Case 2:23-cv-01161-MEF-LDW Document 76 Filed 02/07/25 Page 1 of 42 PageID:
`1654
`
`Peter Lambrianakos
`Email: plambrianakos@fabricantllp.com
`Vincent J. Rubino, III
`Email: vrubino@fabricantllp.com
`Richard M. Cowell (Admitted Pro Hac Vice)
`Email: rcowell@fabricantllp.com
`FABRICANT LLP
`51 John F. Kennedy Parkway, First Floor West
`Short Hills, New Jersey 07078
`Telephone: (212) 257-5797
`Facsimile: (212) 257-5796
`
`ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFF
`JAWBONE INNOVATIONS, LLC
`
`
`
`JAWBONE INNOVATIONS, LLC,
`
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`
`
`v.
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY
`NEWARK DIVISION
`§
`
`§
`Civil Action No. 23-01161-
`§
`MEF-LDW
`§
`
`§
`Michael E. Farbiarz, U.S.D.J.
`§
`Leda Dunn Wettre, U.S.M.J.
`§
`
`§
`
`§
`§
`§
`
`
`
`SONY ELECTRONICS INC.,
`
`
`Defendant.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`PLAINTIFF JAWBONE INNOVATIONS, LLC’S
`OPENING MARKMAN BRIEF
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:23-cv-01161-MEF-LDW Document 76 Filed 02/07/25 Page 2 of 42 PageID:
`1655
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`Page(s)
`
`
`I.
`II.
`
`INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................... 1
`PATENT BACKGROUND AND TECHNOLOGY ...................................... 1
`A.
`The ’213 and ’611 Patents ..................................................................... 3
`B.
`The ’357 Patent ..................................................................................... 4
`C.
`The ’327 Patent ..................................................................................... 4
`III. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION LEGAL FRAMEWORK ................................... 5
`IV. LEVEL OF SKILL IN THE ART ................................................................... 8
`V. DISPUTED TERMS ........................................................................................ 8
`A.
`The ’213 and ’611 Patents ..................................................................... 8
`i.
`“applying a calibration to at least one of the first signal
`and the second signal” (’213 Patent, Claim 1; ’611
`Patent, Claims 31 and 44) ........................................................... 8
`“first quantity”/ “second quantity” (’213 Patent, Claim 1;
`’611 Patent, Claims 29 and 44) .................................................10
`“a filter, wherein the filter is formed by generating a first
`quantity by applying a calibration to at least one of the
`first signal and the second signal, generating a second
`quantity by applying a delay to the first signal, and
`forming the filter as a ratio of the first quantity to the
`second quantity” (’213 Patent, Claim 1) ...................................11
`“generating a first quantity by applying a calibration to at
`least one o the first signal and the second signal” (’213
`Patent, Claim 1).........................................................................12
`“generating a second quantity by applying a delay to the
`first signal” (’213 Patent, Claim 1) ...........................................13
`
`ii.
`
`iii.
`
`iv.
`
`v.
`
`i
`
`

`

`Case 2:23-cv-01161-MEF-LDW Document 76 Filed 02/07/25 Page 3 of 42 PageID:
`1656
`
`vi.
`
`vii.
`
`“applying a calibration to a second signal of a second
`physical microphone” (’611 Patent, Claims 29 and 44) ...........14
`“forming a filter by generating a first quantity by
`applying a calibration to a second signal of a second
`physical microphone, generating a second quantity by
`applying the delay to a first signal of a first physical
`microphone, and forming the filter as a ratio of the first
`quantity to the second quantity” (’611 Patent, Claim 29) ........14
`viii. “forming a filter by generating a first quantity by
`applying a calibration to at least one of the first signal
`and the second signal, generating a second quantity by
`applying a delay to the first signal, and forming the filter
`as a ratio of the first quantity to the second quantity”
`(’611 Patent, Claim 44) .............................................................15
`“applying the delay” (’611 Patent, Claim 29) ..........................16
`ix.
`’327 Patent ...........................................................................................17
`x.
`“stationary noise” (’327 Patent, Claims 1, 6, and 11) ..............17
`xi.
`“non-stationary noise” (’327 Patent, Claims 1, 5, and 11) .......19
`xii.
`“detecting a type of noise” (’327 Patent, Claim 11) .................21
`The ’357 Patent (“substantially similar” and “substantially
`dissimilar”) ..........................................................................................22
`xiii. “substantially dissimilar [responses to speech]” (’357
`Patent, Claims 1 and 15) ...........................................................26
`xiv. “substantially similar [responses to noise]” (’357 Patent,
`Claims 1 and 15) .......................................................................28
`VI. CONCLUSION ..............................................................................................34
`
`
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`ii
`
`

