------------------------------ 77
`
`
`
`Prior IPR Petitions (General Plastic) ------------------------------------- 78
`
` DISCRETIONARY DENIAL UNDER §325(D) IS NOT
`APPROPRIATE. -------------------------------------------------------------------- 80
`
` MANDATORY NOTICES -------------------------------------------------------- 80
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Real Parties-In-Interest (37 C.F.R. §42.8(b)(1)) ------------------------ 80
`
`Related Matters (37 C.F.R. §42.8(b)(2)) --------------------------------- 80
`
`Lead and Backup Counsel (37 C.F.R. §42.8(b)(3)) -------------------- 81
`
`Service Information (37 C.F.R. §42.8(b)(4)) ---------------------------- 83
`
`Payment of Fees (37 C.F.R. §42.103) ------------------------------------ 83
`
`Grounds for Standing (37 C.F.R. §42.104(a)) --------------------------- 83
`
`CONCLUSION ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- 83
`
`
`
`
`
`v
`
`
`
`Meta Platforms, Inc. v. Jawbone Innovations, LLC
`IPR Petition – U.S. Patent 11,122,357
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
` Page(s)
`
`Cases
`Apple v. Fintiv,
`IPR2020-00019, Paper 11 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 20, 2020) ................................... 73, 77
`Apple v. Uniloc 2017 LLC,
`IPR2020-00854, Paper 9 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 28, 2020) ............................................ 78
`Celltrion, Inc. v. Genentech, Inc.,
`IPR2018-01019, Paper 11 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 30, 2018) .......................................... 78
`Central Security Group,
`IPR2019-01609, Paper 11(P.T.A.B. Feb. 6, 2022) ............................................. 78
`GAF Materials LLC v. Kirsch Research and Dev., LLC,
`IPR2021-00192, Paper 14 (P.T.A.B. May 25, 2021) ......................................... 76
`General Plastic Indus. Co., Ltd. v. Canon Kabushiki Kaisha,
`IPR2016-01357, Paper 19 (P.T.A.B. Sept. 6, 2017) ..................................... 78, 79
`Global Tel*Link Corp. v. HLFIP Holding, Inc.,
`IPR2021-00444, Paper 14 (P.T.A.B. Jul. 22, 2021) ........................................... 75
`In re Google LLC,
`58 F.4th 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2023) ........................................................................... 73
`Google LLC v. Jawbone Innovations, LLC,
`IPR2022-00630, Paper 10 (P.T.A.B. Sept. 13, 2022) ......................................... 77
`In re GPAC Inc.,
`57 F.3d 1573 (Fed. Cir. 1995) ............................................................................ 23
`Huawei Techs. Co. v. WSOU Invs., LLC,
`IPR2021-00226, Paper 10 (P.T.A.B. June 10, 2021) ......................................... 76
`Jawbone Innovations, LLC v. Amazon.com, Inc., et al.,
`No. 2:21-cv-00435-JRG, Dkt. No. 60 (E.D. Tex Sept. 21, 2022) ................ 73, 81
`
`vi
`
`
`
`Meta Platforms, Inc. v. Jawbone Innovations, LLC
`IPR Petition – U.S. Patent 11,122,357
`Jawbone Innovations, LLC v. Meta Platforms, Inc.,
`No. 6:23-cv-00158, Dkt. No. 1 (W.D. Tex. Feb. 28, 2023) ............................... 73
`Jawbone Innovations, LLC v. Meta Platforms, Inc.,
`No. 6:23-cv-00158-DC-DTG (W.D. Tex.) ..................................................passim
`KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc.,
`550 U.S. 398 (2007) .....................................................................................passim
`Leapfrog Enters. v. Fisher-Price, Inc.,
`485 F.3d 1157 (Fed. Cir. 2007) .......................................................................... 72
`Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC v. Carucel Invs. L.P.,
`IPR2019-01404, Paper 12 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 22, 2020) .......................................... 79
`NetNut Ltd. v. Bright Data Ltd.,
`IPR2021-00465, Paper 11 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 12, 2021) ......................................... 79
`Newell Cos. v. Kenney Mfg. Co.,
`864 F.2d 757 (Fed. Cir. 1988) ............................................................................ 72
`Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co. Ltd.,
`868 F.3d 1013 (Fed. Cir. 2017) .......................................................................... 24
`Robert Bosch Healthcare Sys., Inc. v. Cardiocom, LLC,
`No. C-14-1575 EMC, 2014 WL 3107447 (N.D. Cal. July 3, 2014) .................. 74
