throbber
Case 6:23-cv-00158-ADA Document 72-1 Filed 04/24/24 Page 1 of 65
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
`WACO DIVISION
`
`
`
`
`
`JAWBONE INNOVATIONS, LLC,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`
`META PLATFORMS, INC. d/b/a META,
`
`Defendant.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Civil Action No. 6:23-cv-00158-
`ADA
`
`
`
`JURY TRIAL
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`DECLARATION OF AKBAR M. SAYEED, PH.D. IN SUPPORT OF
`PLAINTIFF JAWBONE INNOVATIONS, LLC’S MARKMAN BRIEF
`
`I, Akbar M. Sayeed, do hereby declare as follows:
`
`1.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`1.
`
`I have been retained by Fabricant LLP., counsel for Jawbone Innovations, LLC
`
`(“Jawbone”), as an expert in the lawsuit captioned above.
`
`2.
`
`I have reviewed U.S. Patent Nos. 10,779,080, 11,122,357, 8,321,213, 8,326,611,
`
`and 8,503,691 (the “Asserted Patents” or “Patents-in-Suit”), the prosecution file
`
`history for the Patents-in-Suit, and the parties’ proposed claim construction of the
`
`terms of the Patents-in-Suit. I have also reviewed the declaration of Cliff Reader,
`
`Ph.D submitted with Meta’s opening claim construction brief.
`
`2.
`
`QUALIFICATIONS
`
`3.
`
`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 took a variety of courses
`
`-1-
`
`

`

`Case 6:23-cv-00158-ADA Document 72-1 Filed 04/24/24 Page 2 of 65
`
`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.
`
`4.
`
`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.
`
`5.
`
`My current work as an independent researcher and consultant spans STEM
`
`(science, technology, engineering & mathematics) fields through the lens of
`
`information science and technology. My STEM skills and experience cover a broad
`
`range of areas, including:
`
`6.
`
`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).
`
`7.
`
`Sensing and acquisition of data in new modalities through technological
`
`innovation.
`
`8.
`
`Machine learning and statistical techniques for extracting useful information from
`
`data.
`
`-2-
`
`

`

`Case 6:23-cv-00158-ADA Document 72-1 Filed 04/24/24 Page 3 of 65
`
`9.
`
`Quantum
`
`information science and
`
`technology (computing, sensing, and
`
`communication) spanning foundational concepts, algorithms, and platforms.
`
`10.
`
`Conception, design, and development of new information technologies through
`
`basic theory, computational modeling, and hybrid software-hardware prototyping
`
`and experimentation.
`
`11.
`
`I have written/co-written 200+ papers in leading journals and conferences. I am an
`
`inventor/co-inventor of 10 patents.
`
`12.
`
`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 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.
`
`13.
`
`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.
`
`-3-
`
`

`

`Case 6:23-cv-00158-ADA Document 72-1 Filed 04/24/24 Page 4 of 65
`
`14.
`
`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.
`
`15.
`
`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 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.
`
`16.
`
`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).
`
`17. My technical background, experience and skills are directly relevant to the subject
`
`-4-
`
`

`

`Case 6:23-cv-00158-ADA Document 72-1 Filed 04/24/24 Page 5 of 65
`
`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
`
`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.
`
`
`
`3.
`
`COMPENSATION
`
`18. My compensation for time worked on this proceeding is not dependent on any
`
`issues related to the Asserted Patents, the outcome of this litigation, or the substance
`
`of my opinions. My compensation for time worked on this litigation is at my
`
`customary rate of $200 per hour. I have no financial interest in, or affiliation with,
`
`the Patent Owner or any other party in this case.
`
`4.
`
`LEGAL UNDERSTANDING
`
`19.
`
`Below I include my understanding of several pertinent legal principles. I have
`
`applied these principles in reaching my opinions discussed herein.
`
`4.1. Claim Construction
`
`20.
`
`I understand that claim terms should be given their ordinary and customary
`
`meaning within the context of the patent in which the terms are used, i.e., the
`
`meaning that the term would have to a person of ordinary skill in the art in question
`
`-5-
`
`