`

`Case 2:23-cv-01161-MEF-LDW Document 76 Filed 02/07/25 Page 4 of 42 PageID:
`1657
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
` Page(s)
`
`Cases
`Andrew Corp. v. Gabriel Elecs., Inc.,
`847 F.2d 819 (Fed. Cir. 1988) ...................................................................... 23, 24
`Apple Inc. v. Samsung Elecs., Co.,
`786 F.3d 983 (Fed. Cir. 2015), rev’d on other grounds sub nom.
`Samsung Elecs. Co. v. Apple Inc., 580 U.S. 53 (2016) ................................ 24, 25
`August Tech. Corp. v. Camtek, Ltd.,
`655 F.3d 1278 (Fed. Cir. 2011) ............................................................................ 5
`Boston Sci. Corp. v. Cook Inc.,
`187 F. Supp. 3d 249 (D. Mass. 2016) ................................................................. 26
`Cohesive Techs., Inc. v. Waters Corp.,
`543 F.3d 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2008) ...................................................................passim
`Deere & Co. v. Bush Hog, LLC,
`703 F.3d 1349 (Fed. Cir. 2012) ...................................................................... 7, 23
`Ferring B.V. v. Watson Laby’s., Inc.-(FL),
`No. 3:11-cv-00481-RCJ-VPC, 2013 WL 499158 (D. Nev. Feb. 6,
`2013), aff’d, 764 F.3d 1382 (Fed. Cir. 2014) ..................................................... 29
`Flatfrog Laby’s AB v. Promethean Ltd.,
`No. 19-2246 (MN), 2021 WL 4940935 (D. Del. 2021) ..................................... 29
`Fractus S.A. v. TCL Corp.,
`No. 2:20-CV-00097-JRG, 2021 WL 2983195 (E.D. Tex. Jul. 14,
`2021) ................................................................................................................... 28
`Grace Instrument Indus., LLC v. Chandler Instruments Co.,
`57 F.4th 1001 (Fed. Cir. 2023) ............................................................................. 7
`Hill-Rom Servs., Inc. v. Stryker Corp.¸
`755 F.3d 1367 (Fed. Cir. 2014) ...................................................................... 6, 18
`
`iii
`
`

`

`Case 2:23-cv-01161-MEF-LDW Document 76 Filed 02/07/25 Page 5 of 42 PageID:
`1658
`
`Hologic, Inc. v. Senorx, Inc.,
`No. C-08-00133RMW, 2009 WL 416571 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 18,
`2009) ................................................................................................................... 29
`Invensas Corp. v. Samsung Elecs. Co.,
`No. 17-1363 (MN), 2018 WL 6011858, at *3 (D. Del. Nov. 16,
`2018) ................................................................................................................... 29
`Ironburg Inventions Ltd. v. Valve Corp.,
`64 F.4th 1274 (Fed. Cir. 2023) ................................................................... 7, 8, 34
`Markman v. Westview Instruments, Inc.,
`52 F.3d 967 (Fed. Cir. 1995) ................................................................................ 5
`Nautilus, Inc. v. Biosig Instr., Inc.,
`572 U.S. 898 (2014) ........................................................................................ 6, 24
`Neodron, Ltd. v. Fujitsu Am., Inc.,
`No. 2:20-CV-00239-JRG-RSP, 2021 WL 2646214 (E.D. Tex. June
`28, 2021) ............................................................................................................. 34
`Par Pharm., Inc. v. Hospira, Inc.,
`835 F. App’x. 578 (Fed. Cir. 2020) ................................................................ 6, 25
`Phillips v. AWH Corp.,
`415 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc) .............................................. 5, 6, 9, 22
`Power Integrations, Inc. v. ON Semiconductor Corp.,
`396 F. Supp. 3d 851 (N.D. Cal. 2019) ................................................................ 10
`Recro Tech. LLC v. Actavis Laby’s FL, Inc.,
`No. 14-1118-GMS, 2015 WL 9590585 (D. Del. 2015) ..................................... 28
`Thorner v. Sony Comput. Ent. Am. LLC,
`669 F.3d 1362 (Fed. Cir. 2012) ............................................................................ 5
`Tinnus Enters., LLC v. Telebrands Corp.,
`733 F. App’x. 1011 (Fed. Cir. 2018) .................................................................... 7
`Vitronics Corp. v. Conceptronic, Inc.,
`90 F.3d 1576 (Fed. Cir. 1996) .......................................................................... 6, 9
`
`iv
`
`

