`__________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`__________________________________________________________________
`
`
`
`SONY ELECTRONICS, INC.,
`
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`JAWBONE INNOVATIONS, LLC,
`
`Patent Owner.
`
`
`Patent No. 11,122,357
`Filing Date: August 5, 2013
`Issue Date: September 14, 2021
`
`Inventor: FORMING VIRTUAL MICROPHONE ARRAYS USING
`DUAL OMNIDIRECTIONAL MICROPHONE ARRAY (DOMA)
`
`
`
`__________________________________________________________________
`
`DECLARATION OF AKBAR M. SAYEED, Ph.D.
`
`Case No. IPR2023-01153
`__________________________________________________________________
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Jawbone's Exhibit No. 2002, IPR2023-01153
`Page 001
`
`
`
`INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................... 1
`A.
`Background and Qualifications ............................................................. 1
`COMPENSATION .......................................................................................... 6
`II.
`III. MATERIALS CONSIDERED ........................................................................ 6
`IV. LEGAL PRINCIPLES ..................................................................................... 7
`V.
`LEVEL OF SKILL IN THE ART ................................................................... 8
`VI. THE CLAIMED INVENTION OF THE ‘357 PATENT ............................... 8
`VII. THE ALLEGED PRIOR ART ......................................................................13
`A.
`Brandstein ............................................................................................ 13
`B.
`Gannot ................................................................................................. 14
`VIII. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION ..........................................................................14
`IX. PETITIONER’S COMBINATIONS DO NOT RENDER ANY
`CLAIM OBVIOUS ........................................................................................14
`A. GROUND 1: The Combination of Brandstein in view of
`Gannot Does Not Render Obvious Claims 1-20 ................................. 14
`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..............15
`CONCLUSION ..............................................................................................20
`
`
`I.
`
`X.
`
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`IPR2023-01153
`PATENT NO. 11,122,357
`
`Page(s)
`
`i
`
`Jawbone's Exhibit No. 2002, IPR2023-01153
`Page 002
`
`
`
`IPR2023-01153
`PATENT NO. 11,122,357
`
`I, Akbar M. Sayeed, declare as follows:
`
`1.
`
`I have been asked by counsel for Patent Owner, Jawbone Innovations,
`
`LLC (“Jawbone” or “Patent Owner”), to review U.S. Patent No. 11,122,357 (the
`
`“’357 Patent”) entitled FORMING VIRTUAL MICROPHONE ARRAYS USING
`
`DUAL OMNIDIRECTIONAL MICROPHONE ARRAY (DOMA), and to provide
`
`my technical review, analysis, insights, and opinions regarding the ’357 Patent in
`
`view of the prior art cited by Petitioner Sony Electronics, Inc. (“Sony” or
`
`“Petitioner”). I submit this declaration in support of Patent Owner’s Preliminary
`
`Response in this IPR proceeding. I have personal knowledge of the matters stated
`
`herein and would be competent to testify to them if required.
`
`2.
`
`I have been retained on behalf of Jawbone for the above-captioned inter
`
`partes review proceeding. I understand that the ‘357 Patent is currently assigned to
`
`Jawbone.
`
`3.
`
`I am over 18 years of age. I have personal knowledge of the facts stated
`
`in this Declaration and could testify competently if asked to do so.
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`A. Background and Qualifications
`I have reviewed and am familiar with the specification of the ‘357
`4.
`
`Patent. I understand the ’357 Patent has been provided as Exhibit 1001. I will cite
`
`to the specification using the following format: ’357 Patent at col.:line.
`
`1
`
`Jawbone's Exhibit No. 2002, IPR2023-01153
`Page 003
`
`
`
`IPR2023-01153
`PATENT NO. 11,122,357
`
`5. My CV is being submitted simultaneously herewith (Ex. 2003).
`
`6.