`

`Case 6:23-cv-00158-ADA Document 72-1 Filed 04/24/24 Page 6 of 65
`
`at the time of the invention in light of what the patent teaches, unless it appears that
`
`the inventors were using them to mean something else. Additionally, the
`
`specification and prosecution history must be consulted to confirm whether the
`
`patentee has acted as his/her own lexicographer (i.e., provided special meaning to
`
`any disputed terms), or intentionally disclaimed, disavowed, or surrendered any
`
`claim scope.
`
`21.
`
`I understand that a person of ordinary skill in the art is deemed to read a claim term
`
`not only in the context of the particular claim in which the disputed term appears,
`
`but also in the context of the entire patent, including the specification and the
`
`prosecution history. The prosecution file history provides evidence of how both
`
`the Patent Office and the inventors understood the terms of the patent, particularly
`
`in light of what was known in the prior art. Further, where the specification
`
`describes a claim term broadly, arguments and amendments made during
`
`prosecution may require a more narrow interpretation. For these reasons, the words
`
`of the claim must be interpreted in view of, and be consistent with, the entire
`
`specification. The specification is the primary basis for construing the claims and
`
`provides a safeguard such that correct constructions closely align with the
`
`specification. Ultimately, the interpretation to be given a term can only be
`
`determined and confirmed with a full understanding of what the inventors actually
`
`invented and intended to envelop with the claim as set forth in the patent itself.
`
`22.
`
`I understand that, to determine how a person of ordinary skill would understand a
`
`claim term, one should look to those sources available that show what a person of
`
`skill in the art would have understood disputed claim language to mean. Such
`
`-6-
`
`

`

`Case 6:23-cv-00158-ADA Document 72-1 Filed 04/24/24 Page 7 of 65
`
`sources include the words of the claims themselves, the remainder of the patent’s
`
`specification, the prosecution history of the patent (all considered “intrinsic”
`
`evidence), and “extrinsic” evidence concerning relevant scientific principles, the
`
`meaning of technical terms, the knowledge of one of skill in the art, and the state
`
`of the art. I understand that one looks primarily to the intrinsic patent evidence, but
`
`extrinsic evidence may also be useful in interpreting patent claims when the
`
`intrinsic evidence itself is insufficient.
`
`23.
`
`Additionally, the context in which a term is used in the Asserted Claims can be
`
`highly instructive. Likewise, other claims of the patent in question, both asserted
`
`and not asserted, can inform the meaning of a claim term. For example, because
`
`claim terms are normally used consistently throughout the patent, the usage of a
`
`term in one claim can often illuminate the meaning of the same term in other claims.
`
`Differences among claims can also be a useful guide in understanding the meaning
`
`of particular claim terms.
`
`24.
`
`I understand that, while intrinsic evidence is of primary importance, extrinsic
`
`evidence, e.g., all evidence external to the patent and prosecution history, including
`
`expert and inventor testimony, dictionaries, and learned treatises, can also be
`
`considered. For example, technical dictionaries may help one better understand the
`
`underlying technology and the way in which one of skill in the art might use the
`
`claim terms. Extrinsic evidence should not be considered, however, divorced from
`
`the context of the intrinsic evidence. Evidence beyond the patent specification,
`
`prosecution history, and other claims in the patent should not be relied upon unless
`
`the claim language is ambiguous in light of these intrinsic sources. Furthermore,
`
`-7-
`
`

`

`Case 6:23-cv-00158-ADA Document 72-1 Filed 04/24/24 Page 8 of 65
`
`4.2.
`
`25.
`
`while extrinsic evidence can shed useful light on the relevant art, it is less
`
`significant than the intrinsic record in determining the legally operative meaning of
`
`claim language.
`
`Indefiniteness
`
`I understand that a patent term may be considered indefinite. I further understand
`
`that a term is to be considered indefinite if a person of ordinary skill in the art
`
`(POSITA) reading the term, in light of the specification and prosecution history of
`
`the patent, is not informed about the scope of the invention with reasonable
`
`certainty. Absolute precision, however, is not required — some amount of
`
`uncertainty about the meaning of the term is acceptable.
`
`26.
`
`I understand that the Supreme Court of the United States has instructed that in order
`
`for a claim to be definite, “a patent’s claims, viewed in light of the specification
`
`and prosecution history, [must] inform those skilled in the art about the scope of
`
`the invention with reasonable certainty.”1 The Supreme Court also warned that
`
`“the definiteness requirement must take into account the inherent limitations of
`
`language . . . Some modicum of uncertainty . . . is the price of ensuring the
`
`appropriate incentives for innovation.” The Court also stated that “a patent must
`
`be precise enough to afford clear notice of what is claimed, thereby apprising the
`
`public of what is still open to them.”2
`
`27.
`
`I understand
`
`that words of approximation, such as “substantially” or
`
`“approximately” do not render a claim indefinite. I further understand that to
`
`
`1 Nautilus, Inc. v. Biosig Instruments, Inc., 134 S. Ct. 2120, 2129 (2014).
`
`2 Id. at 2123.
`
`-8-
`
`

