Case 6:23-cv-00158-ADA Document 76-4 Filed 05/08/24 Page 1 of 24
`
`Exhibit D
`
`
`
`Exhibit D
`
`
`
`Case 6:23-cv-00158-ADA Document 76-4 Filed 05/08/24 Page 2 of 24
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`__________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`__________________________________________________________________
`
`
`
`META PLATFORMS, INC.,
`
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`JAWBONE INNOVATIONS, LLC,
`
`Patent Owner.
`
`
`Patent No. 10,779,080
`Filing Date: July 22, 2013
`Issue Date: September 15, 2020
`
`Inventor: Gregory C. Burnett
`Title: DUAL OMNIDIRECTIONAL MICROPHONE ARRAY (DOMA)
`
`
`
`
`__________________________________________________________________
`
`DECLARATION OF AKBAR M. SAYEED, Ph.D.
`
`Case No. IPR2024-00350
`__________________________________________________________________
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Jawbone Exhibit No. 2001, IPR2024-00350
`Page 001
`
`
`
`Case 6:23-cv-00158-ADA Document 76-4 Filed 05/08/24 Page 3 of 24
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`IPR2024-00350
`PATENT NO. 10,779,080
`
`Page(s)
`
`i
`
`INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................... 1
`A.
`Background and Qualifications ............................................................. 1
`COMPENSATION .......................................................................................... 6
`II.
`III. MATERIALS CONSIDERED ........................................................................ 6
`IV. LEGAL PRINCIPLES ..................................................................................... 7
`V.
`LEVEL OF SKILL IN THE ART ................................................................... 8
`VI. THE CLAIMED INVENTION OF THE ‘080 Patent ..................................... 8
`VII. THE ALLEGED PRIOR ART ......................................................................13
`A.
`Brandstein ............................................................................................ 13
`VIII. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION ..........................................................................13
`IX. PETITIONER’S COMBINATIONS DO NOT RENDER ANY
`CLAIM OBVIOUS ........................................................................................14
`A. GROUND 1: Brandstein in View of Ikeda Does Not Render
`Obvious Claims 1-20 ........................................................................... 14
`1.
`Petitioner’s Combination Does Not Disclose or Render
`Obvious “the second linear response to noise [is/being]
`substantially similar to the first linear response to noise”
`as Recited in Independent Claims 7 and 14 or “wherein
`the first virtual microphone ad second virtual
`microphone have substantially similar responses to
`noise” as recited in Independent Claim 1 .................................14
`CONCLUSION ..............................................................................................20
`
`
`I.
`
`X.
`
`
`
`Jawbone Exhibit No. 2001, IPR2024-00350
`Page 002
`
`
`
`Case 6:23-cv-00158-ADA Document 76-4 Filed 05/08/24 Page 4 of 24
`
`IPR2024-00350
`PATENT NO. 10,779,080
`
`I, Akbar M. Sayeed, declare as follows:
`
`1.
`
`I have been asked by counsel for Patent Owner, Jawbone Innovations,
`
`LLC (“Jawbone” or “Patent Owner”), to review U.S. Patent No. 10,779,080 (the
`
`“’080 Patent”) entitled DUAL OMNIDIRECTIONAL MICROPHONE ARRAY
`
`(DOMA) and to provide my technical review, analysis, insights, and opinions
`
`regarding the ‘080 Patent in view of the prior art cited by Petitioner Meta Platforms,
`
`Inc. (“Meta” or “Petitioner”). I submit this declaration in support of Patent Owner’s
`
`Preliminary Response in this IPR proceeding. I have personal knowledge of the
`
`matters stated herein and would be competent to testify to them if required.
`
`2.
`
`I have been retained on behalf of Jawbone for the above-captioned inter
`
`partes review proceeding. I understand that the ‘080 Patent is currently assigned to
`
`Jawbone.
`
`3.
`
`I am over 18 years of age. I have personal knowledge of the facts stated
`
`in this Declaration and could testify competently if asked to do so.
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`A. Background and Qualifications
`I have reviewed and am familiar with the specification of the ‘080
`4.
`
`Patent. I understand the ‘080 Patent has been provided as Exhibit 1001. I will cite
`
`to the specification using the following format: ‘080 Patent at col.:line.
`
`5. My CV is being submitted simultaneously herewith (Ex. 2002).
`
`1
`
`Jawbone Exhibit No. 2001, IPR2024-00350
`Page 003
`
`
`
`Case 6:23-cv-00158-ADA Document 76-4 Filed 05/08/24 Page 5 of 24
`
`IPR2024-00350
`PATENT NO. 10,779,080
`
`6.
`
`I received my B.S. degree in Electrical and Computer Engineering
`
`(ECE) from the University of Wisconsin-Madison in 1991. I received my M.S. and
`
`Ph.D. degrees in ECE from the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign in 1993
`
`and 1996, respectively. In my undergraduate and graduate studies, I look a variety
`
`of courses generally focusing on the areas of signal processing, communication
`
`theory, information theory, electromagnetics and antennas, and statistical techniques
`
`in signal processing and communications. My Ph.D. dissertation was entitled
`
`“Statistical Time-Frequency Analysis” in which I proposed new framework for
`
`statistical signal processing using time-frequency representations, mathematical
`
`tools that extend the powerful theory of Fourier transforms and Fourier analysis to
`
`time-varying signals and systems.
`
`7.
`
`I currently work as an Independent Researcher, Engineer and Technical
`
`Consultant, and worked as professor of Electrical and Computer Engineering at the
`
`University of Wisconsin-Madison from 1997-2021, where I directed the Wireless
`
`Communications and Sensing Laboratory until my retirement on August 1, 2021 to
`
`pursue a career as an independent researcher and consultant.
`
`8. My current work as an independent researcher and consultant spans
`
`STEM (science, technology, engineering & mathematics) fields through the lens of
`
`information science and technology. My STEM skills and experience cover a broad
`
`range of areas, including:
`
`2
`
`Jawbone Exhibit No. 2001, IPR2024-00350
`Page 004
`
`
`
`Case 6:23-cv-00158-ADA Document 76-4 Filed 05/08/24 Page 6 of 24
`
`IPR2024-00350
`PATENT NO. 10,779,080
`
`• Wireless technologies for sensing, processing and communication of
`
`information (5G/6G/XG), internet of things, and emerging technologies
`
`for untapped spectrum (e.g., millimeter-wave, THz).
`
`• Sensing and acquisition of data
`
`in new modalities
`
`through
`
`technological innovation.
`
`• Machine learning and statistical techniques for extracting useful
`
`information from data.
`
`• Quantum information science and technology (computing, sensing and
`
`communication) spanning foundational concepts, algorithms, and
`
`platforms.
`
`• Conception, design and development of new information technologies
`
`through basic theory, computational modeling, and hybrid software-
`
`hardware prototyping and experimentation.
`
`9.
`
`I have written/co-written 200+ papers in leading journals and
`
`conferences. I am an inventor/co-inventor of 10 patents.
`
`10. After receiving my Ph.D. in 1996, I spent a year at Rice University as
`
`a postdoctoral research fellow where I expanded the scope of my research to the
`
`growing field of wireless communications that underpins much of mobile cellular
`
`technology. In particular, the propagation channels encountered in mobile cellular
`
`communication are inherently time-varying in nature and that provided a natural
`
`3
`
`Jawbone Exhibit No. 2001, IPR2024-00350
`Page 005
`
`
`
`Case 6:23-cv-00158-ADA Document 76-4 Filed 05/08/24 Page 7 of 24
`
`IPR2024-00350
`PATENT NO. 10,779,080
`
`connection to my Ph.D. research. After spending a year at Rice University, I
`
`accepted a position as an Assistant Professor in the ECE Department at the
`
`University of Wisconsin-Madison in 1997. I was granted tenure and promoted to
`
`Associate Professor in 2003, and was promoted to Professor in 2008.
`
`11.
`
`I founded and directed the Wireless Communication and Sensing
`
`Laboratory at UW-Madison and engaged in research, teaching and innovation in the
`
`basic science, engineering, and
`
`technology of sensing, processing, and
`
`communication of information. In particular, I led a team in the conception, design,
`
`development and successful demonstration of a state-of-the-art prototype for multi-
`
`beam MIMO (multiple input multiple output) communication at 28 GHz based on
`
`the concept of a lens array that I had pioneered.
`
`12.
`
`I co-founded and co-led the NSF-sponsored Research Coordination
`
`Network (RCN) on millimeter-wave wireless (2016-2019) for bringing together
`
`researchers from academia, industry, and government agencies to address critical
`
`technical challenges in the area.
`
`13. From 2017-2019 I served as a Program director in the Electrical,
`
`Communications, and Cyber Systems (ECCS) Division of the Directorate of
`
`Engineering at the National Science Foundation. At the NSF, I managed existing
`
`programs and initiated new research programs involving sensing, processing, and
`
`communication of information in all possible physical modalities, architectures, and
`
`4
`
`Jawbone Exhibit No. 2001, IPR2024-00350
`Page 006
`
`
`
`Case 6:23-cv-00158-ADA Document 76-4 Filed 05/08/24 Page 8 of 24
`
`IPR2024-00350
`PATENT NO. 10,779,080
`
`technologies, including quantum information science and engineering. I actively
`
`contributed to three NSF-wide working groups: Electromagnetic Spectrum
`
`Management (ESM) working group, and the working groups of two of the 10 NSF
`
`Big Ideas: i) Quantum Leap and ii) Harnessing the Data Revolution. In particular, I
`
`co-led the team that developed the NSF solicitation for Quantum Leap Challenge
`
`Institutes (Feb 2019) in response to the National Quantum Initiative (NQI) Act
`
`signed in December 2018.
`
`14.
`
`I have a demonstrated history (25 yrs.) of leading an interdisciplinary
`
`research and development group at the forefront of foundational and technological
`
`innovations in wireless communication and sensing. Physics-based accurate and
`
`computationally tractable system modeling has been a key underlying theme in my
`
`work, spanning communication & sensor networks, multipath propagation over
`
`highly dynamic environments, wideband MIMO systems, mm-wave and THz
`
`wireless, and prototype development (hardware & software).
`
`15. My technical background, experience and skills are directly relevant to
`
`the subject matter in this case. The modeling, analysis and processing of information
`
`bearing signals and waves, including transmission and reception through antennas
`
`and antenna arrays, and propagation over channels, has been an underlying theme
`
`throughout my career. In particular, I have extensive experience in the conception,
`
`modeling, development and analysis of techniques and algorithms for processing
`
`5
`
`Jawbone Exhibit No. 2001, IPR2024-00350
`Page 007
`
`
`
`Case 6:23-cv-00158-ADA Document 76-4 Filed 05/08/24 Page 9 of 24
`
`IPR2024-00350
`PATENT NO. 10,779,080
`
`and filtering of signals from an array of sensors or antennas, including beamforming,
`
`interference and noise suppression, and adaptive filtering methods. While most of
`
`my work has focused on electromagnetic signals, the underlying physics and
`
`mathematics are very similar to acoustic signals.
`
`II. COMPENSATION
`16. My compensation for time worked on this proceeding is not dependent
`
`on any issues related to the ‘080 Patent, the outcome of this proceeding, or the
`
`substance of my opinions. My compensation for time worked on this proceeding is
`
`at my customary rate of $200 per hour. I have no financial interest in, or affiliation
`
`with, the Patent Owner or any of the real parties in interest.
`
`III. MATERIALS CONSIDERED
`In providing my technical review, analysis, insights, and opinions, I
`17.
`
`have considered the ‘080 Patent and its prosecution history.
`
`18.
`
`I have also considered the Petition filed by the Petitioner in this
`
`proceeding and the relevant exhibits relied on by Petitioner, including the expert
`
`declaration submitted by Michael Johnson, Ph.D. (“Ex. 1003”).
`
`19.
`
`I have also considered my own experience and knowledge, as discussed
`
`above and described more fully in my CV, in areas including signal processing,
`
`electrical engineering, and other related technologies.
`
`6
`
`Jawbone Exhibit No. 2001, IPR2024-00350
`Page 008
`
`
`
`Case 6:23-cv-00158-ADA Document 76-4 Filed 05/08/24 Page 10 of 24
`
`IPR2024-00350
`PATENT NO. 10,779,080
`
`IV. LEGAL PRINCIPLES
`I understand that a patent claim is unpatentable as “obvious” if the
`20.
`
`subject matter of the claim as a whole would have been obvious to a person of
`
`ordinary skill in the art (POSITA) as of the time of the invention at issue.
`
`21.
`
`I understand that the use of “the person of ordinary skill” rubric is to
`
`prevent one from improperly, in the present day, using hindsight to decide whether
`
`a claim is obvious.
`
`22.
`
`I understand that the following factors must be evaluated to determine
`
`whether the claimed subject matter is obvious: (1) the scope and content of the prior
`
`art; (2) the difference or differences, if any, between the scope of the patent claim
`
`and the scope of the prior art; and (3) the level of ordinary skill in the art at the time
`
`of the invention.
`
`23.
`
`I understand that certain secondary considerations, such as commercial
`
`success, skepticism of experts, surprise, and copying, may provide evidence of non-
`
`obviousness. I further understand that such considerations are often the most
`
`probative and determinative of obviousness or non-obviousness.
`
`24.
`
`I understand that I must construe a claim in accordance with the
`
`ordinary and customary meaning of the language of such claim as understood by one
`
`of ordinary skill in the art and the prosecution history pertaining to the patent.
`
`7
`
`Jawbone Exhibit No. 2001, IPR2024-00350
`Page 009
`
`
`
`Case 6:23-cv-00158-ADA Document 76-4 Filed 05/08/24 Page 11 of 24
`
`IPR2024-00350
`PATENT NO. 10,779,080
`
`V. LEVEL OF SKILL IN THE ART
`I understand that I should perform my analysis from the viewpoint of a
`25.
`
`person of ordinary skill in the art. I understand that this hypothetical person of
`
`ordinary skill in the art is considered to have the normal skills of a person in a certain
`
`technical field. I understand that factors that may be considered in determining the
`
`level of ordinary skill in the art include: (1) the education level of the inventor;
`
`(2) the types of problems encountered in the art; (3) the prior art solutions to those
`
`problems; (4) rapidity with which innovations are made; (5) the sophistication of the
`
`technology; and (6) the education level of active workers in the field.
`
`26.
`
`In my opinion, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have a
`
`bachelor’s degree
`
`in computer engineering, computer science, electrical
`
`engineering, mechanical engineering, or a similar field, and approximately three
`
`years of industry or academic experience in a field related to acoustics, speech
`
`recognition, speech detection, or signal processing. Work experience can substitute
`
`for formal education and additional formal education can substitute for work
`
`experience.
`
`VI. THE CLAIMED INVENTION OF THE ‘080 Patent
`I
`have
`reviewed
`the
`‘080
`Patent,
`27.
`
`entitled DUAL
`
`OMNIDIRECTIONAL MICROPHONE ARRAY (DOMA) (Ex. 1001). It issued on
`
`September 15, 2020, and was filed on July 22, 2013.
`
`8
`
`Jawbone Exhibit No. 2001, IPR2024-00350
`Page 010
`
`
`
`Case 6:23-cv-00158-ADA Document 76-4 Filed 05/08/24 Page 12 of 24
`
`IPR2024-00350
`PATENT NO. 10,779,080
`
`28. The ‘080 Patent discloses and claims methods for noise suppression in
`
`dual omnidirectional microphone arrays. Unlike “conventional arrays and
`
`algorithms which seek to reduce noise by nulling out noise sources,” the ‘080 Patent
`
`uses omnidirectional microphone arrays “to form two distinct virtual directional
`
`microphones which are configured to have very similar noise responses and very
`
`dissimilar speech responses.” ‘080 Patent, Abstract. While “conventional multi-
`
`microphone systems attempt to increase the [signal-to-noise ratio] of the user’s
`
`speech by ‘steering’ the nulls of the system to the strongest noise sources, [t]his
`
`approach is limited in the number of noise sources removed by the number of
`
`available nulls.” Id., 1:44-59. Counterintuitively, in the ‘080 Patent, “[t]he only null
`
`formed by the DOMA is one used to remove the speech of the user from [the second
`
`virtual microphone]”. Id. at 3:56-57 (emphasis added). However, the similarity of
`
`the ‘080 Patent’s virtual microphones’ noise responses allows them to be cancelled
`
`while leaving the speech response intact, “resulting in excellent noise suppression
`
`performance and minimal speech removal and distortion.” Id. at 6:59-62; 9:22-38.
`
`29. The ‘080 Patent discloses a noise suppression apparatus that creates two
`
`virtual microphones V1 and V2 based on the signals generated by two
`
`omnidirectional microphones.
`
`𝑉𝑉1(𝑧𝑧)=𝑂𝑂1(𝑧𝑧)𝑧𝑧−𝛾𝛾–𝛽𝛽𝑂𝑂2(𝑧𝑧)
`𝑉𝑉2(𝑧𝑧)= 𝑂𝑂2(𝑧𝑧)–𝑧𝑧−𝛾𝛾𝛽𝛽𝑂𝑂1(𝑧𝑧)
`
`9
`
`Jawbone Exhibit No. 2001, IPR2024-00350
`Page 011
`
`
`
`
`
`𝛽𝛽=𝑑𝑑1𝑑𝑑2
`𝛾𝛾= 𝑑𝑑2− 𝑑𝑑1𝑐𝑐
`
` .𝑓𝑓𝑠𝑠 (samples)
`
`Case 6:23-cv-00158-ADA Document 76-4 Filed 05/08/24 Page 13 of 24
`
`IPR2024-00350
`PATENT NO. 10,779,080
`
`Id. at 9:53, 11:1. In these equations, β and γ are defined as follows:
`
`Id. at 9:55-60. “The distances d1 and d2 are the distances from O1 and O2 to the
`
`speech source,” respectively, and “γ is their difference divided by c, the speed of
`
`sound, and multiplied by the sampling frequency fs.” Id., 9:64-67.
`
`30.
`
`In the analog frequency domain, the equations for V1 and V2 are written
`
`as follows:
`
`
`
`
`
`.
`
`where 𝑧𝑧=𝑒𝑒𝑗𝑗2𝜋𝜋𝜋𝜋and 𝜏𝜏= 𝑑𝑑2− 𝑑𝑑1𝑐𝑐
`
`31. The configuration of the ‘080 Patent circuit according to these
`
`equations can be shown as follows:
`
`
`
`‘080 Patent Circuit
`
`10
`
`Jawbone Exhibit No. 2001, IPR2024-00350
`Page 012
`
`
`
`Case 6:23-cv-00158-ADA Document 76-4 Filed 05/08/24 Page 14 of 24
`
`IPR2024-00350
`PATENT NO. 10,779,080
`
`In this diagram, the signals from omnidirectional microphones O1 and O2 first pass
`
`through a gain with a value of β or 1 (i.e., no gain) and then pass through a delay τ
`
`or 0 (i.e., no delay). In this circuit, the first and third lines are summed to form virtual
`
`microphone V1, and the second and fourth lines are summed to form the virtual
`
`microphone V2.
`
`32. The ‘080 Patent discloses that the apparatus “works very well because
`
`the noise (far-field) responses of V1 and V2 are very similar while the speech (near-
`
`field) responses are very different.” Id. at 16:4-10.
`
`33. The ‘080 Patent discloses polar plots depicting similar noise responses
`
`which may be cancelled while leaving dissimilar speech responses intact. For
`
`instance, Figures 10 and 12 show the linear responses of virtual microphones V2 and
`
`V1, respectively, to noise from a source at 1 meter:
`
`‘080 Patent, 10:22-25, 11:25-29, Figs. 10, 12.
`
`
`
`11
`
`Jawbone Exhibit No. 2001, IPR2024-00350
`Page 013
`
`
`
`Case 6:23-cv-00158-ADA Document 76-4 Filed 05/08/24 Page 15 of 24
`
`IPR2024-00350
`PATENT NO. 10,779,080
`
`34. Figures 9 and 11 show the linear responses of virtual microphones V2
`
`and V1, respectively, to speech at a distance of 0.1 meter at an angle of zero degrees:
`
`
`
`‘080 Patent, 10:18-20, 11:20-22, Figs 9,11.
`
`35. Figure 9 shows a null in the linear response of virtual microphone V2
`
`to speech at zero degrees, “where the speech is typically expected to be located.” Id.,
`
`10:20-22. As shown in Figure 10, “[t]he linear response of V2 to noise is devoid of
`
`or includes no null, meaning all noise sources are detected.” Id., 10:25-27. This
`
`configuration ensures that virtual microphone V2 will detect all of the noise in front
`
`of the user so that it can be removed, which is an advantage over “conventional
`
`systems that can have difficulty removing noise in the direction of the mouth of the
`
`user.” Id., 10:36-38. In addition, “the superior noise suppression made possible
`
`using this system more than compensates for the initially poorer SNR,” or signal to
`
`noise ratio, of the virtual microphones. Id., 11:59-61.
`
`12
`
`Jawbone Exhibit No. 2001, IPR2024-00350
`Page 014
`
`
`
`Case 6:23-cv-00158-ADA Document 76-4 Filed 05/08/24 Page 16 of 24
`
`IPR2024-00350
`PATENT NO. 10,779,080
`
`VII. THE ALLEGED PRIOR ART
`A. Brandstein
`I have reviewed Microphone Arrays: Signal Processing Techniques and
`36.
`
`Applications, (Ex. 1005, “Brandstein”) (Ex. 1005). Brandstein is a collection of
`
`papers discussing topics in microphone arrays. Ex. 1005 at 5. Brandstein purports
`
`to have been published in 2001. Id. at 4.
`
`37. Petitioner primarily
`
`relies on
`
`the paper “Robust Adaptive
`
`Beamforming” as reproduced in Brandstein as Chapter 5. As discussed in detail infra
`
`Section IX.A.1, the Griffiths-Jim beamformer (GJBF) described in that paper
`
`operates by attenuating noise while passing speech through a top path and by
`
`attenuating speech while passing noise through a bottom path. Brandstein’s GJBF
`
`achieves noise suppression by using a multiple input canceller (“MC”) to subtract
`
`certain components of the noise signal from a top path that already has an attenuated
`
`noise response. This is fundamentally different than the invention of the ‘080 Patent,
`
`which operates using a first virtual mic pass to capture both speech and noise in
`
`combination with a second virtual microphone that has a substantially similar
`
`response to noise, such that the noise may be cancelled.
`
`VIII. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
`I understand that Petitioner claims to have applied the plain and
`38.
`
`ordinary meaning of the claims terms as they would have been understood by a
`
`13
`
`Jawbone Exhibit No. 2001, IPR2024-00350
`Page 015
`
`
`
`Case 6:23-cv-00158-ADA Document 76-4 Filed 05/08/24 Page 17 of 24
`
`IPR2024-00350
`PATENT NO. 10,779,080
`
`POSITA, consistent with the ‘080 Patent’s disclosure and prosecution history. For
`
`my analysis, I have considered each claim term and applied its plain and ordinary
`
`meaning consistent with the ‘080 Patent’s disclosure and prosecution history.
`
`IX. PETITIONER’S COMBINATIONS DO NOT RENDER ANY
`CLAIM OBVIOUS
`A. GROUND 1: Brandstein in View of Ikeda Does Not Render
`Obvious Claims 1-20
`In my opinion, combination of Brandstein does not render claims 1-20
`
`39.
`
`of the ‘080 Patent obvious.
`
`1.
`
`Petitioner’s Combination Does Not Disclose or
`Render Obvious “the second linear response to noise
`[is/being] substantially similar to the first linear
`response to noise” as Recited in Independent Claims 7
`and 14 or “wherein the first virtual microphone and
`second virtual microphone have substantially similar
`responses to noise” as recited in Independent Claim 1
`40. The Petition argues that Brandstein discloses or renders obvious this
`
`limitation, and does not otherwise argue that it is inherent. I disagree that Brandstein
`
`discloses “the second linear response to noise [is/being] substantially similar to the
`
`first linear response to noise” as Recited in Independent Claims 7 and 14 or “wherein
`
`the first virtual microphone and second virtual microphone have substantially similar
`
`responses to noise” as recited in Independent Claim 1.
`
`41.
`
` Unlike the invention of the ‘080 Patent which contemplates a first
`
`virtual microphone that captures both speech and noise, the top branch of the GJBF
`
`14
`
`Jawbone Exhibit No. 2001, IPR2024-00350
`Page 016
`
`
`
`Case 6:23-cv-00158-ADA Document 76-4 Filed 05/08/24 Page 18 of 24
`
`IPR2024-00350
`PATENT NO. 10,779,080
`
`discussed in the cited portions of Brandstein captures speech while suppressing as
`
`much noise as possible, while the bottom branch captures as much noise as possible
`
`while suppressing speech. Brandstein states that for the top path “[t]he [fixed
`
`beamformer] is designed to form a beam in the look direction so that the target signal
`
`is passed through and all other signals are attenuated” while for the bottom path
`
`“the [blocking matrix] forms a null in the look direction so that the target signal is
`
`suppressed and all other signals are passed through.” Ex. 1005 at 88 (emphasis
`
`added). In other words, the fixed beamformer (top path) passes speech through (the
`
`target signal) and attenuates noise, while the blocking matrix (bottom path)
`
`suppresses speech and passes noise through. Brandstein’s design is therefore
`
`consistent with the type of “conventional arrays and algorithms, which seek to
`
`reduce noise by nulling out noise sources” that the ‘080 Patent itself distinguishes.
`
`Ex. 1001 at 3:51-52. Brandstein’s implementation is very different than the
`
`invention of the ‘080 Patent, in which the first virtual microphone passes through
`
`both speech and noise, such that another virtual response with a “substantially
`
`similar” noise response may be used to cancel noise while preserving speech. A
`
`POSITA would understand that a virtual microphone that attenuates noise does not
`
`have a “substantially similar” noise response to one that passes noise through.
`
`42.
`
`I understand that Petitioner and Dr. Johnson argue that “[b]oth virtual
`
`microphones also have essentially the same … responses to noise, so that the noise
`
`15
`
`Jawbone Exhibit No. 2001, IPR2024-00350
`Page 017
`
`
`
`Case 6:23-cv-00158-ADA Document 76-4 Filed 05/08/24 Page 19 of 24
`
`IPR2024-00350
`PATENT NO. 10,779,080
`
`responses cancel out in the GJBF’s final subtraction step.” Pet. at 44 (citing to Dr.
`
`Johnson’s declaration at ¶119). I disagree. The ultimate result of cancelling noise in
`
`“the final output of an example Griffiths-Jim beamformer” does not disclose (or even
`
`suggest) that the noise responses of a first and second virtual microphone must be
`
`substantially similar. A POSITA would not leap to any such conclusion, particularly
`
`given that the cited portions of Brandstein teach a contrary means of noise
`
`suppression. The Petition’s obviousness analysis is based on a hindsight reverse
`
`engineering of the noise suppression device of the ‘080 Patent. Brandstein states that
`
`it uses a “multiple input canceller” (“MC”) which “generate[s] replicas of
`
`components correlated with the interferences” that are “subtracted from a delayed
`
`output signal [] of the fixed beamformer” based on which “the target signal is
`
`enhanced and undesirable signals such as ambient noise and interferences are
`
`suppressed.” Ex. 1005 at 88-89. In other words, instead of using virtual
`
`microphones with substantially similar noise responses, Brandstein’s GJBF attempts
`
`to isolate speech in the top path as much as possible, then uses the MC to subtract
`
`only those noise components of the bottom path that are “correlated with the
`
`interferences.”
`
`43.
`
`I understand that Petitioner and Dr. Johnson argue that “as highlighted
`
`in red in Fig. 5.2, “in the direction of the interference, a deep null is formed” …
`
`[reflecting] that subtracting the bottom branch from the top branch cancels the
`
`16
`
`Jawbone Exhibit No. 2001, IPR2024-00350
`Page 018
`
`
`
`Case 6:23-cv-00158-ADA Document 76-4 Filed 05/08/24 Page 20 of 24
`
`IPR2024-00350
`PATENT NO. 10,779,080
`
`interference, confirming that the virtual microphones’ responses to the interference
`
`are essentially the same”
`
`
`
`Pet. at 44. But Figure 5.2 does not support Petitioner’s assertions. Figure 5.2 shows
`
`the overall directivity of an exemplary GJBF at three different frequencies (i.e. the
`
`combination of both the top and bottom path, with the bottom path also including
`
`processing by the “multiple input canceler”), not the directivity of either virtual
`
`microphone. That directivity merely has an area of significantly reduced gain in the
`
`direction of an interference (i.e. a noise source). This reflects the overall result of the
`
`system in attenuating noise; a POSITA would not understand this figure to disclose
`
`anything about the comparative responses to noise of the top or bottom path within
`
`that system (which are not even depicted in the figure). In any case, as discussed
`
`above, Brandstein contemplates this result based on subtracting elements of noise
`
`(generated by a multiple input canceller by taking “replicas of components
`
`17
`
`Jawbone Exhibit No. 2001, IPR2024-00350
`Page 019
`
`
`
`Case 6:23-cv-00158-ADA Document 76-4 Filed 05/08/24 Page 21 of 24
`
`IPR2024-00350
`PATENT NO. 10,779,080
`
`correlated with the interferences”) from an FBF signal that already has as little noise
`
`as possible, not based on any “substantially similar” noise response.
`
`44. Brandstein’s Figure 5.3, which actually depicts the directivity of the
`
`cited GJBF’s top and bottom path unlike Figure 5.2, further shows that their
`
`responses to noise are not substantially similar. Ex. 1005 at 80. I have highlighted
`
`the noise response of each plot in green. A POSITA would plainly understand that
`
`these responses are not substantially similar.
`
`
`
`45.
`
`I note that Petitioner and Dr. Johnson cite to an annotated version of
`
`Brandstein’s Fig. 5.3 in support of certain arguments regarding the dissimilarity of
`
`the speech responses. Pet. at 44-45. Conspicuously, Petitioner does not refer to this
`
`figure in its noise response arguments. In fact, Petitioner’s annotated figure further
`
`demonstrates that the Brandstein does not disclose virtual microphones with
`
`substantially similar responses to noise. In any case, as I explain with respect to the
`
`18
`
`Jawbone Exhibit No. 2001, IPR2024-00350
`Page 020
`
`
`
`Case 6:23-cv-00158-ADA Document 76-4 Filed 05/08/24 Page 22 of 24
`
`IPR2024-00350
`PATENT NO. 10,779,080
`
`annotated Fig. 5.3 above, the noise responses of the FBF and the BM in Fig 5.3 are
`
`plainly very different.
`
`
`
`46.
`
`I therefore conclude that Brandstein does not disclose or render obvious
`
`“the second linear response to noise [is/being] substantially similar to the first linear
`
`response to noise” as Recited in Independent Claims 7 and 14 or “wherein the first
`
`virtual microphone and second virtual microphone have substantially similar
`
`responses to noise,” as recited in Claim 1. In fact, the discussion in Chapter 5 of
`
`Branstein provides only a high-level review of the Griffiths-Jim beamformer (GJBF)
`
`in Sec. 5.2, in the context of at addressing the “robustness problem” in the GJBF (the
`
`primary focus of Chapter 5) arising from “target-signal leakage”. As Chapter 5 does
`
`not disclose equations for the GJBF discussed in section 5.2, Fig. 5.3 would provide
`
`a POSITA’s only understanding of the actual noise responses of its FBF and BM
`
`19
`
`Jawbone Exhibit No. 2001, IPR2024-00350
`Page 021
`
`
`
`Case 6:23-cv-00158-ADA Document 76-4 Filed 05/08/24 Page 23 of 24
`
`IPR2024-00350
`PATENT NO. 10,779,080
`
`outside of the above-cited disclosure that noise is attenuated in its FBF and not in its
`
`BM. This would further support a POSITA’s understanding that the top and bottom
`
`branches of Brandstein’s GJBF do not have substantially similar responses to noise.
`
`X. CONCLUSION
`In signing this declaration, I recognize that the declaration will be filed
`47.
`
`as evidence in a contested case before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board of the
`
`United States Patent and Trademark Office. I also recognize that I may be subject
`
`to cross-examination in the case and that cross-examination will take place within
`
`the United States. If cross-examination is required of me, I will appear for cross-
`
`examination within the United States during the time allotted for cross-examination.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`20
`
`Jawbone Exhibit No. 2001, IPR2024-00350
`Page 022
`
`
`
`Case 6:23-cv-00158-ADA Document 76-4 Filed 05/08/24 Page 24 of 24
`
`IPR2024-00350
`PATENT NO. 10,779,080
`
`I hereby declare that all statements made herein of my own knowledge are
`
`true and that all statements made on information and belief are believed to be true;
`
`and further that these statements were made with the knowledge that willful false
`
`statements and the like so made are punishable by fine or imprisonment, or both,
`
`under Section 1001 of Title 18 of the United States Code.
`
`
`
`Executed this 28th day of March 2024
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`
`
`Akbar M Sayeed
`
`________________________
`
`21
`
`Jawbone Exhibit No. 2001, IPR2024-00350
`Page 023
`
`
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
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.
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.
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