`

`Case 2:23-cv-01161-MEF-LDW Document 76 Filed 02/07/25 Page 6 of 42 PageID:
`1659
`
`Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc.,
`200 F.3d 795 (Fed. Cir. 1999) ............................................................................ 22
`Warner-Jenkinson Co. v. Hilton Davis Chem. Co.,
`520 U.S. 17 (1997) .............................................................................................. 26
`Statutes
`35 U.S.C. §112 ........................................................................................................... 6
`Other Authorities
`“Non-linear and Non-stationary Time Series Analysis” (“Priestly”) .......... 17, 19, 20
`
`
`
`
`
`v
`
`

`

`Case 2:23-cv-01161-MEF-LDW Document 76 Filed 02/07/25 Page 7 of 42 PageID:
`1660
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`The claims of the Asserted Patents1 are written in clear language and recite
`
`clear elements well defined in the respective patents’ specifications. Nevertheless,
`
`Sony argues that every asserted claim is invalid as indefinite, as well as lacking
`
`written description and enablement.2 Sony demonstrates its overreach by, for
`
`example, by arguing that a single limitation of claim 1 of the ’213 Patent is indefinite
`
`for three different reasons. Jawbone will fully respond to Sony’s indefiniteness
`
`arguments in its responding brief under L.P.R. 4.5(c).
`
`Moreover, even the few constructions Sony proposes seek to impermissibly
`
`limit the claims to single disclosed embodiments. For example, Sony seeks to
`
`construe the term “applying a calibration…” from the ’213 Patent as requiring
`
`complete accuracy, despite the patent’s explicit teaching that complete accuracy “is
`
`not always feasible” and that a more practical, less accurate approach is useful.
`
`II.
`
`PATENT BACKGROUND AND TECHNOLOGY
`The Asserted Patents claim technology invented and commercialized by
`
`AliphCom d/b/a Jawbone (AliphCom), a pioneer in audio technology. In particular,
`
`
`1 The Asserted Patents are U.S. Patent Nos. 8,321,213 (the “’213 Patent,” Ex. A),
`8,326,611 (the “’611 Patent,” Ex. B), 11,122,357 (the “’357 Patent,” Ex. C), and
`10,218,327 (the “’327 Patent,” Ex. D) (together, the “Asserted Patents”).
`2 Jawbone understands that written description and enablement issues will be taken
`up at a later date, and will respond at that time.
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:23-cv-01161-MEF-LDW Document 76 Filed 02/07/25 Page 8 of 42 PageID:
`1661
`
`the inventions arose from the work of AliphCom’s Chief Scientist, Dr. Gregory
`
`Burnett, and his development of award-winning and revolutionary headset products.
`
`Prior to joining AliphCom, Dr. Burnett worked at Lawrence Livermore
`
`National Laboratory, where he performed work relating to using electromagnetic
`
`sensors to detect and characterize the movement of vocal tract components.
`
`In April of 2000, Dr. Burnett became the first employee of AliphCom.
`
`Dr. Burnett focused on speech and other acoustic processing; Dr. Burnett eventually
`
`invented the Pathfinder noise suppression process, which became the underlying
`
`technology in AliphCom’s products and led to the Patents-in-Suit. See, e.g., Ex. A,
`
`10:9-11:53, FIGS. 13, 14.
`
`In 2004, AliphCom released the Aliph Jawbone headset. This headset
`
`incorporated Dr. Burnett’s noise suppression technology. The headset won
`
`numerous awards for its sound quality, including being named as one of Time
`
`Magazine’s Best Inventions of 2004. Ex. E. Jawbone continued to release award-
`
`winning products. Ex. F. For example, the Jawbone ICON, which includes the
`
`technology of the Patents-in-Suit, won multiple awards, including Engadget’s 2010
`
`Wearable Device of the Year, Mobile Choice’s 2010 Best Bluetooth Headset, and
`
`IDEA Awards 2010 Gold Medal in Communication Tools. Ex. G.
`
`2
`
`

`

`Case 2:23-cv-01161-MEF-LDW Document 76 Filed 02/07/25 Page 9 of 42 PageID:
`1662
`
`A. The ’213 and ’611 Patents
`The ’213 and ’611 Patents are directed to acoustic voice activity detection
`
`(AVAD). Ex. A, 3:57-4:3.3 The claimed inventions utilize multiple microphones;
`
`the signals from these microphones (commonly denoted O1 and O2) are filtered and
`
`combined into two directional virtual microphones (V1 and V2) that ideally have
`
`similar responses to noise but different responses to speech. Id., 4:13-31, 4:50-5:51.
`
`
`
`The filtering is the heart of the invention. Figure 3 shows an example of
`
`forming virtual microphone V2, which has little, if any, response to speech:
`
`
`
`Id., FIG. 3. As shown above, the O2 microphone signal is calibrated to ideally match
`
`the level of the O1 microphone. Id., 5:20-34. In practice, perfectly accurate
`
`calibration is not feasible. Id., 28:67-29:17. The O1 signal is processed by an adaptive
`
`filter β and delayed by a fixed amount to compensate for the spatial difference
`
`between the physical microphones. Id., 5:20-6:16.
`
`
`3 The ’213 and ’611 Patents specifications are substantively identical. Citations are
`to the ’213 Patent (Ex. A).
`
`3
`
`

`

`Case 2:23-cv-01161-MEF-LDW Document 76 Filed 02/07/25 Page 10 of 42 PageID:
`1663
`
`As an example, the adaptive filter β is, itself, defined as the ratio of the
`
`calibrated O2 signal – denoted as α(z)O2(z) – to the delayed O1 signal:
`
`Id., 6:3-11.
`
`
`
`A similar process generates the V1 microphone, which has a stronger response
`
`to speech. Id., 5:20-35, 6:17-19, FIG. 4.
`
`The ratio of the generated virtual microphone signals can then determine
`
`whether speech is present. If the ratio is above a certain threshold, the system will
`
`indicate speech. Id., 6:20-46.
`
`The ’357 Patent
`B.
`The ’357 Patent builds on the concepts of the ’213 and ’611 Patents. As with
`
`those patents, the ’357 invention generates virtual microphones having substantially
`
`similar responses to noise but dissimilar responses to speech. One of the signals (V1)
`
`contains a mix of speech and noise, while the other (V2) contains only noise. The
`
`system then applies a linear transfer function to subtract the noise from the mixed
`
`signal.
`
`C. The ’327 Patent
`The ’327 Patent is directed to dynamically enhancing audio signals. Ex. D,
`
`Abstract, 4:41-5:3. The ’327 Patent’s invention dynamically varies the volume and
`
`4
`
`

`

`Case 2:23-cv-01161-MEF-LDW Document 76 Filed 02/07/25 Page 11 of 42 PageID:
`1664
`
`frequency equalization of a received audio stream according to the level and types
`
`of noise present. Id., 6:5-54, 7:14-65. The system includes a Noise Level Estimator
`
`(NLE) that determines the level and types of noise present. Id., 5:24, 8:21-27, 9:27-
`
`10:29. Using that information, the claimed invention then adjusts the gain of the
`
`speech portion of the signal. Id., 11:20-48. The invention may also adjust the audio
`
`equalization to emphasize, for example, high frequencies where speech typically
`
`resides. Id., 11:55-12:16.
`
`III. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION LEGAL FRAMEWORK
`Claim construction is a question of law to be decided by the Court. Markman
`
`v. Westview Instruments, Inc., 52 F.3d 967, 979 (Fed. Cir. 1995). In construing claim
`
`terms, courts begin with an examination of the claim language itself. August Tech.
`
`Corp. v. Camtek, Ltd., 655 F.3d 1278, 1284 (Fed. Cir. 2011). The terms used in the
`
`claims are generally given their “ordinary and customary meaning.” Phillips v. AWH
`
`Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1312 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc) (citations omitted). This is
`
`the meaning as understood by a person of ordinary skill in the art (“POSITA”) at the
`
`time of the invention. Id. at 1313. “There are only two exceptions” to the general
`
`rule that a claim term is given its plain and ordinary meaning: “1) when a patentee
`
`sets out a definition and acts as his own lexicographer, or 2) when the patentee
`
`disavows the full scope of a claim term either in the specification or during
`
`prosecution.” Thorner v. Sony Comput. Ent. Am. LLC, 669 F.3d 1362, 1365 (Fed.
`
`5
`
`

`

`Case 2:23-cv-01161-MEF-LDW Document 76 Filed 02/07/25 Page 12 of 42 PageID:
`1665
`
`Cir. 2012)); accord Hill-Rom Servs., Inc. v. Stryker Corp.¸ 755 F.3d 1367, 1371
`
`(Fed. Cir. 2014) (“We depart from the plain and ordinary meaning of claim terms
`
`based on the specification in only two instances: lexicography and disavowal.”).
`
`Accordingly, “although the specification often describes very specific embodiments
`
`of the invention, [the Federal Circuit] ha[s] repeatedly warned against confining the
`
`claims to those embodiments.” Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1323. That being said, a
`
`construction that excludes a preferred embodiment is “rarely, if ever, correct.”
`
`Vitronics Corp. v. Conceptronic, Inc., 90 F.3d 1576, 1583 (Fed. Cir. 1996).
`
`With regard to definiteness under 35 U.S.C. §112, the Supreme Court has
`
`explained that “absolute precision is unattainable” and “some modicum of
`
`uncertainty is the ‘price of ensuring the appropriate incentives for innovation.’”
`
`Nautilus, Inc. v. Biosig Instr., Inc., 572 U.S. 898, 899 (2014). Terms of degree and
`
`approximation are appropriate in patent claims, by using such a term a “patentee has
`
`brought what would otherwise be equivalents of a limitation into the literal scope of
`
`the claim.” Cohesive Techs., Inc. v. Waters Corp., 543 F.3d 1351, 1368 (Fed. Cir.
`
`2008). Using a term of approximation “avoids a strict numerical boundary to the
`
`specified parameter.” Id. “The authorized extension beyond the stated numbers in
`
`the range is cabined to what ‘a person having ordinary skill in the art . . . would
`
`reasonably consider ‘about . . .’ to encompass.’” Par Pharm., Inc. v. Hospira, Inc.,
`
`835 F. App’x. 578, 584 (Fed. Cir. 2020). Even ten years ago, the Federal Circuit had
`
`6
`
`

`

`Case 2:23-cv-01161-MEF-LDW Document 76 Filed 02/07/25 Page 13 of 42 PageID:
`1666
`
`“repeatedly confirmed that relative terms such as ‘substantially’ do not render patent
`
`claims so unclear as to prevent a person of skill in the art from ascertaining the scope
`
`of the claim.” Deere & Co. v. Bush Hog, LLC, 703 F.3d 1349, 1359 (Fed. Cir. 2012).
`
`See also, e.g., Ironburg Inventions Ltd. v. Valve Corp., 64 F.4th 1274, 1287-88 (Fed.
`
`Cir. 2023) (holding term “substantially the full distance between the top and bottom
`
`edge” not indefinite); Tinnus Enters., LLC v. Telebrands Corp., 733 F. App’x. 1011,
`
`1018 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (“As a threshold matter, we find that use of the relative term
`
`‘substantially’ within the disputed claim term does not render the term indefinite.”).
`
`To construe a claim containing a word of approximation, the Court must
`
`interpret the word and resulting range “in its technologic[al] and stylistic context.”
`
`Cohesive Techs., 543 F.3d at 1368. The Court “must look to the purpose that the
`
`[approximate] limitation serves” because, as the Federal Circuit has explained, the
`
`approximate limitation should be construed to encompass structures “to accomplish
`
`the function of the [limitation] described in the specification.” Id. at 1370; Grace
`
`Instrument Indus., LLC v. Chandler Instruments Co., 57 F.4th 1001, 1009-10 (Fed.
`
`Cir. 2023) (reversing finding of indefiniteness as to “enlarged chamber” because “in
`
`the context of this patent, ‘enlarged chamber’ does not require that chamber to be
`
`larger than some baseline object; rather it must be large enough to accomplish a
`
`particular function”). “This functional approach is necessary and appropriate,
`
`because the deliberate imprecision inherent in the word ‘about’ makes it impossible
`
`7
`
`

`

`Case 2:23-cv-01161-MEF-LDW Document 76 Filed 02/07/25 Page 14 of 42 PageID:
`1667
`
`to ‘capture the essence’ of the claimed invention in strict numeric terms.” Cohesive
`
`Techs., 543 F.3d at 1370. Thus, “[t]he need to meet the purpose of the claimed
`
`invention . . . helps inform one of ordinary skill’s understanding of the scope of the
`
`claims with reasonable certainty. Those embodiments that allow the claim’s purpose
`
`to be effectuated are within the scope of the claims, while those that do not are not.”
`
`Ironburg Inventions, 64 F.4th at 1288.
`
`IV. LEVEL OF SKILL IN THE ART
`As Dr. Sayeed explains, 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. Sayeed Decl., ¶¶ 48-56.
`
`V. DISPUTED TERMS
`A. The ’213 and ’611 Patents
`“applying a calibration to at least one of the first
`i.
`signal and the second signal” (’213 Patent, Claim 1;
`’611 Patent, Claims 31 and 44)
`Jawbone’s Proposed Construction
`Sony’s Proposed Construction
`
`Plain and ordinary meaning
`
`“adjusting the response of at least one
`of the physical microphone signals to
`
`8
`
`

`

`Case 2:23-cv-01161-MEF-LDW Document 76 Filed 02/07/25 Page 15 of 42 PageID:
`1668
`
`Jawbone’s Proposed Construction
`
`Sony’s Proposed Construction
`
`be the same as the other physical
`microphone signal”
`
`Sony’s construction seeks to limit the claims to a disclosed embodiment where
`
`the calibration results in identical responses—“the same as the other physical
`
`microphone signal.” But the ’213 and ’611 Patents explicitly recite embodiments
`
`where the calibration between two signals results in responses that do not match
`
`exactly. A construction that excludes a preferred embodiment is “rarely, if ever,
`
`correct.” Vitronics Corp. v. Conceptronic, Inc., 90 F.3d 1576, 1583 (Fed. Cir. 1996).
`
`See also Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1323 (“[P]ersons of ordinary skill in the
`
`art rarely would confine their definitions of terms to the exact representations
`
`depicted in the embodiments.”).
`
`Here, while equalizing the two microphones’ responses is the ideal result of
`
`calibration, the specification describes cases where the calibration does not result in
`
`equivalence between the two signals. Indeed, the specification explains that in
`
`practical systems it is not always feasible to calibrate two microphones such that
`
`their responses are identical:
`
`The description above has assumed that the microphones O1 and O2
`were calibrated so that their response to a source located the same
`distance away was identical in both amplitude and phase. This is not
`always feasible, so a more practical calibration procedure is presented
`below. It is not as accurate but is much simpler to implement.
`Ex. A, 28:64-29:1 (emphasis added).
`
`9
`
`

`

`Case 2:23-cv-01161-MEF-LDW Document 76 Filed 02/07/25 Page 16 of 42 PageID:
`1669
`
`The patent thus teaches an embodiment with a more practical calibration
`
`procedure that is “not as accurate.” Id., 28:67-29:2; 29:2-17 (describing procedure).
`
`Sony’s proposed construction would exclude this embodiment from the claims.
`
`The phrase itself is simple and can be applied without construction. The Court
`
`should therefore reject Sony’s attempt to limit the claims to one embodiment in the
`
`specification and decline to construe the term.
`
`ii.
`
`“first quantity”/ “second quantity” (’213 Patent,
`Claim 1; ’611 Patent, Claims 29 and 44)
`Jawbone’s Proposed Construction
`Sony’s Proposed Construction
`
`Plain and ordinary meaning
`
`Indefinite, not enabled, lacks written
`description support
`
`Alternatively: “a signal, not a scalar
`value or equivalent”
`
`The terms “first quantity” and “second quantity” are not terms of art and can
`
`be applied without construction. Sayeed Decl., ¶¶ 56-63. Sony’s construction
`
`apparently attempts to render statements Jawbone made in opposing Sony’s failed
`
`IPR proceedings into claim constructions. The PTAB expressly did not rely on these
`
`statements and the Court should decline to adopt Sony’s constructions. Power
`
`Integrations, Inc. v. ON Semiconductor Corp., 396 F. Supp. 3d 851, 864 (N.D. Cal.
`
`2019) (construction proposed during IPR that PTAB rejected was not binding).
`
`10
`
`

`

`Case 2:23-cv-01161-MEF-LDW Document 76 Filed 02/07/25 Page 17 of 42 PageID:
`1670
`
`To the extent that Sony argues this term is indefinite, Jawbone will respond in
`
`its responding Markman brief according to L.P.R. 4.5(c).
`
`iii.
`
`“a filter, wherein the filter is formed by generating a
`first quantity by applying a calibration to at least one
`of the first signal and the second signal, generating a
`second quantity by applying a delay to the first signal,
`and forming the filter as a ratio of the first quantity
`to the second quantity” (’213 Patent, Claim 1)
`Jawbone’s Proposed Construction
`Sony’s Proposed Construction
`
`Plain and ordinary meaning
`
`Indefinite, not enabled, lacks written
`description support
`
`Sony has not provided any support for its contention that this term is
`
`indefinite. Indeed, the words of the claim itself are clear and merely set out the steps
`
`to generate an adaptive filter, such as the β(z) filter described in the specification:
`
`
`
`Ex. A, 6:1-11. In the above equation, O1 and O2 are microphone signals, α(z) is “a
`
`calibration filter,” and z-γ is a filter implementing a fixed delay that compensates for
`
`the distance between the microphones of the array. Id., 5:20-34, 6:1-11; Sayeed
`
`Decl., ¶¶ 51-53. Thus, the generated first quantity is the result of applying the
`
`calibration α(z) to the microphone signal O2(z), and the generated second quantity is
`
`the result of applying the γ fixed delay to the microphone signal O1(z). Sayeed Decl.,
`
`¶¶ 53-54.
`
`11
`
`

`

`Case 2:23-cv-01161-MEF-LDW Document 76 Filed 02/07/25 Page 18 of 42 PageID:
`1671
`
`
`
`To the extent that Sony argues this term is indefinite, Jawbone will respond in
`
`its responding Markman brief according to L.P.R. 4.5(c).
`
`iv.
`
`“generating a first quantity by applying a calibration
`to at least one of the first signal and the second signal”
`(’213 Patent, Claim 1)
`Jawbone’s Proposed Construction
`Sony’s Proposed Construction
`
`Plain and ordinary meaning;
`
`Indefinite, not enabled, lacks written
`description support
`
`Sony has not yet set forth any argument as to how this clear and unambiguous
`
`term is indefinite. As discussed above, the term relates to forming an adaptive filter
`
`like those described in the specification. E.g., Ex. A, 5:20-34, 6:1-11; Sayeed Decl.,
`
`¶¶ 56-59. Indeed, FIG. 3 shows a calibration applied to the O2 microphone signal:
`
`
`
`In any event, the term as written is clear and requires no construction. To the
`
`extent that Sony argues this term is indefinite, Jawbone will respond in its
`
`responding Markman brief according to L.P.R. 4.5(c).
`
`12
`
`

`

`Case 2:23-cv-01161-MEF-LDW Document 76 Filed 02/07/25 Page 19 of 42 PageID:
`1672
`
`v.
`
`“generating a second quantity by applying a delay to
`the first signal” (’213 Patent, Claim 1)
`Jawbone’s Proposed Construction
`Sony’s Proposed Construction
`
`Plain and ordinary meaning
`
`Indefinite, not enabled, lacks written
`description support
`
`Sony has not yet set forth any argument as to how this clear and unambiguous
`
`term is indefinite. As discussed above, the term relates to forming an adaptive filter
`
`as described in the specification. E.g., Ex. A, 5:20-34, 6:1-11; Sayeed Decl., ¶¶ 60-
`
`63. Indeed, for example, FIG. 3 shows a delay applied to the O1 microphone signal:
`
`In any event, the term as written is clear and requires no construction. To the
`
`extent that Sony argues this term is indefinite, Jawbone will respond in its
`
`responding Markman brief according to L.P.R. 4.5(c).
`
`
`
`13
`
`

`

`Case 2:23-cv-01161-MEF-LDW Document 76 Filed 02/07/25 Page 20 of 42 PageID:
`1673
`
`vi.
`
`“applying a calibration to a second signal of a second
`physical microphone” (’611 Patent, Claim 29)
`Jawbone’s Proposed Construction
`Sony’s Proposed Construction
`
`Plain and ordinary meaning
`
`“adjusting the response of a second
`signal of a second physical
`microphone to be the
`same as the other physical
`microphone signal”
`
`As with the “applying calibration to at least one of the first signal and the
`
`second signal” discussed above, this term can be applied without construction.
`
`Sony’s construction would require the calibration to result in identical responses,
`
`and would exclude preferred embodiments disclosed in the specification. For the
`
`same reasons discussed above, the Court should reject Sony’s construction.
`
`vii. “forming a filter by generating a first quantity by
`applying a calibration to a second signal of a second
`physical microphone, generating a second quantity by
`applying the delay to a first signal of a first physical
`microphone, and forming the filter as a ratio of the
`first quantity to the second quantity” (’611 Patent,
`Claim 29)
`Jawbone’s Proposed Construction
`
`Sony’s Proposed Construction
`
`Plain and ordinary meaning; no
`construction necessary
`
`
`Indefinite, not enabled, lacks written
`description support
`
`Sony has not provided any support for its contention that this term is
`
`indefinite. Indeed, the words of the claim itself are clear and merely set out the steps
`
`to generate an adaptive filter β described in examples found in the specification:
`
`14
`
`

`

`Case 2:23-cv-01161-MEF-LDW Document 76 Filed 02/07/25 Page 21 of 42 PageID:
`1674
`
`
`
`Ex. A, 6:1-11; Sayeed Decl., ¶¶ 64-69. In the above equation, O1 and O2 are
`
`microphone signals, α(z) is “a calibration filter,” and z-γ is a filter implementing a
`
`fixed delay that compensates for the distance between the microphones of the array.
`
`Id., 5:20-34, 6:1-11. Thus, the generated first quantity is the result of applying the
`
`calibration α(z) to the microphone signal O2(z), and the generated second quantity is
`
`the result of applying the γ fixed delay to the microphone signal O1(z). Sayeed Decl.,
`
`¶¶ 67-69.
`
`
`
`To the extent that Sony argues this term is indefinite, Jawbone will respond in
`
`its responding Markman brief according to L.P.R. 4.5(c).
`
`viii. “forming a filter by generating a first quantity by
`applying a calibration to at least one of the first signal
`and the second signal, generating a second quantity
`by applying a delay to the first signal, and forming the
`filter as a ratio of the first quantity to the second
`quantity” (’611 Patent, Claim 44)
`Jawbone’s Proposed Construction
`Sony’s Proposed Construction
`
`Plain and ordinary meaning; no
`construction necessary
`
`
`Indefinite, not enabled, lacks written
`description support
`
`15
`
`

`

`Case 2:23-cv-01161-MEF-LDW Document 76 Filed 02/07/25 Page 22 of 42 PageID:
`1675
`
`Sony has not provided any support for its contention that this term is
`
`indefinite. Indeed, the words of the claim itself are clear and merely set out the steps
`
`to generate an adaptive filter β described in the specification:
`
`
`
`Ex. A, 6:1-11; Sayeed Decl., ¶¶ 70-73. In the above equation, O1 and O2 are
`
`microphone signals, α(z) is “a calibration filter,” and z-γ is a filter implementing a
`
`fixed delay that compensates for the distance between the microphones of the array.
`
`Id., 5:20-34, 6:1-11. Thus, the generated first quantity is the result of applying the
`
`calibration α(z) to the microphone signal O2(z), and the generated second quantity is
`
`the result of applying the γ fixed delay to the microphone signal O1(z). Sayeed Decl.,
`
`¶¶ 73-75.
`
`
`
`To the extent that Sony argues this term is indefinite, Jawbone will respond in
`
`its responding Markman brief according to L.P.R