`

`Case 6:23-cv-00158-ADA Document 72-1 Filed 04/24/24 Page 9 of 65
`
`determine such a parameter’s range, one must look to the purpose the limitation
`
`serves and construe the limitation to encompass structures that accomplish the
`
`function of the limitation described in the specification.
`
`5.
`
`THE PATENTS AT ISSUE
`
`5.1. Description of the Patents-in-Suit
`
`28.
`
`The inventions of the Asserted Patents generally relate to noise suppression in
`
`acoustic signal processing.
`
`
`
`5.1.1. Description of the ‘213 Patent
`
`29.
`
`The ‘213 Patent generally relates to methods and systems for acoustic voice activity
`
`detection
`
`(“AVAD”) using microphones
`
`to generate virtual directional
`
`microphones, and to use the ratio of energies between virtual microphones to
`
`generate a VAD signal.
`
`30.
`
`For example, the ‘213 Patent describes embodiments configured with a two-
`
`microphone array of omnidirectional microphones to form two virtual microphones
`
`with a similar response to noise and dissimilar response to speech: ’213 Patent at
`
`4:13-43)
`
`-9-
`
`

`

`Case 6:23-cv-00158-ADA Document 72-1 Filed 04/24/24 Page 10 of 65
`
`31.
`
`
`For example, the ‘213 Patent describes embodiments in which ratio R is calculated
`
`between virtual microphones: (’213 Patent 6:20-46)
`
`-10-
`
`

`

`Case 6:23-cv-00158-ADA Document 72-1 Filed 04/24/24 Page 11 of 65
`
`
`
`
`
`32.
`
`For example, the ‘213 Patent describes embodiments in which the ratio R can be
`
`used with a detection system to determine when speech is occurring: (6:47-7:7)
`
`-11-
`
`

`

`Case 6:23-cv-00158-ADA Document 72-1 Filed 04/24/24 Page 12 of 65
`
`
`
`33.
`
`
`The ’213 Patent further explains that the virtual microphones may have similar
`
`noise magnitude responses. ’213 Patent at 4:22-26. However, V2 has minimal
`
`response to speech, while V1 responds to speech.. Id.
`
`34.
`
`Virtual microphones with these responses provide acceptable performance for the
`
`AVAD algorithm because they can discriminate between relatively close noise and
`
`speech sources much better than omnidirectional microphones. Id. at 4:26-31;
`
`5:16-52. Further, the system operates smoothly in a variety of noisy environments.
`
`-12-
`
`

`

`Case 6:23-cv-00158-ADA Document 72-1 Filed 04/24/24 Page 13 of 65
`
`Id. at 6:54-59.
`
`35.
`
`Further, if the noise responses are sufficiently similar and speech responses
`
`sufficiently dissimilar, the noise can be subtracted from the speech microphone’s
`
`input signal in later processing, thus resulting in cleaned and denoised speech. ’213
`
`Patent at 18:36-20:11.
`
`
`5.1.2. Description of the ‘611 Patent
`
`36.
`
`The ‘611 Patent includes the same disclosure as the ‘213 Patent.
`
`
`
`5.1.3. Description of the ‘691 Patent
`
`37.
`
`The ‘691 Patent generally relates to “dual omnidirectional microphone array noise
`
`suppression.”3 In exemplary embodiments, “the array of an embodiment is used to
`
`form two distinct virtual directional microphones which are configured to have very
`
`similar noise responses and very dissimilar speech responses. The only null formed
`
`is one used to remove the speech of the user from V2. The two virtual microphones
`
`may be paired with an adaptive filter algorithm and VAD algorithm to significantly
`
`reduce the noise without distorting the speech, significantly improving the SNR of
`
`the desired speech over conventional noise suppression systems.”4
`
`38.
`
`For example, the ‘691 patent describes embodiments including virtual microphones
`
`formed by combining the signals of physical microphones:
`
`3 ‘691 Patent at Abstract.
`
`4 Id.
`
`
`
`-13-
`
`