`
`I received my B.S. degree in Electrical and Computer Engineering
`
`(ECE) from the University of Wisconsin-Madison in 1991. I received my M.S. and
`
`Ph.D. degrees in ECE from the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign in 1993
`
`and 1996, respectively. In my undergraduate and graduate studies, I look a variety
`
`of courses generally focusing on the areas of signal processing, communication
`
`theory, information theory, electromagnetics and antennas, and statistical techniques
`
`in signal processing and communications. My Ph.D. dissertation was entitled
`
`“Statistical Time-Frequency Analysis” in which I proposed new framework for
`
`statistical signal processing using time-frequency representations, mathematical
`
`tools that extend the powerful theory of Fourier transforms and Fourier analysis to
`
`time-varying signals and systems.
`
`7.
`
`I currently work as an Independent Researcher, Engineer and Technical
`
`Consultant, and worked as professor of Electrical and Computer Engineering at the
`
`University of Wisconsin-Madison from 1997-2021, where I directed the Wireless
`
`Communications and Sensing Laboratory until my retirement on August 1, 2021 to
`
`pursue a career as an independent researcher and consultant.
`
`8. My current work as an independent researcher and consultant spans
`
`STEM (science, technology, engineering & mathematics) fields through the lens of
`
`2
`
`Jawbone's Exhibit No. 2002, IPR2023-01153
`Page 004
`
`
`
`IPR2023-01153
`PATENT NO. 11,122,357
`
`information science and technology. My STEM skills and experience cover a broad
`
`range of areas, including:
`
`• Wireless technologies for sensing, processing and communication of
`
`information (5G/6G/XG), internet of things, and emerging technologies
`
`for untapped spectrum (e.g., millimeter-wave, THz).
`
`• Sensing and acquisition of data
`
`in new modalities
`
`through
`
`technological innovation.
`
`• Machine learning and statistical techniques for extracting useful
`
`information from data.
`
`• Quantum information science and technology (computing, sensing and
`
`communication) spanning foundational concepts, algorithms, and
`
`platforms.
`
`• Conception, design and development of new information technologies
`
`through basic theory, computational modeling, and hybrid software-
`
`hardware prototyping and experimentation.
`
`9.
`
`I have written/co-written 200+ papers in leading journals and
`
`conferences. I am an inventor/co-inventor of 10 patents.
`
`10. After receiving my Ph.D. in 1996, I spent a year at Rice University as
`
`a postdoctoral research fellow where I expanded the scope of my research to the
`
`growing field of wireless communications that underpins much of mobile cellular
`
`3
`
`Jawbone's Exhibit No. 2002, IPR2023-01153
`Page 005
`
`
`
`IPR2023-01153
`PATENT NO. 11,122,357
`
`technology. In particular, the propagation channels encountered in mobile cellular
`
`communication are inherently time-varying in nature and that provided a natural
`
`connection to my Ph.D. research. After spending a year at Rice University, I
`
`accepted a position as an Assistant Professor in the ECE Department at the
`
`University of Wisconsin-Madison in 1997. I was granted tenure and promoted to
`
`Associate Professor in 2003, and was promoted to Professor in 2008.
`
`11.
`
`I founded and directed the Wireless Communication and Sensing
`
`Laboratory at UW-Madison and engaged in research, teaching and innovation in the
`
`basic science, engineering, and
`
`technology of sensing, processing, and
`
`communication of information. In particular, I led a team in the conception, design,
`
`development and successful demonstration of a state-of-the-art prototype for multi-
`
`beam MIMO (multiple input multiple output) communication at 28 GHz based on
`
`the concept of a lens array that I had pioneered.
`
`12.
`
`I co-founded and co-led the NSF-sponsored Research Coordination
`
`Network (RCN) on millimeter-wave wireless (2016-2019) for bringing together
`
`researchers from academia, industry, and government agencies to address critical
`
`technical challenges in the area.
`
`13. From 2017-2019 I served as a Program director in the Electrical,
`
`Communications, and Cyber Systems (ECCS) Division of the Directorate of
`
`Engineering at the National Science Foundation. At the NSF, I managed existing
`
`4
`
`Jawbone's Exhibit No. 2002, IPR2023-01153
`Page 006
`
`
`
`IPR2023-01153
`PATENT NO. 11,122,357
`
`programs and initiated new research programs involving sensing, processing, and
`
`communication of information in all possible physical modalities, architectures, and
`
`technologies, including quantum information science and engineering. I actively
`
`contributed to three NSF-wide working groups: Electromagnetic Spectrum
`
`Management (ESM) working group, and the working groups of two of the 10 NSF
`
`Big Ideas: i) Quantum Leap and ii) Harnessing the Data Revolution. In particular, I
`
`co-led the team that developed the NSF solicitation for Quantum Leap Challenge
`
`Institutes (Feb 2019) in response to the National Quantum Initiative (NQI) Act
`
`signed in December 2018.