`Samsung Elecs. Am. Inc. v. Snik LLC,
`IPR2020-01428, Paper 10 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 9, 2021) ........................................... 76
`Sand Revolution II, LLC v. Cont’l Intermodal Grp.-Trucking LLC,
`IPR2019-01393, Paper 24 (P.T.A.B. June 16, 2020) ......................................... 76
`Skechers U.S.A., Inc. v. Nike, Inc.,
`IPR2021-00160, Paper 10 (P.T.A.B. May 19, 2021) ......................................... 76
`Symantec Corp. v. Zscaler, Inc.,
`No. 17-cv-04426-JST, 2018 WL 3539267 (N.D. Cal. July 23,
`2018) ................................................................................................................... 74
`Toshiba Am. Info. Sys., Inc. v. Walletex Microelecs. Ltd.,
`IPR2018-01538, Paper 11 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 5, 2019) ........................................... 79
`
`vii
`
`
`
`Meta Platforms, Inc. v. Jawbone Innovations, LLC
`IPR Petition – U.S. Patent 11,122,357
`Twilio, Inc. v. TeleSign Corp.,
`No. 16-cv-06925-LHK, 2018 WL 1609630 (N.D. Cal. April 3,
`2018) ................................................................................................................... 74
`Uniloc USA Inc. v. LG Elecs., U.S.A. Inc.,
`No. 18-cv-06737-JST, 2019 WL 1905161 (N.D. Cal. April 29,
`2019) ................................................................................................................... 74
`Unwired Planet, LLC v. Google Inc.,
`841 F.3d 995 (Fed. Cir. 2016) ............................................................................ 23
`Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc.,
`200 F.3d 795 (Fed. Cir. 1999) ............................................................................ 25
`Statutes
`35 U.S.C. § 112 ........................................................................................................ 24
`Other Authorities
`37 C.F.R. §42.8(b)(1) ............................................................................................... 80
` 37 C.F.R. §42.8(b)(2) .............................................................................................. 80
` 37 C.F.R. §42.8(b)(3) .............................................................................................. 81
`37 C.F.R. §42.8(b)(4) ............................................................................................... 83
`37 C.F.R. § 42.10(b) ................................................................................................ 82
`37 C.F.R. §42.15(a) .................................................................................................. 83
`37 C.F.R. §42.103 .................................................................................................... 83
`37 C.F.R. §42.104(a) ................................................................................................ 83
`
`
`viii
`
`
`
`Meta Platforms, Inc. v. Jawbone Innovations, LLC
`IPR Petition – U.S. Patent 11,122,357
`TABLE OF EXHIBITS
`
`Exhibit No.
`
`Description
`
`1001
`
`1002
`
`1003
`
`1004
`
`1005
`
`1006
`
`1007
`
`1008
`
`1009
`
`1010
`
`1011
`
`1012
`
`U.S. Patent No. 11,122,357 (“the ’357 patent”)
`
`Declaration of Richard M. Stern, Ph.D.
`
`Excerpts of MICROPHONE ARRAYS: SIGNAL PROCESSING TECH-
`NIQUES AND APPLICATIONS (Michael Brandstein & Darren Ward
`eds., Springer-Verlag 2001) (“Brandstein”)
`
`Sharon Gannot et al., Signal Enhancement Using Beamforming
`and Nonstationarity with Applications to Speech, vol. 49, no. 8
`IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON SIGNAL PROCESSING, 1614 (Aug. 2001)
`(“Gannot”)
`
`Lloyd Griffiths & Charles Jim, An Alternative Approach to Line-
`arly Constrained Adaptive Beamforming, vol. AP-30, no. 1 IEEE
`TRANSACTIONS ON ANTENNAS AND PROPAGATION, 27 (Jan. 1982)
`(“Griffiths-Jim”)
`
`Iain A. McCowan et al., Near-Field Adaptive Beamformer for Ro-
`bust Speech Recognition, vol. 12, no. 1 DIGITAL SIGNAL PRO-
`CESSING, 87 (Jan. 2002) (“McCowan”)
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,651,071 (“Lindemann”)
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,627,799 (“Hoshuyama”)
`
`U.S. Patent Publication No. 2003/0128848 (“Burnett ’848”)
`
`Excerpts from the ’357 patent’s file history
`
`U.S. Provisional Patent Application No. 61/045,377
`
`Curriculum Vitae of Richard M. Stern, Ph.D.