`

`Case 6:23-cv-00158-ADA Document 72-1 Filed 04/24/24 Page 14 of 65
`
`39.
`
`For example, the ‘691 Patent describes a two-microphone adaptive noise
`
`suppression system as depicted in FIG. 1:
`
`5
`
`40.
`
`For example, the ‘691 Patent describes the generation of virtual microphones based
`
`6
`
`5 Id. at 3:40-52.
`
`6 ‘691 Patent at FIG. 1; 5:63-8:24.
`
`
`
`-14-
`
`

`

`Case 6:23-cv-00158-ADA Document 72-1 Filed 04/24/24 Page 15 of 65
`
`on outputs of physical microphones:
`
`7
`
`8
`
`7 Id. at 8:25-45.
`
`8 Id. at FIG. 3.
`
`
`
`-15-
`
`

`

`Case 6:23-cv-00158-ADA Document 72-1 Filed 04/24/24 Page 16 of 65
`
`41.
`
`For example, the ‘691 Patent describes the generation of multiple virtual
`
`microphones based on the outputs of a two-microphone array:
`
`42.
`
`For example, the ‘691 Patent further describes the use of virtual microphones for
`
`adaptive noise suppression in acoustic signals:
`
`9
`
`9 Id. at 8:46-58.
`
`
`
`-16-
`
`

`

`Case 6:23-cv-00158-ADA Document 72-1 Filed 04/24/24 Page 17 of 65
`
`43.
`
`For example, the ‘691 Patent describes improved noise suppression with virtual
`
`microphones that have a similar response to noise and a dissimilar response to
`
`speech:
`
`10
`
`
`10 Id. at 10:26-42; see also id. at 10:43-11:20.
`
`-17-
`
`

`

`Case 6:23-cv-00158-ADA Document 72-1 Filed 04/24/24 Page 18 of 65
`
`
`
`11
`
`5.1.4. Description of the ‘357 Patent
`
`
`11 Id. at 11:41-12:19; see also 12:20-17:46.
`
`-18-
`
`

`

`Case 6:23-cv-00158-ADA Document 72-1 Filed 04/24/24 Page 19 of 65
`
`44.
`
`The ‘357 Patent is a continuation of U.S. Patent Application No. 12/139,133, which
`
`issued as the ‘691 Patent, and includes the same disclosure.
`
`5.1.5. Description of the ‘080 Patent
`
`45.
`
`The ‘080 Patent generally relates to “dual omnidirectional microphone array noise
`
`suppression.”12 In exemplary embodiments, “the array of an embodiment is used to
`
`form two distinct virtual directional microphones which are configured to have very
`
`similar noise responses and very dissimilar speech responses. The only null formed
`
`is one used to remove the speech of the user from V2. The two virtual microphones
`
`may be paired with an adaptive filter algorithm and VAD algorithm to significantly
`
`reduce the noise without distorting the speech, significantly improving the SNR of
`
`the desired speech over conventional noise suppression systems.”13
`
`46.
`
`For example, the ‘080 patent describes an array of physical microphones that may
`
`be used to generate a number of virtual microphones:
`
`12 ‘080 Patent, Abstract.
`
`13 ‘080 Patent, Abstract.
`
`
`
`-19-
`
`