`
`14.
`
`I have a demonstrated history (25 yrs.) of leading an interdisciplinary
`
`research and development group at the forefront of foundational and technological
`
`innovations in wireless communication and sensing. Physics-based accurate and
`
`computationally tractable system modeling has been a key underlying theme in my
`
`work, spanning communication & sensor networks, multipath propagation over
`
`highly dynamic environments, wideband MIMO systems, mm-wave and THz
`
`wireless, and prototype development (hardware & software).
`
`15. My technical background, experience and skills are directly relevant to
`
`the subject matter in this case. The modeling, analysis and processing of information
`
`bearing signals and waves, including transmission and reception through antennas
`
`and antenna arrays, and propagation over channels, has been an underlying theme
`
`5
`
`Jawbone's Exhibit No. 2002, IPR2023-01153
`Page 007
`
`
`
`IPR2023-01153
`PATENT NO. 11,122,357
`
`throughout my career. In particular, I have extensive experience in the conception,
`
`modeling, development and analysis of techniques and algorithms for processing
`
`and filtering of signals from an array of sensors or antennas, including beamforming,
`
`interference and noise suppression, and adaptive filtering methods. While most of
`
`my work has focused on electromagnetic signals, the underlying physics and
`
`mathematics are very similar to acoustic signals.
`
`II. COMPENSATION
`16. My compensation for time worked on this proceeding is not dependent
`
`on any issues related to the ’357 Patent, the outcome of this proceeding, or the
`
`substance of my opinions. My compensation for time worked on this proceeding is
`
`at my customary rate of $200 per hour. I have no financial interest in, or affiliation
`
`with, the Patent Owner or any of the real parties in interest.
`
`III. MATERIALS CONSIDERED
`In providing my technical review, analysis, insights, and opinions, I
`17.
`
`have considered the ‘357 Patent and its prosecution history.
`
`18.
`
`I have also considered the Petition filed by the Petitioner in this
`
`proceeding and the relevant exhibits relied on by Petitioner, including the expert
`
`declaration submitted by Richard M. Stern, Ph.D. (“Ex. 1002”).
`
`6
`
`Jawbone's Exhibit No. 2002, IPR2023-01153
`Page 008
`
`
`
`IPR2023-01153
`PATENT NO. 11,122,357
`
`19.
`
`I have also considered my own experience and knowledge, as discussed
`
`above and described more fully in my CV, in areas including signal processing,
`
`electrical engineering, and other related technologies.
`
`IV. LEGAL PRINCIPLES
`I understand that a patent claim is unpatentable as “obvious” if the
`20.
`
`subject matter of the claim as a whole would have been obvious to a person of
`
`ordinary skill in the art (POSITA) as of the time of the invention at issue.
`
`21.
`
`I understand that the use of “the person of ordinary skill” rubric is to
`
`prevent one from improperly, in the present day, using hindsight to decide whether
`
`a claim is obvious.
`
`22.
`
`I understand that the following factors must be evaluated to determine
`
`whether the claimed subject matter is obvious: (1) the scope and content of the prior
`
`art; (2) the difference or differences, if any, between the scope of the patent claim
`
`and the scope of the prior art; and (3) the level of ordinary skill in the art at the time
`
`of the invention.
`
`23.
`
`I understand that certain secondary considerations, such as commercial
`
`success, skepticism of experts, surprise, and copying, may provide evidence of non-
`
`obviousness. I further understand that such considerations are often the most
`
`probative and determinative of obviousness or non-obviousness.
`
`7
`
`Jawbone's Exhibit No. 2002, IPR2023-01153
`Page 009
`
`
`
`IPR2023-01153
`PATENT NO. 11,122,357
`
`24.
