`
`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