`

`FIG. 1 is a two-microphone adaptive noise suppression
`system 100, under an embodiment. The two-microphone
`system 100 including the combination of physical micro-
`phones MIC 1 and MIC2 along with the processing or
`circuitry components to which the microphones couple
`(describedin detail below, but not showninthis figure) is
`referred to herein as the dual omnidirectional microphone
`array (DOMA)110, but the embodiment is not so limited.
`Referring to FIG. 1, in analyzing the single noise source 101
`and the direct path to the microphones, the total acoustic
`information coming into MIC 1
`(102, which can be an
`physical or virtual microphone) is denoted by m,(n). The
`total acoustic information coming into MIC 2 (103, which
`can also be an physical or virtual microphone)is similarly
`labeled m2(n). In the z (digital frequency) domain, these are
`
`represented as M,(z) and M,(Z). Then,
`
`14
`
`-20-
`
`Case 6:23-cv-00158-ADA Document 72-1 Filed 04/24/24 Page 20 of 65
`
`14 4:52-67; see also 5:1-7:16.
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 6:23-cv-00158-ADA Document 72-1 Filed 04/24/24 Page 21 of 65
`
`47.
`
`For example, the ‘080 Patent further describes improved noise suppression with
`
`virtual microphones that include a substantially similar noise response:
`
`15
`
`
`15 Id. at 7:17-38; see also id. at 7:39-8:31.
`
`-21-
`
`

`

`Case 6:23-cv-00158-ADA Document 72-1 Filed 04/24/24 Page 22 of 65
`
`6.
`
`LEVEL OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART
`
`16
`
`48.
`
`It is my understanding that I must address the issues set forth in this Declaration
`
`from the viewpoint of a person of ordinary skill in the art (“POSITA”) at the time
`
`of the invention to which the Asserted Patents pertain.
`
`49.
`
`It is my opinion that the 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.
`
`
`16 Id. at 9:4-28; see also id. at 9:29-11:19.
`
`-22-
`
`

`

`Case 6:23-cv-00158-ADA Document 72-1 Filed 04/24/24 Page 23 of 65
`
`50.
`
`I understand that Dr. Reader has proposed a similar definition, with the only
`
`difference that he opines that a POSITA would have 2 years of experience. My
`
`opinions would be the same under either level of skill in the art.
`
`51.
`
`I also understand that the ’080 Patent claims priority to an invention date at least as
`
`of June 2005 and is further entitled to at least the filing date of its earliest
`
`application, U.S. Provisional Patent Application No. 60/934,551, filed June 13,
`
`2007.
`
`52.
`
`I also understand that Jawbone contends the ’357 Patent claims priority to an
`
`invention date at least as of June 2005 and is further entitled to at least the filing
`
`date of its earliest application, U.S. Provisional Patent Application No. 60/934,551,
`
`filed June 13, 2007.
`
`53.
`
`I also understand that the Jawbone contends the ’691 Patent claims priority to an
`
`invention date at least as of June 2005, and is further entitled to at least the filing
`
`date of its earliest application, U.S. Provisional Patent Application No. 60/934,551,
`
`filed June 13, 2007.
`
`54.
`
`I also understand that Jawbone contends the ‘213 patent claims priority to an
`
`invention date at least as of June 2005, and is further entitled to at least the filing
`
`date of its earliest application, U.S. Patent Application No. 11/805,987 filed May
`
`25, 2007.
`
`55.
`
`I also understand that Jawbone contends that Jawbone contends the ‘611 Patent
`
`claims priority to an invention date at least as of June 2005, and is further entitled
`
`to at least the filing date of its earliest application, U.S. Patent Application No.
`
`11/805,987 filed May 25, 2007.
`
`-23-
`
`