`
`I understand that I must construe a claim in accordance with the
`
`ordinary and customary meaning of the language of such claim as understood by one
`
`of ordinary skill in the art and the prosecution history pertaining to the patent.
`
`V. LEVEL OF SKILL IN THE ART
`I understand that I should perform my analysis from the viewpoint of a
`25.
`
`person of ordinary skill in the art. I understand that this hypothetical person of
`
`ordinary skill in the art is considered to have the normal skills of a person in a certain
`
`technical field. I understand that factors that may be considered in determining the
`
`level of ordinary skill in the art include: (1) the education level of the inventor;
`
`(2) the types of problems encountered in the art; (3) the prior art solutions to those
`
`problems; (4) rapidity with which innovations are made; (5) the sophistication of the
`
`technology; and (6) the education level of active workers in the field.
`
`26.
`
`In my opinion, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have 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 can substitute
`
`for formal education and additional formal education can substitute for work
`
`experience.
`
`VI. THE CLAIMED INVENTION OF THE ‘357 PATENT
`
`8
`
`Jawbone's Exhibit No. 2002, IPR2023-01153
`Page 010
`
`
`
`IPR2023-01153
`PATENT NO. 11,122,357
`
`27.
`
`I have reviewed the ‘357 Patent, entitled FORMING VIRTUAL
`
`MICROPHONE
`
`ARRAYS
`
`USING
`
`DUAL
`
`OMNIDIRECTIONAL
`
`MICROPHONE ARRAY (DOMA) (Ex. 1001). It issued on September 14, 2021,
`
`and was filed on August 5, 2013.
`
`28. 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., 1:60-62. 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 allows them to be cancelled
`
`while leaving the speech response intact, “resulting in excellent noise suppression
`
`performance and minimal speech removal and distortion.” Id. at 8:16-18.
`
`9
`
`Jawbone's Exhibit No. 2002, IPR2023-01153
`Page 011
`
`
`
`IPR2023-01153
`PATENT NO. 11,122,357
`
`29. 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 12:20, 11:7. 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.
`
`30.
`
`In the analog frequency domain, the equations for V1 and V2 are written
`
`as follows:
`
`
`
`
`
`.
`
`where 𝑧𝑧=𝑒𝑒𝑗𝑗2𝜋𝜋𝜋𝜋and 𝜏𝜏= 𝑑𝑑2− 𝑑𝑑1𝑐𝑐
`
`31. The configuration of the ‘357 Patent circuit according to these
`
`equations can be shown as follows:
`
`10
`
`Jawbone's Exhibit No. 2002, IPR2023-01153
`Page 012
`
`
`
`IPR2023-01153
`PATENT NO. 11,122,357
`
`
`
`‘357 Patent Circuit
`
`In this diagram, the signals from omnidirectional microphones O1 and O2 first pass
`
`through a gain with a value of β or 1 (i.e., no gain) and then pass through a delay τ
`
`or 0 (i.e., no delay). I refer to the four lines of the circuit throughout this declaration
`
`as the first, second, third and fourth lines. In this circuit, the first and third lines are
`
`summed to form virtual microphone V1, and the second and fourth lines are summed
`
`to form the virtual microphone V2.
`
`32. 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.
`
`33. 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:
`
`11
`
`Jawbone's Exhibit No. 2002, IPR2023-01153
`Page 013
`
`
`
`IPR2023-01153
`PATENT NO. 11,122,357
`
`‘357 Patent, 11:44-49, 12:44-48, Figs. 10, 12.
`
`34. 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:
`
`
`
`
`
`‘357 Patent, 11:40-42, 12:39-41, Figs 9,11.
`
`35. 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.,
`
`11:42-44. 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
`
`12
`
`Jawbone's Exhibit No. 2002, IPR2023-01153
`Page 014
`
`
`
`IPR2023-01153
`PATENT NO. 11,122,357
`
`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., 11:58-60. 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.
`
`VII. THE ALLEGED PRIOR ART
`A. Brandstein
`I have reviewed Microphone Arrays: Signal Processing Techniques and
`36.
`
`Applications, (Ex. 1003, “Brandstein”) (Ex. 1003). Brandstein is a collection of
`
`papers discussing topics in microphone arrays. Ex. 1003 at 5. Brandstein purports
`
`to have been published in 2001. Id. at 4.
`
`37. Petitioner primarily
`
`relies on
`
`the paper “Robust Adaptive
`
`Beamforming” as reproduced in Brandstein as Chapter 5. As discussed in detail infra
`
`Section IX.A.1, the Griffiths-Jim beamformer (GJBF) described in that paper
`
`operates by attenuating noise while passing speech through a top path and by
`
`attenuating speech while passing noise through a bottom path. Brandstein’s GJBF
`
`achieves noise suppression by using a multiple input canceller (“MC”) to subtract
`
`certain components of the noise signal from a top path that already has an attenuated
`
`noise response. This is fundamentally different than the invention of the ‘357 Patent,
`
`which operates using a first virtual mic pass through capture both speech and noise
`
`13
`
`Jawbone's Exhibit No. 2002, IPR2023-01153
`Page 015
`
`
`
`IPR2023-01153
`PATENT NO. 11,122,357
`
`in combination with a second virtual microphone that has a substantially similar
`
`response to noise, such that the noise may be cancelled.
`
`B. Gannot
`I have reviewed Signal Enhancement Using Beamforming and
`38.
`
`Nonstationarity with Applications to Speech by Sharon Gannot, David Burshtein,
`
`and Ehud Weinstein (Ex. 1004, “Gannot”). 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, Abstract.
`
`VIII. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
`I understand that Petitioner claims to have applied the plain and
`39.
`
`ordinary meaning of the claims terms as they would have been understood by a
`
`POSITA, consistent with the ‘357 Patent’s disclosure and prosecution history. For
`
`my analysis, I have considered each claim term and applied its plain and ordinary
`
`meaning consistent with the ‘357 Patent’s disclosure and prosecution history.
`
`IX. PETITIONER’S COMBINATIONS DO NOT RENDER ANY
`CLAIM OBVIOUS
`A. GROUND 1: The Combination of Brandstein in view of
`Gannot Does Not Render Obvious Claims 1-20
`In my opinion, the combination of Brandstein and Gannot does not
`
`40.
`
`render claims 1-20 of the ‘357 Patent obvious.
`
`14
`
`Jawbone's Exhibit No. 2002, IPR2023-01153
`Page 016
`
`
`
`IPR2023-01153
`PATENT NO. 11,122,357
`
`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.
`41. The Petition argues that Brandstein discloses this limitation, and does
`
`not otherwise argue that it is inherent or obvious in view of Gannot. I disagree that
`
`Brandstein discloses “wherein the first virtual microphone and the second virtual
`
`microphone are distinct virtual directional microphones with substantially similar
`
`responses to noise.”
`
`42.
`
` Unlike the invention of the ‘357 Patent which contemplates a first
`
`virtual microphone that captures both speech and noise, the top branch of the GJBF
`
`discussed in the cited portions of Brandstein captures speech while suppressing as
`
`much noise as possible, while the bottom branch captures as much noise as possible
`
`while suppressing speech. Brandstein 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
`
`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)
`
`15
`
`Jawbone's Exhibit No. 2002, IPR2023-01153
`Page 017
`
`
`
`IPR2023-01153
`PATENT NO. 11,122,357
`
`suppresses speech and passes noise through. Brandstein’s design is therefore
`
`consistent with the type of “conventional arrays and algorithms, which seek to
`
`reduce noise by nulling out noise sources” that the ‘357 Patent itself distinguishes.
`
`Ex. 1001 at 5:10-11. Brandstein’s implementation 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
`
`POSITA would understand that a virtual microphone that attenuates noise does not
`
`have a “substantially similar” noise response to one that passes noise through.
`
`
`
`43.
`
`I understand that Petitioner and Dr. Stern argue 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 at ¶95. I disagree. The
`
`ultimate result of cancelling noise in “the final output of an example Griffiths-Jim
`
`beamformer” does not disclose (or even suggest) that the noise responses of a first
`
`and second virtual microphone must be substantially similar. A POSITA would not
`
`leap to any such conclusion, particularly given that the cited portions of Brandstein
`
`teach a contrary means of noise suppression. The Petition’s obviousness analysis is
`
`based on a hindsight reverse engineering of the noise suppression device of the ‘357
`
`Patent. Brandstein states that it uses a “multiple input canceller” (“MC”) which
`
`16
`
`Jawbone's Exhibit No. 2002, IPR2023-01153
`Page 018
`
`
`
`IPR2023-01153
`PATENT NO. 11,122,357
`
`“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.”
`
`44.
`
`I understand that Petitioner and Dr. Stern argue 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 27-28. Petitioner and Dr. Stern further argue that “[t]he deep null reflects that
`
`subtracting the two virtual microphones’ outputs cancels the interference, which
`
`
`
`17
`
`Jawbone's Exhibit No. 2002, IPR2023-01153
`Page 019
`
`
`
`IPR2023-01153
`PATENT NO. 11,122,357
`
`confirms that the virtual microphones’ responses to the interference are similar.” Dr.
`
`Stern’s declaration at ¶97, Pet. at 28-29. But Figure 5.2 does not support Petitioner’s
`
`assertions. 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, with the
`
`bottom path also including processing by the “multiple input canceler”), 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).
`
`This reflects the overall result of the system in attenuating noise; a POSITA would
`
`not understand this figure to disclose anything about the comparative responses to
`
`noise of the top or bottom path within that system (which are not even depicted in
`
`the figure). In any case, as discussed above, 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.
`
`45. Brandstein’s Figure 5.3, which actually depicts the directivity of the
`
`cited GJBF’s top and bottom path unlike Figure 5.2, further shows that their
`
`responses to noise are not substantially similar. I have highlighted the noise response
`
`of each plot in green. A POSITA would plainly understand that these responses are
`
`not substantially similar.
`
`18
`
`Jawbone's Exhibit No. 2002, IPR2023-01153
`Page 020
`
`
`
`IPR2023-01153
`PATENT NO. 11,122,357
`
`
`
`I therefore conclude that Brandstein 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.” In fact, the
`
`discussion in Chapter 5 of Branstein provides only a high-level review of the
`
`Griffiths-Jim beamformer (GJBF), listed on page 91 of Ex 1003 (Brandstein),
`
`primarily in the context of at addressing the “robustness problem” in the GJBF
`
`arising from “target-signal leakage”. As Chapter 5 does not disclose equations for
`
`the GJBF discussed in section 5.2, Fig. 5.3 would provide a POSITA’s only
`
`understanding of the actual noise responses of its FBF and BM outside of the above-
`
`cited disclosure that noise is attenuated in its FBF and not in its BM. This would
`
`further support a POSITA’s understanding that the top and bottom branches of
`
`Brandstein’s GJBF do not have substantially similar responses to noise.
`
`19
`
`Jawbone's Exhibit No. 2002, IPR2023-01153
`Page 021
`
`
`
`IPR2023-01153
`PATENT NO. 11,122,357
`
`X. CONCLUSION
`In signing this declaration, I recognize that the declaration will be filed
`46.
`
`as evidence in a contested case before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board of the
`
`United States Patent and Trademark Office. I also recognize that I may be subject
`
`to cross-examination in the case and that cross-examination will take place within
`
`the United States. If cross-examination is required of me, I will appear for cross-
`
`examination within the United States during the time allotted for cross-examination.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`20
`
`Jawbone's Exhibit No. 2002, IPR2023-01153
`Page 022
`
`
`
`IPR2023-01153
`PATENT NO. 11,122,357
`
`I hereby declare that all statements made herein of my own knowledge are
`
`true and that all statements made on information and belief are believed to be true;
`
`and further that these statements were made with the knowledge that willful false
`
`statements and the like so made are punishable by fine or imprisonment, or both,
`
`under Section 1001 of Title 18 of the United States Code.
`
`
`
`Executed this 16th day of October, 2023
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`
`
`Akbar M Sayeed
`
`________________________
`
`21
`
`Jawbone's Exhibit No. 2002, IPR2023-01153
`Page 023
`
`