Paper: 6
`Trials@uspto.gov
`571-272-7822 Entered: July 24, 2017
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`APPLE INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`ANDREA ELECTRONICS CORP.,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`Case IPR2017-00628
`Patent 6,049,607
`____________
`
`
`
`Before STEPHEN C. SIU, MICHAEL R. ZECHER, and
`JEREMY M. PLENZLER, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`SIU, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`
`
`DECISION
`Granting Institution of Inter Partes Review
`35 U.S.C § 314(a) and 37 C.F.R. § 42.108
`
`
`
`I. INTRODUCTION
`Apple Inc. (“Petitioner”) requests inter partes review of claims 1 and
`25 of U.S. Patent No. 6,049,607 (“the ’607 patent,” Ex. 1001) pursuant to 35
`
`
`Trials@uspto.gov
`571-272-7822 Entered: July 24, 2017
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`APPLE INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`ANDREA ELECTRONICS CORP.,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`Case IPR2017-00628
`Patent 6,049,607
`____________
`
`
`
`Before STEPHEN C. SIU, MICHAEL R. ZECHER, and
`JEREMY M. PLENZLER, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`SIU, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`
`
`DECISION
`Granting Institution of Inter Partes Review
`35 U.S.C § 314(a) and 37 C.F.R. § 42.108
`
`
`
`I. INTRODUCTION
`Apple Inc. (“Petitioner”) requests inter partes review of claims 1 and
`25 of U.S. Patent No. 6,049,607 (“the ’607 patent,” Ex. 1001) pursuant to 35
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00628
`Patent 6,049,607
`
`U.S.C. §§ 311 et seq. Paper 1 (“Pet.”). Andrea Electronics Corp. (“Patent
`Owner”) did not file a preliminary response. Institution of an inter partes
`review is authorized by statute when “the information presented in the
`petition . . . and any response . . . shows that there is a reasonable likelihood
`that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims
`challenged in the petition.” 35 U.S.C. § 314(a). Upon consideration of the
`Petition, we conclude the information presented therein shows there is a
`reasonable likelihood that Petitioner would prevail in establishing the
`unpatentability of claims 1 and 25 of the ’607 patent.
`
`A. Related Matters
`We are informed that the ’607 patent is presently the subject of the
`following:
`- District court actions: Andrea v. Apple, Inc., Action No. 2-16-cv-
`05220; Andrea v. Samsung Electronics Co., Action No. 2-16-cv-
`05217; Andrea v. Hewlett-Packard Co., Action No. 2-15-cv-
`00208; Andrea v. Dell Inc., Action No. 2-15-00209; Andrea v.
`Acer Inc., Action No. 2-15-cv-00210; Andrea v. Toshiba Corp.,
`Action No. 2-15-cv-00211; Andrea v. Lenovo Holding Co., Inc.,
`Action No. 2-15-cv-00212; Andrea v. ASUSTeK Computer Inc.,
`Action No. 2-15-cv-00214; and Andrea v. Realtek Semiconductor
`Corp., Action No. 2-15-cv-00215.
`- Administrative proceedings before the International Trade
`Commission: 337-TA-1026, 337-TA-949, 337-TA-3053.
`- Proceedings before the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office: Cases
`IPR2015-01393, IPR2016-00461, and IPR2016-00474.
`See Pet. v-vii; Paper 4, 2.
`
`2
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00628
`Patent 6,049,607
`
`
`
`B. The ’607 Patent
`The ’607 patent describes echo-canceling in teleconferencing
`communications. Ex. 1001, 1:17–19.
`
`C. Illustrative Claim
`Independent claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the
`challenged claims:
`1. An interference canceling apparatus for canceling, from a
`target signal generated from a target source, an interference signal
`generated by an interference source, said apparatus comprising:
`a main input for inputting said target signal;
`a reference input for inputting said interference signal;
`a beam splitter for beam-splitting said target signal into a
`plurality of band-limited target signals and beam splitting said
`interference signal into band-limited interference signals, wherein the
`amount and frequency of band-limited target signals equal the amount
`and frequency of band-limited interference signals, whereby for each
`band-limited target signal there is a corresponding band-limited
`interference signal;
`an adaptive filter for adaptively filtering, each bandlimited
`interference signal from each corresponding band-limited target signal.
`
`Id. at 10:10–27.
`
`D. Asserted Grounds of Unpatentability
`Petitioner asserts that claims 1 and 25 are unpatentable based on the
`following grounds (Pet. 5):
`
`3
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00628
`Patent 6,049,607
`
`Reference(s)
`
`Chu1
`Chu and Kellermann2
`
`Basis
`
`§ 102
`§ 103
`
`Claims Challenged
`
`1 and 25
`1 and 25
`
`II. DISCUSSION
`
`A. Claim Construction
`In an inter partes review, we construe claim terms in an unexpired
`patent according to their broadest reasonable construction in light of the
`specification of the patent in which they appear. 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b).
`Consistent with the broadest reasonable construction, claim terms are
`presumed to have their ordinary and customary meaning, as understood by a
`person of ordinary skill in the art, in the context of the entire patent
`disclosure. In re Translogic Tech., Inc., 504 F.3d 1249, 1257 (Fed. Cir.
`2007).
`At this juncture of the proceeding, we determine that it is not
`necessary to provide an express interpretation of any term recited in the
`challenged claims. See, e.g., Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc.,
`200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (explaining that only those claim terms
`that are in controversy need to be construed, and only to the extent necessary
`to resolve the controversy).
`
`
`
`1 U.S. Patent No. 5,263,019, issued Nov. 16, 1993 (“Chu,” Ex. 1005).
`2 Kellermann, Walter, “Strategies for Combining Acoustic Echo
`Cancellation and Adaptive Beamforming Microphone Arrays, Vol. 1 IEEE
`INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE ON ACOUSTICS, SPEECH, AND SIGNAL
`PROCESSING 219–222 (1997) (“Kellermann,” Ex. 1007).
`
`4
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00628
`Patent 6,049,607
`
`B. Cited Prior Art References
`Chu
`1.
`Chu describes an echo cancelling device for reducing the effects of
`feedback in a communication system. Ex. 1005, 3:23–25.
`Figure 1 of Chu is reproduced below.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`As illustrated in Figure 1 of Chu, a noise cancellation device receives
`and processes signal m(z) from a near end of a communication system to
`remove echo components from signal m(z) (52-53, 59-61) and receives and
`processes signal s(z) from a far end of the communication system, which is
`
`
`
`5
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00628
`Patent 6,049,607
`
`used in estimating the echo contained in signal m(z). Ex. 1005, 4:52–53,
`4:59–61, 4:65–67, 5:5–7.
`
`Kellermann
`2.
`Kellermann describes echo cancellation in a communication system
`and adaptive beamforming microphone arrays. Ex. 1007, 219.
`
`
`C. Anticipation by Chu/Obviousness over Chu and Kellermann
`
`Petitioner contends claims 1 and 25 are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C.
`§§ 102 and 103 as anticipated by Chu and as obvious over the combination
`of Chu and Kellermann. Pet. 26–40. Relying on the testimony of Dr.
`Bertrand Hochwald, Petitioner explains how the cited references describe all
`of the claim limitations. Id. (citing Ex. 1003).
`At this juncture of the proceeding, Petitioner has accounted
`sufficiently for the limitations of claim 1, for example. Claim 1 recites an
`apparatus comprising a main input for inputting a target signal. Petitioner
`argues that Chu discloses an apparatus that receives a “microphone signal
`m(z).” Pet. 26 (citing Ex. 1005 Fig. 4:50–59, 4:65–5:7, 5:37–42; Ex. 1003
`¶ 65); see also Pet. 24–25, Ex. 1005 Fig. 1.
`As Petitioner explains, Chu discloses a “signal m(z) . . . [that] is
`applied to echo cancellation system . . . which processes the microphone
`signal to remove any echo components.” Ex. 1005, 4:28–29, 4:56, 4:59–61,
`Fig. 1. Hence, Chu discloses a signal (i.e., a “target signal”) that is applied
`to an input (i.e., a “main input”) of an apparatus, as recited in claim 1.
`Claim 1 recites a reference input for inputting an interference signal.
`Petitioner argues that Chu discloses a “loudspeaker signal s(z) is provided to
`an echo canceller to create an estimate of the echo that will be generated by
`
`6
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00628
`Patent 6,049,607
`
`broadcasting the loudspeaker signal s(z) at the near end,” and that “[t]he
`estimated echo is then cancelled from the microphone signals m(z).” Pet.
`26–28 (citing Ex. 1005, 4:65–5:7, 5:37–42, Fig. 1; Ex. 1003 ¶ 65).
`As Petitioner explains, Chu discloses a “signal s(z) [that] is . . .
`applied to echo cancellation system 15 for use in estimating the echo
`contained in the microphone signal.” Ex. 1005, 5:5–8. Hence, Chu
`discloses signal s(z) (i.e., an “interference signal”) that is input into a
`component of an echo cancellation system (i.e., input into a “reference
`input”), as recited in claim 1.
`Claim 1 recites a beam splitter for beam-splitting the target signal and
`the interference signal into respective (and corresponding) band-limited
`target and interference signals. Petitioner argues that Chu discloses a
`“system [that] splits . . . the microphone signal m(z) . . . into frequency
`bands” and passes “the digitized microphone signal m(z) . . . through a
`signal splitter . . . which separates the signal into . . . frequency-limited
`signals.” Pet. 29. Petitioner also argues that Chu discloses that the “system
`. . . splits . . . the loudspeaker signal s(z) . . . into frequency bands” and
`filters “the loudspeaker signal s(z) . . . through a signal splitter . . . to split it
`into . . . bandpass loudspeaker signals.” Id. at 29 (citing Ex. 1005, Fig. 1,
`5:8–16, 5:25–31, 7:26–31; Ex. 1001, 10:17–19, 12:20–21, Fig. 1).
`As Petitioner explains, Chu discloses a “splitter . . . which separates
`[m(z)] into . . . distinct frequency bands,” and that the signal s(z) is also
`“separated by [a] signal splitter . . . into its spectral components.” Ex. 1005,
`5:13–14, 5:28–30; see also Pet. 29–31. In other words, Chu discloses a
`“beam splitter” (i.e., a “splitter”) for beam-splitting the target signal (i.e.,
`m(z) signal) and the interference signal (i.e., s(z) signal) into a plurality of
`
`7
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00628
`Patent 6,049,607
`
`band-limited (and corresponding) target and interference signals, as recited
`in claim 1.
`Alternatively, Petitioner argues that Kellermann discloses “echo
`cancellation” using “beamforming microphone arrays,” and that it would
`have been known by one of ordinary skill in the art to have “replaced [a
`single microphone] with a microphone array” and “allowing the system . . .
`to detect the ‘beam’ of sound.” Pet. 33–34. Hence, Petitioner argues that
`Kellermann discloses a “beam” splitter, as recited in claim 1. Petitioner also
`provides reasons with supporting factual underpinnings to support the
`conclusion that the combination of Chu and Kellermann would have been
`obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art. Pet. 33–40.
`Claim 1 recites a filter for filtering a bandlimited interference signal
`from each corresponding band-limited target signal. Petitioner argues that
`Chu discloses this feature. Pet. 30–31. As Petitioner explains, Chu
`discloses a “filter” that “removes the estimated echo from the corresponding
`bandlimited microphone signal,” and “subtracts that estimated echo in each
`band from the corresponding band-limited microphone signal to obtain an
`echo-cancelled signal.” Id. (citing Ex. 1005 5:31–42, 7:64–8:38, 9:7–11,
`Figs. 1, 3). Hence, Chu discloses a filter for filtering (i.e., subtracting) each
`interference signal (i.e., each estimated echo) from each corresponding
`band-limited target signal (i.e., each corresponding band-limited microphone
`signal), as recited in claim 1.
`In summary, Petitioner shows there is a reasonable likelihood of
`prevailing in establishing the unpatentability of claim 1 of the ’607 patent.
`On this record, Petitioner also shows there is a reasonable likelihood of
`
`8
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00628
`Patent 6,049,607
`
`prevailing in establishing the unpatentability of claim 25 of the ’607 patent.
`Pet. 26–40.
`
`III. CONCLUSION
`For the foregoing reasons, we determine that the information
`presented in the Petition establishes a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner
`would prevail in showing that claims 1 and 25 of the ’607 patent are
`unpatentable. At this preliminary stage, we have not made a final
`determination with respect to the patentability of the challenged claims or
`any underlying factual and legal issues.
`
`IV. ORDER
`
`Accordingly, it is:
`
`ORDERED that pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 314(a), an inter partes
`
`review is hereby instituted as to claims 1 and 25 of the ’607 patent on the
`following grounds of unpatentability:
`Reference(s)
`Chu
`Chu and Kellermann
`
`Challenged Claims
`1 and 25
`1 and 25
`
`
`FURTHER ORDERED that pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 314(c) and
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.4, notice is hereby given of the institution of a trial, which
`commences on the entry date of this decision.
`
`
`Basis
`§ 102
`§ 103
`
`9
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00628
`Patent 6,049,607
`
`PETITIONER:
`Jeffrey Kushan
`Steven Baik
`Thomas Broughan
`SIDLEY AUSTIN LLP
`jkushan@sidley.com
`sbaik@sidley.com
`tbroughan@sidley.com
`
`
`PATENT OWNER:
`William Belanger
`Andrew Schultz
`Griffin Mesmer
`PEPPER HAMILTON LLP
`belangerw@pepperlaw.com
`schultza@pepperlaw.com
`mesmerg@pepperlaw.com
`
`
`10
`
`
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