`

`Case 6:23-cv-00158-ADA Document 72-1 Filed 04/24/24 Page 24 of 65
`
`56.
`
`I understand that the relevant time period from which a person of ordinary skill in
`
`the art would evaluate the disclosure of the Asserted Patents is the priority date of
`
`each given asserted patent. I have applied the earliest priority date of each patent as
`
`set forth above in forming the opinions set forth herein and have applied the
`
`ordinary level of skill in the art articulated above as of those dates with respect to
`
`each asserted patent. Further, even if the relevant time period were later, such as
`
`between the date of the earliest application or the filing date of the respective
`
`Asserted Patents, this would not affect the opinions I set forth in this declaration.
`
`57.
`
`I myself, based on my education and experience as described above, would exceed
`
`the qualifications and background of a POSITA.
`
`7.
`
`TERMS IN DISPUTE
`
`58.
`
`I have been asked to provide my opinions on the terms addressed below. It is my
`
`understanding that the defendant, Meta, contends these terms are indefinite unless otherwise noted.
`
`7.1.
`
`“approximately similar” / “approximately, dissimilar” / “approximately
`dissimilar” (’213 Patent, claims 2, 37, 38; ’611 Patent, claim 3, 4, 30)
`
`Term
`“approximately similar
`[responses to
`noise]”
`
`“approximately,
`dissimilar [responses to
`speech]” /
`“approximately
`dissimilar [responses to
`speech]”
`
`
`Jawbone’s Construction
`Plain and ordinary meaning; no
`construction necessary
`
`Alternatively, “responses to noise
`whose ratio has an absolute value of
`less than 10 dB”
`Plain and ordinary meaning; no
`construction necessary
`
`Alternatively, “responses to speech
`whose ratio has an absolute value of
`10 dB or more”
`
`Meta’s Construction
`Indefinite
`
`Indefinite
`
`59.
`
`I understand that Meta and Dr. Reader contend that the terms “approximately similar,”
`
`-24-
`
`

`

`Case 6:23-cv-00158-ADA Document 72-1 Filed 04/24/24 Page 25 of 65
`
`“approximately, dissimilar,” and “approximately dissimilar” are indefinite. I disagree.
`
`60.
`
`In my opinion, a POSITA could apply these terms without construction. A POSITA would
`
`know that the noise responses must be similar enough, and the speech responses must be
`
`dissimilar enough, that the noise signal can be accurately compared to the main signal to
`
`detect speech, even in noisy environments. Id. at ’213 Patent at 4:26-31; 5:16-52; 6:54-59.
`
`Moreover, noise responses must be similar enough, and the speech responses must be
`
`dissimilar enough that the noise signal can be subtracted from the main signal to result in
`
`cleaned and denoised speech in later processing. ’213 Patent at 18:36-20:11.
`
`61.
`
`If construction is required, however, a POSITA would understand “approximately,
`
`dissimilar” and “approximately dissimilar” to mean “responses to speech whose ratio has
`
`an absolute value of 10 dB or more.”
`
`62.
`
`A POSITA would further understand “approximately similar” to mean “responses to noise
`
`whose ratio has an absolute value of less than 10 dB.”
`
`7.1.1. “approximately[,] dissimilar [responses to speech]”
`
`
`
`63.
`
`In my opinion, a POSITA would understand this term to mean “responses to speech whose
`
`ratio has an absolute value of 10 dB or more.”
`
`64.
`
`As I explain above, I understand that one must look to the function or purpose of the
`
`limitation as explained in the specification.
`
`65.
`
`The specification explains that the function of the approximately similar noise responses
`
`and approximately dissimilar speech responses is to provide noise and speech signals that
`
`are sufficiently different to allow speech detection with much better results than
`
`omnidirectional microphones. Id. at 4:26-31; 5:16-52. This provides better performance
`
`when noise and speech sources are relatively close. Id. Further, the configuration allows
`
`-25-
`
`

`

`Case 6:23-cv-00158-ADA Document 72-1 Filed 04/24/24 Page 26 of 65
`
`the system to operate smoothly in a variety of noisy environments. Id. at 6:54-59.
`
`66.
`
`The specification further explains that the configuration provides a noise signal that can be
`
`subtracted from the speech microphone’s input signal, with that subtraction resulting in
`
`cleaned and denoised speech. ’213 Patent at 18:36-20:11. Thus, the function of the
`
`approximately dissimilar limitation is to provide speech signals that are sufficiently
`
`different so that noise can be substracted from the primary signal with minimal devoicing.
`
`67.
`
`A POSITA would understand that these two functions (voice detection and denoising) use
`
`the similar and dissimilar responses for very similar purposes. Indeed, to properly denoise,
`
`the system must separate the speech signal and the noise signal, exactly as is done in the
`
`voice detection process.
`
`68.
`
`Accordingly, a POSITA would understand that the signals that are sufficiently similar or
`
`dissimilar for denoising are also sufficiently similar or dissimilar for voice detection. Thus,
`
`a POSITA would apply the same minimum level of functionality to both denoising and
`
`voice detection.
`
`69.
`
`The specification defines the minimum level of acceptable functionality as “good
`
`performance.” Id. at 25:65-67 (“‘[G]ood performance’ of the system indicates that there
`
`is sufficient denoising and minimal devoicing.”). A POSITA would understand that
`
`anything less than the defined “good performance” would not be considered functional,
`
`because there would not be “sufficient denoising” and the devoicing would be
`
`unacceptable.
`
`70.
`
`The specification defines the level of dissimilarity to reach this minimal level of
`
`functionality. As the specification explains, the ratio of the V1 and V2 responses for speech
`
`must “above approximately 10 dB—enough for good performance.” ’213 Patent, 26:58-
`
`-26-
`
`