`
`ix
`
`
`
`Meta Platforms, Inc. v. Jawbone Innovations, LLC
`IPR Petition – U.S. Patent 11,122,357
`
`Exhibit No.
`
`Description
`
`1013
`
`Declaration of Carol S. Peterson
`
`
`
`x
`
`
`
`Meta Platforms, Inc. v. Jawbone Innovations, LLC
`IPR Petition – U.S. Patent 11,122,357
`Petitioner Meta Platforms, Inc. (“Petitioner” or “Meta”), requests inter partes
`
`review of claims 1-20 (“Challenged Claims”) of U.S. Patent 11,122,357 (“the ’357
`
`patent”), which Jawbone Innovations (“Patent Owner” or “PO”) purportedly owns.
`
`This petition, accompanied by a motion for joinder, presents the same grounds as
`
`IPR2023-00251 (the “Amazon IPR”), which was instituted on June 1, 2023.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`The Challenged Claims recite devices that process audio signals from micro-
`
`phones to reduce noise. The claimed devices comprise two “virtual” microphones,
`
`each formed by combining signals from two physical microphones. The two virtual
`
`microphones must have substantially similar responses to noise and substantially
`
`dissimilar responses to speech. But the claims do not require that the device do
`
`anything with the virtual microphones. Instead, the claims merely recite that the
`
`device must include a signal processor that performs generic signal-processing op-
`
`erations like filtering the physical-microphone signals, summing the physical-
`
`microphone signals, and applying a transfer function. The claims recite these con-
`
`ventional signal-processing operations only at a high level. For example, the claims
`
`do not elaborate on the filter to apply; they require only that some “filtering” of the
`
`physical-microphone signals occur.
`
`The two virtual microphones may be created by the recited filtering and sum-
`
`ming of the physical-microphone signals. But as the ’357 patent concedes, that was
`
`1
`
`
`
`Meta Platforms, Inc. v. Jawbone Innovations, LLC
`IPR Petition – U.S. Patent 11,122,357
`a “common” technique for creating virtual microphones known to those skilled in
`
`the art. (Ex. 1001, 8:55-60.) The generic language of the claims contrasts with the
`
`’357 patent specification, which identifies specific formulas defining the two virtual
`
`microphones that are the basis for the purported innovation. (Compare, e.g., id.,
`
`claim 1 with id., 11:6-16, 12:20.)
`
`Untethered from the specification’s formulas, the claims’ recitation of generic
`
`signal-processing concepts encompasses prior art describing the Generalized Side-
`
`lobe Canceler (“GSC”), a fundamental noise-reduction technique introduced in the
`
`1980s. Broadly applicable to many signal-processing applications, the GSC in-
`
`volves filtering and summing the signals from at least two sensors in different ways
`
`to produce two virtual sensors, one that captures the target signal plus noise and
`
`another that captures just noise. Subtracting the noise signal from the target-plus-
`
`noise signal cancels out the noise and yields a cleaner output signal.
`
`Years before the ’357 patent’s earliest possible priority date, a widely used
`
`reference book, MICROPHONE ARRAYS (Springer-Verlag 2001) (“Brandstein”), ex-
`
`plained that it was common to use the GSC with a microphone array to reduce noise
`
`in speech-signal processing. Contemporaneously with Brandstein’s publication,
`
`Sharon Gannot and other researchers published in IEEE’s Transactions on Signal
`
`Processing an article titled Signal Enhancement Using Beamforming and Nonsta-
`
`tionarity with Applications to Speech (“Gannot”), describing a generalized version
`
`2
`
`
`
`Meta Platforms, Inc. v. Jawbone Innovations, LLC
`IPR Petition – U.S. Patent 11,122,357
`of the GSC technique that would make it even more robust by handling arbitrary
`
`linear transfer functions. As its title indicates, Gannot likewise contemplated reduc-
`
`ing noise in speech applications. Together, Brandstein and Gannot disclose all the
`
`limitations of the ’357 patent’s claims and render all the claims obvious.
`
`Because they cover GSC techniques published years before the earliest prior-
`
`ity date, claims 1-20 are unpatentable. The Board should cancel those claims.
`
`
`
`BACKGROUND
`
`When Patent Owner filed the ’357 patent’s priority applications in 2007, tech-
`
`niques for reducing noise in signals had been known for decades. One prominent
`
`technique was the Generalized Sidelobe Canceler, or GSC. In a nod to its inventors,
`
`the GSC is sometimes also called the Griffiths-Jim beamformer. (Ex. 1002 ¶30.)
`
` Griffiths and Jim Publish Their Seminal GSC Article in
`1982.
`
`In 1982, Lloyd Griffiths and Charles Jim published a paper describing “a sim-
`
`ple time-varying beamformer which can be used to combine the outputs of an array
`
`of sensors.” (Ex. 1005, 27).) The beamformer’s purpose was “to minimize the ef-
`
`fects of noise and interference at the array output” while capturing the target signal.
`
`(Id.)
`
`Griffiths and Jim called their beamformer a “generalized sidelobe canceling”
`
`structure. (Id., 29.) Illustrated in Figure 4 of their paper, the signal processor had
`
`two main substructures: the top branch was a “conventional beamformer” designed
`3
`
`
`
`Meta Platforms, Inc. v. Jawbone Innovations, LLC
`IPR Petition – U.S. Patent 11,122,357
`to capture the target signal plus noise, and the bottom branch was the “sidelobe can-
`
`celing path” that captures only noise so that the noise could be subtracted or canceled
`
`out:
`
`
`(Id., 29–30.1) In the top branch, the outputs of the array sensors were combined to
`
`form a conventional beamformer, which Petitioner calls the first virtual sensor.
`
`The sensor outputs were combined by multiplying the sensor output signals by fac-
`
`tors called “weights” (𝑤(cid:3030)(cid:2869),…,𝑤(cid:3030)(cid:3014) in the paper, and sometimes also called “gains”)
`
`and further filtering and summing the weighted sensor signals. (Id.; Ex. 1002 ¶35.)
`
`
`1 Figures have been annotated with color throughout.
`
`4
`
`
`
`Meta Platforms, Inc. v. Jawbone Innovations, LLC
`IPR Petition – U.S. Patent 11,122,357
`
`In the paper’s equations, the output of the first virtual sensor was denoted 𝑦(cid:3030)′(cid:4666)𝑘(cid:4667).
`
`(Ex. 1005, 30.) This output contains the target signal plus noise. (Ex. 1002 ¶35.)
`
`“The lower path in Fig. 4 is the sidelobe canceling path” (Ex. 1005, 30), which
`
`Petitioner calls the second virtual sensor. Like the first virtual sensor, the second
`
`virtual sensor is formed from a combination of the outputs of the array sensors, but
`
`the combination differs from the combination used for the first virtual sensor. The
`
`from the lower path.” (Id.) The array sensor outputs were combined by filtering and
`
`summing (including by blocking the desired signal), and the output of the second
`
`lower path includes a blocking matrix designed to “block the desired signal 𝑠(cid:4666)𝑘(cid:4667)
`virtual sensor was denoted in the paper as 𝑦(cid:3002)(cid:4666)𝑘(cid:4667). (See id.) The second virtual sen-
`sor’s output “𝑦(cid:3002)(cid:4666)𝑘(cid:4667) contains no desired signal terms” and instead “contains only
`The overall output of the GSC, 𝑦(cid:4666)𝑘(cid:4667), was produced by subtracting the noise-
`
`noise and interference terms.” (Id.)
`
`only output of the second virtual sensor from the target-plus-noise output of the first
`
`virtual sensor:
`
`(Id.) The result was a cleaned-up signal that reduced noise without distorting the
`
`desired signal. (Ex. 1002 ¶40; Ex. 1005, 30 (output due to desired signal satisfies
`
`
`
`5
`
`
`
`Meta Platforms, Inc. v. Jawbone Innovations, LLC
`IPR Petition – U.S. Patent 11,122,357
`the constraint defined by paper’s equation 9, which defines a constraint for “zero
`
`distortion” (p. 28)).)
`
` Over the Next Two Decades, the GSC was Used in
`Microphone Arrays to Reduce Noise.
`
`In the twenty years following Griffiths and Jim’s article, the GSC was used in
`
`many signal-processing applications, including with microphone arrays to reduce
`
`noise in speech applications. For example, U.S. Patent No. 5,651,071 (“Linde-
`
`mann”),
`
`filed
`
`in 1993, cites
`
`the article and explains
`
`that using a
`
`Griffiths-Jim beamformer “to improve signal-to-noise ratio for hearing aids” was
`
`known. (Ex. 1007, 1:40-46, 12:12–14.2) As another example, Griffiths-Jim is the
`
`first non-patent reference cited in U.S. Patent No. 5,627,799 (“Hoshuyama”), filed
`
`in 1995, which relates to “interference cancelers, and more particularly to a general-
`
`ized sidelobe canceler, or adaptive beamformer for an array of sensors such as mi-
`
`crophones[.]” (Ex. 1008, 1:8-11.) Describing what was prior art even then, Hosh-
`
`uyama explains one way the GSC had been used with microphone arrays:
`
`According to a prior art microphone array, signals detected by an array
`of microphones are lowpass filtered and summed together to detect a
`target signal that arrives in a particular direction. The adaptive micro-
`phone array beamformer is one form of the generalized sidelobe can-
`celer as described in an article “An alternative Approach to Linearly
`Constrained Adaptive Beamforming”, Lloyd J. Griffiths and Charles
`
`
`2 Patent citations are in column:line format.
`
`6
`
`
`
`Meta Platforms, Inc. v. Jawbone Innovations, LLC
`IPR Petition – U.S. Patent 11,122,357
`W. Jim, the IEEE Transactions on Antenna and Propagation, Vol. AP-
`30, No. 1, January 1982, pages 27-34.
`
`(Id., 1:17-26.)
`
`
`
`Published in 2001, Brandstein Illustrates How to Use a GSC
`with a Microphone Array to Reduce Noise.
`
`In 2001, MICROPHONE ARRAYS: SIGNAL PROCESSING TECHNIQUES AND APPLI-
`
`CATIONS published. (Ex. 1003 (“Brandstein”).) The editors’ goal was to provide “a
`
`single complete reference on microphone arrays.” (Id., Preface.) The book quickly
`
`became a standard reference for those in the field of audio-signal processing. (Ex.
`
`1002 ¶45.)
`
`At the outset of the chapter on robust adaptive beamforming, Brandstein ex-
`
`plains that “[a]pplications of beamforming include microphone arrays for speech
`
`enhancement.” (Ex. 1003, 87 (original page numbering).) “The goal of speech en-
`
`hancement is to remove undesirable signals such as noise and reverberation.” (Id.)
`
`Brandstein further explains that, among various known adaptive beamformers, “the
`
`Griffiths-Jim beamformer (GJBF), or the generalized sidelobe canceler, is most
`
`widely known.” (Id., 88 (internal citation omitted).) “Figure 5.1 depicts the structure
`
`of the GJBF.” (Id.)
`
`7
`
`
`
`Meta Platforms, Inc. v. Jawbone Innovations, LLC
`IPR Petition – U.S. Patent 11,122,357
`
`(Id., 89, Fig. 5.1.) As shown, the signals of at least two physical microphones,
`
`𝑥(cid:2868)(cid:4666)𝑘(cid:4667) and 𝑥(cid:2869)(cid:4666)𝑘(cid:4667), are combined in the top branch by filtering and summing the sig-
`
`
`
`nals to form a fixed beamformer—a first virtual microphone. (Ex. 1002 ¶48.) The
`
`first virtual microphone captures the target speech signal plus noise. (Id.)
`
`In the bottom branch, the signals of the two physical microphones are com-
`
`bined by filtering and summing the signals in a different way to form a second vir-
`
`tual microphone. (Id. ¶49.) The second virtual microphone includes a blocking
`
`matrix (BM). (Id.) “[T]he BM forms a null in the look direction so that the target
`
`signal is suppressed and all other signals are passed through.” (Ex. 1003, 88.) “The
`
`8
`
`
`
`Meta Platforms, Inc. v. Jawbone Innovations, LLC
`IPR Petition – U.S. Patent 11,122,357
`BM was named after its function, which is to block the target signal.” (Id.) As a
`
`result, the second virtual microphone captures noise only. (Ex. 1002 ¶49.)
`
`The overall output is the target-plus-noise output of the first virtual micro-
`
`phone minus the noise-only output of the second virtual microphone. (Id. ¶50.) The
`
`result is that, “in the subtracter output 𝑦(cid:4666)𝑘(cid:4667), the target signal is enhanced and unde-
`
`sirable signals such as ambient noise and interferences are suppressed.” (Ex. 1003,
`
`88-89.)
`
`The two virtual microphones have very different responses to the target
`
`speech signal: the first virtual microphone is designed to capture the target signal,
`
`while the second virtual microphone is designed to block it. (Ex. 1002 ¶51.) On the
`
`other hand, they have similar responses to noise so that in the final subtraction output
`
`the noise is removed. (Id.) This is illustrated in Figure 5.2, which shows the di-
`
`rectivity pattern for the final output of an example Griffiths-Jim beamformer:
`
`(Ex. 1003, 89, Fig. 5.2.) The horizontal axis of the graph shows direction of arrival
`9
`
`
`
`
`
`Meta Platforms, Inc. v. Jawbone Innovations, LLC
`IPR Petition – U.S. Patent 11,122,357
`measured in degrees relative to the microphone array: the target signal is shown at 0
`
`degrees, while the noise signal is shown at approximately 45 degrees. (Ex. 1002
`
`¶51.) The vertical axis of the graph shows gain in decibels: zero gain corresponds
`
`to no change in sound pressure or signal power, a positive gain corresponds to an
`
`increase in signal power, and a negative gain corresponds to a decrease in signal
`
`power. (Id.)
`
`As highlighted in green, the target signal is reproduced faithfully with essen-
`
`tially zero gain, reflecting that subtracting the second virtual microphone’s noise-
`
`only output from the first virtual microphone’s target-plus-noise output will produce
`
`the target signal in the direction of the target. (Id. ¶52.) On the other hand, as high-
`
`lighted in red, Figure 5.2 shows a highly negative gain in the direction of the inter-
`
`ference signal, reflecting that subtracting the two virtual microphones’ outputs can-
`
`cels the noise. (Id. ¶53; see also Ex. 1003, 90 (“In the direction of the target signal,
`
`almost constant gains close to 0 dB are obtained over a wide range of frequencies.
`
`On the contrary, in the direction of the interference, a deep null is formed.”).)
`
` Contemporaneously, Gannot Taught Adapting the GSC to
`Handle Arbitrary Transfer Functions.
`
`In August 2001, IEEE’s Transactions on Signal Processing publication
`
`(vol. 49, no. 8) included an article titled Signal Enhancement Using Beamforming
`
`and Nonstationarity with Applications to Speech by Sharon Gannot, David
`
`10
`
`
`
`Meta Platforms, Inc. v. Jawbone Innovations, LLC
`IPR Petition – U.S. Patent 11,122,357
`Burshtein, and Ehud Weinstein. (Ex. 1004 (“Gannot”).) As its title indicates, the
`
`article contemplates speech enhancement through beamforming. (Id.) Specifically,
`
`the article considers a sensor array “where arbitrary transfer functions (TFs) relate
`
`the source signal and the sensors.” (Id., 1614 (Abstract).) As an audio signal travels
`
`from its source to a microphone, the signal may change, such that the signal received
`
`at the microphone is not exactly the same as the signal when it originated from the
`
`source. (Ex. 1002 ¶55.) The acoustic path from the source to the microphone can
`
`be thought of as a system that brings about this change, and the operation of the
`
`acoustic path on the signal can be represented mathematically by a transfer function.
`
`(Id.)
`
`Gannot notes that the generalized sidelobe canceler (GSC) works well when
`
`the acoustic paths’ transfer functions satisfy certain criteria, such as when the signals
`
`received at the sensors “are simple delayed versions of the source signal.” (Ex. 1004,
`
`1614 (Abstract).) But the original Griffiths-Jim GSC may suppress interference
`
`poorly “in complicated acoustic environments, where arbitrary TFs [transfer func-
`
`tions] may be encountered.” (Id.) Gannot thus proposes a GSC solution adapted to
`
`handle arbitrary transfer functions. (Id.)
`
`11
`
`
`
`Meta Platforms, Inc. v. Jawbone Innovations, LLC
`IPR Petition – U.S. Patent 11,122,357
`Gannot’s Figure 3 shows the proposed GSC structure, and Figure 4 summa-
`
`rizes the algorithm:
`
`Ex. 1004, Fig. 3
`
`The blocking matrix ℋ(cid:2993) is used to create noise reference signals 𝑈(cid:3040) that apply the
`linear transfer functions 𝐴(cid:3040) of the acoustical paths:
`
`Ex. 1004, Fig. 4
`
`(Ex. 1004, 1618-20.) By incorporating these terms, Gannot’s more-general GSC
`
`accounts for arbitrary transfer functions. In particular, by using th