Case 6:21-cv-00984-ADA Document 65 Filed 06/21/22 Page 1 of 38
`
`JAWBONE INNOVATIONS, LLC,
`
`Case No. 6:21-cv-00984-ADA
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
`WACO DIVISION
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`
`v.
`
`APPLE, INC.,
`
`Defendant.
`
`
`
`*PUBLIC VERSION*
`
`JAWBONE INNOVATIONS, LLC’S
`RESPONSIVE CLAIM CONSTRUCTION BRIEF
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00984-ADA Document 65 Filed 06/21/22 Page 2 of 38
`
`
`I. 
`
`II. 
`
`III. 
`
`IV. 
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`Page(s)
`
`INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................................. 1 
`
`THE PATENTS-IN- SUIT ................................................................................................. 1 
`
`A. 
`
`B. 
`
`C. 
`
`D. 
`
`E. 
`
`F. 
`
`The ’091 Patent ....................................................................................................... 1 
`
`The ’058 Patent ....................................................................................................... 2 
`
`The ’072 Patent ....................................................................................................... 2 
`
`The ’543 Patent ....................................................................................................... 2 
`
`The ’213 and ’611 Patents ...................................................................................... 3 
`
`The ’691, ’080, and ’357 Patents ............................................................................ 3 
`
`LEGAL STANDARD ......................................................................................................... 3 
`
`DISPUTED TERMS ........................................................................................................... 5 
`
`A. 
`
`B. 
`
`C. 
`
`D. 
`
`E. 
`
`F. 
`
`G. 
`
`H. 
`
`“microphone” (’058 Patent, claim 1; ’543 Patent, claims 1, 8, 19, 20, 20,
`26) (proposed by Apple) ......................................................................................... 5 
`
`“the acoustic signals ” / “the acoustic signal received at the one receiver”
`/ “the acoustic signals received at each of the two receivers” (’058
`Patent, claim 1) (proposed by Apple) ..................................................................... 9 
`
`“transfer function” (’091 Patent, claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 9, 11, 15; ’357 Patent,
`claims 1, 15; ’080 Patent, claims 1, 14) (proposed by Jawbone) .......................... 13 
`
`“generating one transfer function of the at least two transfer functions . . .
`when the VAD indicates that user voice activity is present” (’091 Patent,
`claim 2) (proposed by Apple) ............................................................................... 16 
`
`“virtual microphone array” (’072 Patent, claim 1) (proposed by Apple) ............. 17 
`
`“acoustic noise” (proposed by Jawbone) and “less acoustic noise”
`(proposed by Apple) (’072 Patent, claims 1, 2, 9) ................................................ 19 
`
`“approximately similar” / “approximately, dissimilar” / “approximately
`dissimilar” (’213 Patent, claims 2, 37, 38; ’611 Patent, claim 3, 4, 29)
`(proposed by Apple) ............................................................................................. 20 
`
`“a relationship for speech” (’213 Patent claims 14, 42; ’611 Patent claim
`1) (proposed by Apple) ......................................................................................... 25 
`
`i
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00984-ADA Document 65 Filed 06/21/22 Page 3 of 38
`
`I. 
`
`J. 
`
`“. . . substantially similar/dissimilar. . .” (’691 Patent, claims 1, 23, 27,
`28, 29, 41; ’080 Patent, claims 1, 14; ’357 Patent, claims 1, 15)
`(proposed by Apple) ............................................................................................. 27 
`
`“apply a varying linear transfer function between the first and second
`microphone signals” (’357 Patent, claims 1, 15) (proposed by Apple) ................ 30 
`
`CONCLUSION ................................................................................................................. 31 
`
`V. 
`
`
`
`ii
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00984-ADA Document 65 Filed 06/21/22 Page 4 of 38
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`
`
`Page(s)
`
`Cases
`
`3M Innovative Props. Co. v. Avery Dennison Corp.,
`350 F.3d 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2003)................................................................................................19
`
`August Tech. Corp. v. Camtek, Ltd.,
`655 F.3d 1278 (Fed. Cir. 2011)..................................................................................................3
`
`Carnegie Steel Co. v. Cambria Iron Co.,
`185 U.S. 403 (1902) .................................................................................................................24
`
`Cohesive Techs., Inc. v. Waters Corp.,
`543 F.3d 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2008)........................................................................................ passim
`
`Comark Commc’ns, Inc. v. Harris Corp.,
`156 F.3d 1182 (Fed. Cir. 1998)..................................................................................................7
`
`Cont’l Circuits LLC v. Intel Corp.,
`915 F.3d 788 (Fed. Cir. 2019)....................................................................................................8
`
`Deere & Co. v. Bush Hog, LLC,
`703 F.3d 1349 (Fed. Cir. 2012)................................................................................................27
`
`Deering Precision Instruments, L.L.C. v. Vector Distr. Sys., Inc.,
`347 F.3d 1314 (Fed. Cir. 2003)................................................................................................28
`
`Eli Lilly & Co. v. Teva Pharms Int’l GmbH,
`8 F.4th 1331 (Fed. Cir. 2021) ..................................................................................................10
`
`Energizer Holdings, Inc. v. Int’l Trade Comm’n,
`435 F.3d 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2006)................................................................................................12
`
`Ferring B.V. v. Watson Labs., Inc.-(FL),
`2013 WL 499158 (D. Nev. Feb. 6, 2013), aff’d, 764 F.3d 1382 (Fed. Cir.
`2014) ........................................................................................................................................21
`
`Ferring B.V. v. Watson Labs., Inc-Fla.,
`764 F.3d 1382 (Fed. Cir. 2014)................................................................................................21
`
`Geodynamics, Inc. v. Dynaenergetics US, Inc.,
`No. 2:15-CV-1546-RSP, 2016 WL 6217181 (E.D. Tex. Oct. 25, 2016) ...........................29, 30
`
`Hill-Rom Servs., Inc. v. Stryker Corp.,
`755 F.3d 1367 (Fed. Cir. 2014)........................................................................................4, 5, 31
`
`iii
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00984-ADA Document 65 Filed 06/21/22 Page 5 of 38
`
`Innogenetics, N.V. v. Abbot Labs.,
`512 F.3d 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2008)..............................................................................................7, 9
`
`Markman v. Westview Instruments, Inc.,
`52 F.3d 967 (Fed. Cir. 1995)......................................................................................................3
`
`Modine Mfg. Co. v. U.S. Int’l Trade Comm’n,
`75 F.3d 1545 (Fed. Cir. 1996)..................................................................................................29
`
`N. Am. Vaccine, Inc. v. Am. Cyanamid Co.,
`7 F.3d 1571 (Fed. Cir. 1993)......................................................................................................9
`
`Nautilus, Inc. v. Biosig Instr., Inc.,
`572 U.S. 898 (2014) ...................................................................................................................4
`
`Neodron, Ltd. v. Fujitsu Am., Inc.,
`No. 2:20-cv-00239-JRG-RSP, 2021 WL 2646214 (E.D. Tex. Jun. 28, 2021) ................ passim
`
`Par Pharm., Inc. v. Hospira, Inc.,
`835 Fed. App’x 578 (Fed. Cir. 2020) ............................................................................... passim
`
`Phillips v. AWH Corp.,
`415 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc) .................................................................................4
`
`Playtex Prods., Inc. v. Proctor & Gamble Co.,
`400 F.3d 901 (Fed. Cir. 2005)....................................................................................................7
`
`SRI Int’l v. Matsushita Elec. Corp. of Am.,
`775 F.2d 1107 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (en banc) ...............................................................................18
`
`Superguide Corp. v. DirecTV Enters., Inc.,
`358 F.3d 870 (Fed. Cir. 2004)..................................................................................................18
`
`Thorner v. Sony Comput. Ent. Am. LLC,
`669 F.3d 1362 (Fed. Cir. 2012)..................................................................................................4
`
`U.S. Well Servs., Inc. v. Halliburton Co.,
`No. 6:21-CV-00367-ADA, 2022 WL 819548 (W.D. Tex. Jan. 17, 2022) ........................24, 30
`
`Vitronics Corp. v. Conceptronic, Inc.,
`90 F.3d 1576 (Fed. Cir. 1996)....................................................................................................4
`
`Statutes
`
`35 U.S.C. §112 .................................................................................................................................4
`
`
`
`iv
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00984-ADA Document 65 Filed 06/21/22 Page 6 of 38
`
`Pursuant to the Court’s Scheduling Order (Dkt. 23), Plaintiff Jawbone Innovations, LLC
`
`(“Jawbone”) hereby submits its Responsive Claim Construction Brief in response to Defendant
`
`Apple Inc. (“Apple”)’s Opening Brief (Dkt. 54, “Apple Br.”). The asserted patents are U.S. Patent
`
`Nos. 8,019,091 (the “’091 Patent”), 7,246,058 (the “’058 Patent”), 8,280,072 (the “’072 Patent”),
`
`8,321,213 (the “’213 Patent”), 8,326,611 (the “’611 Patent”), 10,779,080 (the “’080 Patent”),
`
`11,122,357 (the “’357 Patent”), 8,467,543 (the “’543 Patent”), and 8,503,691 (the “’691 Patent”)
`
`(together, the “Asserted Patents”).
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`Apple ignores the disclosures of the Asserted Patents to argue that multiple, plainly
`
`understandable limitations are indefinite. Even where Apple has proposed constructions, those
`
`constructions import limitations from the specification and attempt to limit the claims to the
`
`disclosed embodiments. The Court should reject Apple’s indefiniteness arguments and
`
`unsupported constructions and adopt Jawbone’s proposals.
`
`II.
`
`THE PATENTS-IN- SUIT
`
`Jawbone is a pioneer in audio processing technology. The Asserted Patents in this case
`
`stem from the groundbreaking work of Dr. Gregory Burnett, named inventor on every Asserted
`
`Patent, and his coworkers. The patented inventions all generally relate to noise suppression in
`
`acoustic signal processing.
`
`A.
`
`The ’091 Patent
`
`The ’091 Patent generally relates to accomplishing noise suppression in a multiple
`
`microphone system using a Voice Activity Detector (VAD). (’091 Patent, Abstract.) The system
`
`receives acoustic signals from microphones, as well as voicing information (such as the vibration
`
`of human tissue) from the VAD. (Id.) By using that information, the system can generate a transfer
`
`function that characterizes the received acoustic signals, while the VAD indicates that the user is
`
` 
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00984-ADA Document 65 Filed 06/21/22 Page 7 of 38
`
`not talking. (Id.) Using that transfer function, the system can remove environmental noise while
`
`the user is speaking, resulting in denoised, cleaned speech. (Id.)
`
`B.
`
`The ’058 Patent
`
`The ’058 Patent relates to “detecting voiced and unvoiced speech in acoustic signals having
`
`varying levels of background noise.” (’058 Patent, Abstract.) In exemplary embodiments, “[t]he
`
`systems receive acoustic signals at two microphones, and generate difference parameters between
`
`the acoustic signals received at each of the two microphones. The difference parameters are
`
`representative of the relative difference in signal gain between portions of the received acoustic
`
`signals. The systems identify information of the acoustic signals as unvoiced speech when the
`
`difference parameters exceed a first threshold and identify information of the acoustic signals as
`
`voiced speech when the difference parameters exceed a second threshold. Further, embodiments
`
`of the systems include non-acoustic sensors that receive physiological information to aid in
`
`identifying voiced speech.” (Id.)
`
`C.
`
`The ’072 Patent
`
`The ’072 Patent claims methods for processing signals from microphone arrays to suppress
`
`noise. ’072 Patent, 2:38-40. In particular, the ’072 Patent seeks to generate signals that include less
`
`acoustic noise than the input acoustic signals. Id., 1:15-18, 2:38-47. The invention uses “an array
`
`of omnidirectional microphones to generate multiple virtual directional microphones for improved
`
`noise suppression.” See id., 10:56-11:21.
`
`D.
`
`The ’543 Patent
`
`The ’543 Patent generally relates to “[c]ommunication systems . . . which use a number of
`
`microphone configurations to receive acoustic signals of an environment. In exemplary
`
`embodiments, “[t]he microphone configurations include, for example, a two-microphone array
`
`including two unidirectional microphones, and a two-microphone array including one
`
`2
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00984-ADA Document 65 Filed 06/21/22 Page 8 of 38
`
`unidirectional microphone and one omnidirectional microphone. The communication systems also
`
`include Voice Activity Detection (VAD) devices to provide information of human voicing activity.
`
`Components of the communications systems receive the acoustic signals and voice activity signals
`
`and, in response, automatically generate control signals from data of the voice activity signals.
`
`Components of the communication systems use the control signals to automatically select a
`
`denoising method appropriate to data of frequency subbands of the acoustic signals. The selected
`
`denoising method is applied to the acoustic signals to generate denoised acoustic signals when the
`
`acoustic signal includes speech and noise.” ’543 Patent at Abstract.
`
`E.
`
`The ’213 and ’611 Patents
`
`The ’213 and ’611 Patents are generally directed to systems for acoustic voice activity
`
`detection and noise suppression. The patents disclose methods of detecting voice activity by
`
`combining signals of two different microphones and comparing the energy ratio of the two
`
`microphones’ signals to a threshold. ’213 Patent at Abstract; see also id. at 6:20-7:7.
`
`F.
`
`The ’691, ’080, and ’357 Patents
`
`The ’691, ’080, and ’357 Patents generally relate to “dual omnidirectional microphone
`
`array noise suppression.” The patents claim various aspects of performing noise suppression by
`
`using two microphones. The microphones have similar responses to noise, with dissimilar
`
`responses to speech. This allows the system to isolate the speech signal by subtracting the noise
`
`signal as received by the noise microphone. E.g., ’691 Patent at Abstract.
`
`III. LEGAL STANDARD
`
`Claim construction is a question of law to be decided by the Court. Markman v. Westview
`
`Instruments, Inc., 52 F.3d 967, 979 (Fed. Cir. 1995). In construing claim terms, courts begin with
`
`an examination of the claim language itself. August Tech. Corp. v. Camtek, Ltd., 655 F.3d 1278,
`
`1284 (Fed. Cir. 2011). The terms used in the claims are generally given their “ordinary and
`
`3
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00984-ADA Document 65 Filed 06/21/22 Page 9 of 38
`
`customary meaning.” Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1312 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc)
`
`(citations omitted). This is the meaning as understood by a person of ordinary skill in the art at the
`
`time of the invention. Id. at 1313. “There are only two exceptions” to the general rule that a claim
`
`term is given its plain and ordinary meaning: “1) when a patentee sets out a definition and acts as
`
`his own lexicographer, or 2) when the patentee disavows the full scope of a claim term either in
`
`the specification or during prosecution.” Thorner v. Sony Comput. Ent. Am. LLC, 669 F.3d 1362,
`
`1365 (Fed. Cir. 2012)); accord Hill-Rom Servs., Inc. v. Stryker Corp.¸ 755 F.3d 1367, 1371 (Fed.
`
`Cir. 2014) (“We depart from the plain and ordinary meaning of claim terms based on the
`
`specification in only two instances: lexicography and disavowal.”). Accordingly, “although the
`
`specification often describes very specific embodiments of the invention, [the Federal Circuit]
`
`ha[s] repeatedly warned against confining the claims to those embodiments.” Phillips, 415 F.3d at
`
`1323. That being said, a construction that excludes a preferred embodiment is “rarely, if ever,
`
`correct.” Vitronics Corp. v. Conceptronic, Inc., 90 F.3d 1576, 1583 (Fed. Cir. 1996).
`
`With regard to definiteness under 35 U.S.C. §112, the Supreme Court has explained that
`
`“absolute precision is unattainable” and “some modicum of uncertainty is the ’price of ensuring
`
`the appropriate incentives for innovation.’” Nautilus, Inc. v. Biosig Instr., Inc., 572 U.S. 898, 899
`
`(2014). Terms of degree and approximation are appropriate in patent claims, by using such a term
`
`a “patentee has brought what would otherwise be equivalents of a limitation into the literal scope
`
`of the claim.” Cohesive Techs., Inc. v. Waters Corp., 543 F.3d 1351, 1368 (Fed. Cir. 2008). Using
`
`a term of approximation “avoids a strict numerical boundary to the specified parameter.” Id. “The
`
`authorized extension beyond the stated numbers in the range is cabined to what ‘a person having
`
`ordinary skill in the art . . . would reasonably consider about . . .’ to encompass.” Par Pharm., Inc.
`
`v. Hospira, Inc., 835 Fed. App’x 578, 584 (Fed. Cir. 2020).
`
`4
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00984-ADA Document 65 Filed 06/21/22 Page 10 of 38
`Case 6:21-cv-00984-ADA Document 65 Filed 06/21/22 Page 10 of 38
`
`“When such a word of approximation is used, the parameter’s ‘range must be interpreted
`
`in its technological and stylistic context.” Neodron, Ltd. v. Fujitsu Am., Inc., No. 2:20-cv-00239-
`
`JRG-RSP, 2021 WL 2646214,at *6 (E.D. Tex. Jun. 28, 2021) (quoting Cohesive Techs., 543 F.3d
`
`at 1368. “Courts ‘must look to the purpose that the [approximate] limitation serves’ to determine
`
`the scope of the claimed variance indicated by the ’approximate’ language.” Jd. (quoting Cohesive
`
`Techs., 543 F.3d at 1368). As the Federal Circuit has explained, the approximate limitation should
`
`be construed to encompassstructures “which accomplish the function ofthe [limitation] described
`
`in the specification.” Jd. (quoting Cohesive Techs., 543 F.3d at 1370). “This functional approach
`
`is necessary and appropriate, because the deliberate imprecision inherent in the word ‘about’
`
`makes it impossible to ‘capture the essence’ of the claimed invention in strict numeric terms.”
`
`Cohesive Techs., 543 F.3d at 1370.
`
`IV.
`
`DISPUTED TERMS
`
`A.
`
`“microphone”(’058 Patent, claim 1; ’543 Patent, claims 1, 8, 19, 20,
`20, 26) (proposed by Apple)
`
`Term
`
`Jawbone’s Construction
`
`Apple’s Construction “microphone”
`
`Plain and ordinary meaning; no
`construction necessary
`
`Plain and ordinary meaning
`whichis “physical
`microphone”
`
`The term “microphone”is well-understood and can be applied without construction. Apple
`
`tacitly agrees and does not seek to provide a definition for the term “microphone”itself; instead,
`
`it imports an additionallimitation from the specification into the claims. By limiting “microphone”
`
`to physical microphone, Apple apparently seeks to manufacture a non-infringementposition that
`
`would exclude any beamformedorvirtual microphones. But Apple can point to no disclaimeror
`
`lexicography in the specification to justify its limitation; accordingly, the Court should reject
`
`Apple’s restrictive construction. E.g., Hill-Rom Servs., 755 F.3d at 1371 (“[W]e do not read
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00984-ADA Document 65 Filed 06/21/22 Page 11 of 38
`
`limitations from the embodiments in the specification into the claims. We depart from the plain
`
`and ordinary meaning of claim terms based on the specification in only two instances:
`
`lexicography and disavowal.”) (citation omitted).
`
`Apple points to no express definition or other lexicography that would limit the microphone
`
`to a physical one, as opposed to a virtual (e.g. beamformed) microphone which the specifications
`
`of the Asserted Patents clearly treat as a type of microphone. (Apple Br. at 4-8.) Indeed, there is
`
`no such definition within the specification and prosecution history of either patent. To the contrary,
`
`the ’543 Patent explicitly contemplates the use of unidirectional microphones, such as cardioid
`
`microphones which a POSITA would understand can be implemented either physically or
`
`virtually. ’543 Patent, Fig. 2. A POSITA would recognize that virtual microphones are a type of
`
`unidirectional microphone which commonly have cardioid or super-cardioid directivity patterns,
`
`as demonstrated by the disclosure of the related ’072 Patent. ’072 Patent at 3:46-48 (“The term
`
`“virtual microphones (VM)” or “virtual directional microphones” means a microphone constructed
`
`using two or more omnidirectional microphones and associated signal processing.”) Even to the
`
`extent virtual unidirectional microphones are not explicitly discussed in the ’543 Patent, a POSITA
`
`would certainly not understand them to be excluded from the meaning of directional microphone,
`
`particularly given the ’543 Patent’s discussion of directivity patterns frequently found in virtual
`
`microphones. Moreover, there is no disclaimer or other statement within the specification or
`
`prosecution history that limits the microphone of the ’058 or ’543 Patents to any particular
`
`microphone, much less a “physical microphone.” Indeed, Apple identifies no explicit definition in
`
`the specification of either patent. (Apple Br. at 4-8.) Instead, it points to various embodiments.
`
`(Id.) But none of those embodiments limit the claims. For example, the’543 Patent only uses the
`
`phrase “physical microphone” once, in the discussion of a physical microphone configuration.
`
`6
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00984-ADA Document 65 Filed 06/21/22 Page 12 of 38
`
`(E.g., ’543 Patent at 4:28-32 (“Thus, the use of these physical microphone configurations includes
`
`but is not limited to applications such as communications . . . .”).)1 Apple further cites to
`
`discussions where embodiments were constructed using “off-the-shelf microphones” and the ’543
`
`Patent’s list of various types of microphones, but again does not find any explicit limitation of the
`
`patent to those microphones. (Apple Br. at 5.) Stretching even further, Apple argues that the
`
`patents’ figures, which use a common picture of a microphone, somehow limit the claims to that
`
`picture. (Id.) But embodiments and figures do not limit the claims. Comark Commc’ns, Inc. v.
`
`Harris Corp., 156 F.3d 1182, 1187 (Fed. Cir. 1998) (“[E]mbodiments and examples appearing in
`
`the specification will not generally be read into the claims.”); Playtex Prods., Inc. v. Proctor &
`
`Gamble Co., 400 F.3d 901, 907-08 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (“By its reliance on the figures, the district
`
`court improperly limited claim 1 to a preferred embodiment. We have consistently advised against
`
`this approach to claim construction.”).
`
`Instead, the specification is clear that any type of microphone may be used. (’543 Patent at
`
`6:44-7:26 (discussing various types of microphones that can be used with the invention).) While
`
`the specifications do not specifically call out virtual (e.g. beamformed) microphones, they do not
`
`exclude such embodiments. Accordingly, the Court should not limit the claims to the described
`
`embodiments. Innogenetics, N.V. v. Abbot Labs., 512 F.3d 1363, 1370 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (“[A]s is
`
`well established, an applicant is not required to describe in the specification every conceivable and
`
`possible future embodiment of his invention.”).
`
`Apple next argues that the spatial orientations described in the ’543 Patent—though not
`
`the ’058 Patent—require that “microphone” be limited in both patents to “physical microphone.”
`
`(Apple Br. at 5-7.) Apple does not explain why or how a combination microphone composed of
`
`
`1 The ’058 Patent does not use the phrase “physical microphone” at all.
`
`7
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00984-ADA Document 65 Filed 06/21/22 Page 13 of 38
`
`multiple physical microphones would not be able to be “fixed at a first position relative to a mouth,
`
`wherein the first position orients a front of the first microphone towards the mouth.” (Apple Br. at
`
`5 (quoting ’543 Patent at cl. 1).) While an adaptive filter may be used to change directivity of
`
`virtual (e.g. beamformed) microphones, they are certainly capable of being aimed in a fixed
`
`direction. (See e.g. ’691 Patent at 11:7-20.)
`
`The ’058 Patent has no spatial orientations in its claims. Instead, Apple seeks to read in
`
`limitations from embodiments which are discussed in the specification. (Apple Br. at 6-7.) As
`
`discussed above, the embodiments do not limit the claims.
`
`Apple argues that one of skill in the art would not understand “microphone” to include
`
`virtual microphones because the term “virtual” does not appear in the specifications. (Apple Br. at
`
`7-8.) But as discussed above, the term “physical microphone” does not appear either. In any event,
`
`Jawbone does not seek to limit “microphone” to virtual microphones; instead, it asks the Court to
`
`give the term its full meaning which encompasses physical microphones, as well as virtual
`
`microphones, and other combination microphones.
`
`Apple further tries to rely on the parties’ agreed construction of “virtual microphone” as
`
`claimed in other Asserted Patents. (Id. at 8.) Apple cites no law that an agreed construction as to a
`
`term in one (or more) patents has any effect on the construction of a different term in a different
`
`patent.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`8
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00984-ADA Document 65 Filed 06/21/22 Page 14 of 38
`Case 6:21-cv-00984-ADA Document 65 Filed 06/21/22 Page 14 of 38
`
`||| e
`
`e E.g., N. Am. Vaccine, Inc. v. Am. Cyanamid Co., 7 F.3d 1571,
`
`1578 (Fed. Cir. 1993) (“There is no inconsistency between writing a paper(or giving a speech) on
`
`a particular embodiment of an invention and then claiming one’s invention more broadly in a
`
`patent application. Patents often teach embodiments notcarried out in the laboratory.”).
`
`claims can cover embodiments not known at the time of the invention. Jnnogenetics, N.V. v. Abbot
`
`Labs., 512 F.3d 1363, 1370 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (“[A]s is well established, an applicantis not required
`
`to describe in the specification every conceivable and possible future embodiment of his
`
`invention.”’).
`
`Finally, Apple relies on various extrinsic dictionary definitions. (Apple Br. at 8-9.) Those
`
`definitions, however, do not rule out an expansive view of “microphone”as including virtual or
`
`combination microphones, as demonstrated by the specifications of related patents.
`
`B.
`
`“the acoustic signals ” / “the acoustic signal received at the one
`receiver”/ “the acoustic signals received at each of the two
`receivers” (’058 Patent, claim 1) (proposed by Apple)
`
`Jawbone’s Construction
`
`Apple’s Construction
`
`“the acoustic signals” /|Plain and ordinary meaning; no Indefinite
`
`
`“the acoustic signal
`construction necessary
`received at the one
`receiver”/ “the acoustic
`signals received at each
`
`of the two receivers”
`
`These terms are not indefinite and need no construction. Claim 1 reads, in its entirety:
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00984-ADA Document 65 Filed 06/21/22 Page 15 of 38
`
`A system for detecting voiced and unvoiced speech in acoustic signals having
`varying levels of background noise, comprising:
`
`at least two microphones that receive the acoustic signals;
`
`at least one voicing sensor that receives physiological information associated with
`human voicing activity; and
`
`at least one processor coupled among the microphones and the voicing sensor,
`wherein the at least one processor;
`
`generates cross correlation data between the physiological information and an
`acoustic signal received at one of the two microphones;
`
`identifies information of the acoustic signals as voiced speech when the cross
`correlation data corresponding to a portion of the acoustic signal received at the
`one receiver exceeds a correlation threshold;
`
`generates difference parameters between the acoustic signals received at each of
`the two receivers, wherein the difference parameters are representative of the
`relative difference in signal gain between portions of the received acoustic signals;
`
`identifies information of the acoustic signals as unvoiced speech when the
`difference parameters exceed a gain threshold; and
`
`identifies information of the acoustic signals as noise when the difference
`parameters are less than the gain threshold.
`
`(’058 Patent, cl. 1 (emphasis added).)
`
`Apple first argues that “the acoustic signals” lack antecedent basis. (Apple Br. at 9-10.)
`
`But claim 1 of the ’058 Patent provides antecedent basis in its preamble (“A system for detecting
`
`voiced and unvoiced speech in acoustic signals having varying levels of background noise”). One
`
`of skill in the art would recognize this antecedent basis. (Brown Decl., ¶ 77.) It is well-settled that
`
`a preamble can provide antecedent basis. See, e.g., Eli Lilly & Co. v. Teva Pharms Int’l GmbH, 8
`
`F.4th 1331, 1343 (Fed. Cir. 2021) (holding that “administering to the individual” found antecedent
`
`basis in “treating . . . in an individual”).
`
`Apple next argues that the terms “the one receiver” and “the two receivers” are indefinite.
`
`(Apple Br. at 10-12.) Apple is wrong. The claim explains that “at least two microphones . . . receive
`
`10
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00984-ADA Document 65 Filed 06/21/22 Page 16 of 38
`
`the acoustic signals.” The microphones are the only elements in the claim that receive acoustic
`
`signals, and microphones are a type of receiver. (Brown Decl., ¶ 81.) Further, the “at least two
`
`microphones” has the same number of elements as the “two receivers.” (Id., ¶ 82.) Thus, one of
`
`skill in the art would understand that the at least two microphones are the “receivers.” (Brown
`
`Decl., ¶¶ 80-83.)
`
`When read in context of the claims, “one receiver” is definite and requires no construction.
`
`(Brown Decl., ¶¶ 84-91.) As noted above, the claim recites that the process “generates cross
`
`correlation data between the physiological information and an acoustic signal received at one of
`
`the two microphones.” The very next limitation recites “identifies information of the acoustic
`
`signals as voiced speech when the cross correlation data corresponding to a portion of the acoustic
`
`signal received at the one receiver exceeds a correlation threshold.” One of skill in the art reading
`
`the claim would understand that the “one receiver” that received an acoustic signal is the “one of
`
`the two microphones” that received an acoustic signal in the preceding limitation because the only
`
`cross correlation data recited in the claim is that generated in reference to the acoustic signal
`
`received at one of the two microphones. (Brown Decl., ¶ 87.) Moreover, the microphones are
`
`recited as receivers and the “one of the two microphones” is the only element recited as a single
`
`receiver that receives acoustic signals. (Brown Decl., ¶ 88.)
`
`Apple disingenuously states that “[a] person of skill would not be able to determine
`
`whether ‘the one receiver’ refers to one of the microphones, the voicing sensor, or the processor”
`
`because “[t]he microphones ‘receive’ signals, the voicing sensor ‘receives’ signals, and the
`
`processor is coupled to the microphones and the voicing sensor, i.e., it receives whatever the
`
`microphones and the voicing sensor receive.” (Apple Br. at 10.) But the claim does not recite the
`
`processor as receiving anything. (’058 Patent, cl. 1.) And the voicing sensor receives
`
`11
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00984-ADA Document 65 Filed 06/21/22 Page 17 of 38
`
`“physiological information,” not acoustic signals (or any other signal). (Id.) One of skill in the art
`
`would have no difficulty determining that the “one receiver” referred to the “one of the two
`
`microphones” that are the only structures which receive acoustic signals. (Brown Decl., ¶¶89-90.)
`
`Accordingly, the term is not indefinite. Energizer Holdings, Inc. v. Int’l Trade Comm’n, 435 F.3d
`
`1366, 1370-71 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (“When the meaning of the claim would reasonably be understood
`
`by persons of ordinary skill when read in light of the specification, the claim is not subject to
`
`invalidity upon departure from the protocol of ‘antecedent basis.’”).