`

`Case 6:23-cv-00158-ADA Document 72-1 Filed 04/24/24 Page 27 of 65
`
`60. A POSITA would understand that a ratio of, say, 20 dB indicates greater dissimilarity
`
`between the responses and would be acceptable. Thus, 10 dB acts as a lower bound.
`
`71.
`
`Accordingly, a POSITA would recognize that, for the “approximately dissimilar”
`
`limitation to perform its function of providing a speech signal from which noise can be
`
`subtracted with minimal devoicing, the ratio of the V1 and V2 speech responses must be at
`
`least 10 dB.
`
`72.
`
`I understand that Meta has argued that the construction is inconsistent with Jawbone’s
`
`proposed construction from an earlier case. The construction there was “a ratio of responses
`
`between two microphones of at least 10 decibels.”
`
`73.
`
`Dr. Reader and states that Jawbone’s current construction “broadens Jawbone’s previous
`
`proposal (restricted to only positive ratios) to now include negative values, and is
`
`unsupported anywhere in the patents.” Reader Decl., ¶ 42. I disagree.
`
`74.
`
`75.
`
`76.
`
`77.
`
`The V1/V2 ratio in decibels, as used in the patent, is defined as:
`
`20 𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙10𝑉𝑉1𝑉𝑉2
`
`A ratio expressed in decibels will be positive if the quantity on top is larger than the
`
`quantity on the bottom. The ratio will be negative if the quantity on the bottom is larger.
`
`The absolute value is the same regardless of which quantity is larger.
`
`For example, if V1 = 5 and V2 = 2, the ratio of V1/V2 in decibels is 7.96 dB. The ratio of
`
`V2/V1 is -7.96 dB. Similarly, the specification’s example of a V1/V2 ratio of 10 dB would
`
`be -10 dB with the same V1 and V2 but expressed as V2/V1.
`
`78.
`
`Thus, Jawbone’s current and former construction both cover the same V1/V2 ratio.
`
`7.1.2. “approximately similar [responses to noise]”
`
`79.
`
`A POSITA would understand this term to mean “responses to noise whose ratio has an
`
`-27-
`
`

`

`Case 6:23-cv-00158-ADA Document 72-1 Filed 04/24/24 Page 28 of 65
`
`absolute value of less than 10 dB.”
`
`80.
`
`As I explain above, a POSITA would understand that approximately dissimilar responses
`
`are those with a ratio of 10 dB or above as defined in the specification.
`
`81.
`
`A POSITA would further understand that responses that are not approximately dissimilar
`
`would be approximately similar. The specification discusses responses that are either
`
`similar or dissimilar enough for use in the invention as described above. The specification
`
`does not discuss or imply that any set of responses could be neither approximately
`
`dissimilar nor approximately similar. Accordingly, a POSITA would understand that if two
`
`responses had a ratio less than 10 dB and we

This document is available on Docket Alarm but you must sign up to view it.


Or .

Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.

After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.

Accept $ Charge
throbber

Still Working On It

This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.

Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.

throbber

A few More Minutes ... Still Working

It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.

Thank you for your continued patience.

This document could not be displayed.

We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

Set your membership status to view this document.

With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll get a whole lot more, including:

  • Up-to-date information for this case.
  • Email alerts whenever there is an update.
  • Full text search for other cases.
  • Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.

Become a Member

One Moment Please

The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.

Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.

Your document is on its way!

If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.

Sealed Document

We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.

If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.


Access Government Site

We are redirecting you
to a mobile optimized page.





Document Unreadable or Corrupt

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket

We are unable to display this document.

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket