Trials@uspto.gov
`571-272-7822
`
`
`
`
`Paper No. 34
`Entered: June 6, 2018
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`_______________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`_______________
`
`GOOGLE LLC,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`KONINKLIJKE PHILIPS N.V.,
`Patent Owner.
`_______________
`
`Case IPR2017-00437
`Patent 6,772,114 B1
`_______________
`
`
`Before KEVIN F. TURNER, ROBERT J. WEINSCHENK, and
`KAMRAN JIVANI, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`WEINSCHENK, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`
`
`FINAL WRITTEN DECISION
`35 U.S.C. § 318(a)
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`IPR2017-00437
`Patent 6,772,114 B1
`
`
`INTRODUCTION
`I.
`Google LLC (“Petitioner”) filed a Petition (Paper 2, “Pet.”) requesting
`an inter partes review of claims 10–16, 20, and 21 (“the challenged claims”)
`of U.S. Patent No. 6,772,114 B1 (Ex. 1001, “the ’114 patent”). Koninklijke
`Philips N.V. (“Patent Owner”) filed a Preliminary Response (Paper 6,
`“Prelim. Resp.”) to the Petition. On June 8, 2017, we instituted an inter
`partes review of the challenged claims of the ’114 patent on the following
`grounds:
`Applied Reference(s)
`Statutory Basis
`Claims
`10–15 and 20 35 U.S.C. § 102(b)1 Tucker et al., PCT Publication No.
`WO 98/52187 (published Nov. 19,
`1998) (Ex. 1004, “Tucker”)
`
`35 U.S.C. § 103(a) Tucker and the well-known art
`
`
`10–16, 20,
`and 21
`Paper 10 (“Dec. on Inst.”), 14.
`After institution, Patent Owner filed a Response (Paper 14, “PO
`Resp.”) to the Petition, and Petitioner filed a Reply (Paper 18, “Pet. Reply”)
`to the Response. An oral hearing was held on February 13, 2018, and a
`transcript of the hearing is included in the record. Paper 33 (“Tr.”).
`We issue this Final Written Decision pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 318(a).
`For the reasons set forth below, Petitioner has not shown by a preponderance
`
`
`1 The Leahy-Smith America Invents Act (“AIA”), Pub. L. No. 112-29,
`which was enacted on September 16, 2011, made amendments to 35 U.S.C.
`§§ 102, 103. AIA § 3(b), (c). Those amendments became effective eighteen
`months later on March 16, 2013. Id. § 3(n). Because the application from
`which the ’114 patent issued was filed before March 16, 2013, any citations
`herein to 35 U.S.C. §§ 102, 103 are to their pre-AIA versions.
`
`2
`
`

`

`IPR2017-00437
`Patent 6,772,114 B1
`
`of the evidence that claims 10–16, 20, and 21 of the ’114 patent are
`unpatentable.
`A.
`Related Proceedings
`The parties indicate that the ’114 patent is the subject of the following
`cases in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware:
`Koninklijke Philips N.V. v. ASUSTeK Computer Inc., No. 1:15-cv-01125 (D.
`Del.); Koninklijke Philips N.V. v. HTC Corp., No. 1:15-cv-01126 (D. Del.);
`Koninklijke Philips N.V. v. Visual Land, Inc., No. 1:15-cv-01127 (D. Del.);
`Koninklijke Philips N.V. v. Southern Telecom, Inc., No. 1:15-cv-01128 (D.
`Del.); Koninklijke Philips N.V. v. Double Power Technology, Inc., No. 1:15-
`cv-01130 (D. Del.); Koninklijke Philips N.V. v. Yifang USA, Inc., No. 1:15-
`cv-01131 (D. Del.); and Koninklijke Philips N.V. v. Acer Inc., No. 1:15-cv-
`01170 (D. Del.). Pet. 9; Paper 4, 2–3.
`B.
`The ’114 Patent
`The ’114 patent relates to a transmission system that splits a signal
`into a low frequency portion and a high frequency portion. Ex. 1001, 1:8–
`13. According to the ’114 patent, prior transmission systems that split a
`signal into spectral portions required considerable computation capacity. Id.
`at 1:52–57. The transmission system described in the ’114 patent purports to
`improve upon those prior systems by reducing computation capacity. Id. at
`1:60–62. Specifically, the ’114 patent describes a transmitter that uses
`Linear Predictive Coding (“LPC”) to code the high frequency portion of a
`signal prior to transmission. Id. at 2:10–12. LPC coding reduces the
`computation capacity of a coding device in the transmitter because LPC
`
`3
`
`

`

`
`
`IPR2017-00437
`Patent 6,772,114 B1
`
`coding does not require a down-sampler.2 Id. at 2:12–17. In addition, the
`’114 patent describes a receiver that uses white noise as a source to
`reconstruct the high frequency portion of a received signal. Id. at 2:18–24.
`This reduces the computation capacity of the receiver. Id. at 2:25–28.
`C.
`Illustrative Claim
`Claims 10 and 20 are independent. Claim 10 is reproduced below.
`10. A transmission system, comprising:
`a transmitter including
`a splitter for splitting up a transmission signal into
`a low frequency signal within a low frequency range and
`a high frequency signal within a high frequency range,
`the low frequency range being lower than the high
`frequency range,
`a first coder for deriving a first coded signal within
`the first frequency range from the low frequency signal,
`and
`
`a second coder for deriving a second coded signal
`within the high frequency range from the high frequency
`signal;
`a receiver in electrical communication with said
`transmitter to receive the first coded signal and the second
`coded signal, said receiver including
`a first decoder for sequentially applying a narrow-
`band decoder, an up-sampler and a low-pass filter to the
`first coded signal to generate a first reconstructed signal
`within the first frequency range, and
`
`
`2 A down-sampler reduces the sampling rate of a signal, whereas an up-
`sampler increases the sampling rate of a signal. Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 52, 54. A
`down-sampler typically is applied by a transmitter to reduce the bandwidth
`of a signal before transmission, and an up-sampler typically is applied by a
`receiver to reconstruct the original signal. Id. ¶¶ 53, 55.
`
`4
`
`

`

`IPR2017-00437
`Patent 6,772,114 B1
`
`
`a second decoder, wherein, based on the second
`coded signal, said second decoder sequentially applies a
`high-pass filter, a LPC synthesis filter and an amplifier to
`a noise signal to generate the second reconstructed signal.
`Ex. 1001, 7:50–8:7.
`
`II. ANALYSIS
`A.
`Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art
`Petitioner argues that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have
`had “a Master’s degree or better in electrical engineering (or a related
`discipline) with an emphasis in signal processing and at least 3 years of
`engineering experience,” as well as “experience with signal processing and
`the design of speech encoding and decoding schemes.” Pet. 23 (citing
`Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 30–31). Patent Owner does not dispute Petitioner’s definition
`of the level of ordinary skill in the art. See PO Resp. 11–12. Patent Owner
`also does not provide its own definition. See id. Based on the evidence of
`record, including the types of problems and solutions described in the ’114
`patent and the asserted prior art, we adopt Petitioner’s definition of the level
`of ordinary skill in the art. Pet. 23; Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 30–31.
`B.
`Claim Construction
`The claims of an unexpired patent are interpreted using the broadest
`reasonable interpretation in light of the specification of the patent in which
`they appear. 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b); Cuozzo Speed Techs., LLC v. Lee, 136
`S. Ct. 2131, 2144–45 (2016). “Under a broadest reasonable interpretation,
`words of the claim must be given their plain meaning, unless such meaning
`is inconsistent with the specification and prosecution history.” TriVascular,
`Inc. v. Samuels, 812 F.3d 1056, 1062 (Fed. Cir. 2016). An applicant may
`provide a definition of a term in the specification with reasonable clarity,
`
`5
`
`

`

`IPR2017-00437
`Patent 6,772,114 B1
`
`deliberateness, and precision. In re Paulsen, 30 F.3d 1475, 1480 (Fed. Cir.
`1994). In the absence of such a definition, limitations are not to be read into
`the claims from the specification. In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 1184
`(Fed. Cir. 1993).
`1.
`“high-pass filter”
`Petitioner proposes construing the term “high-pass filter” to mean “a
`device or programming sequence that transmits frequencies above a given
`cutoff frequency and substantially attenuates all others.” Pet. Reply 3.
`Petitioner argues that its proposed construction is supported by the
`specification of the ’114 patent and certain extrinsic evidence. Id. at 3–5
`(citing Ex. 1001, 3:13–29, Fig. 2; Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 78–81; Ex. 1006, 271–274;
`Ex. 1042, 207; Ex. 1043, 45:4–46:25; Ex. 1044 ¶¶ 12–13; Ex. 2014 ¶¶ 30,
`32, 45). Patent Owner proposes construing the term “high-pass filter” to
`mean “a filter that transmits frequencies above a given cutoff frequency and
`substantially attenuates all others.” PO Resp. 15. Patent Owner argues that
`its proposed construction also is supported by the specification of the ’114
`patent and certain extrinsic evidence. Id. (citing Ex. 1001, 5:23–31; Ex.
`2013, 246; Ex. 2014 ¶¶ 68–71; Ex. 2022, 34:13–36:23, 47:3–25).
`The parties agree that a high-pass filter is a filter that transmits
`frequencies above a given cutoff frequency and substantially attenuates all
`others. PO Resp. 15; Pet. Reply 3–4. The parties’ agreement is consistent
`with the specification of the ’114 patent, which states that a signal “is
`processed by a sixth-order Infinite Impulse Response high-pass filter
`(‘IIRHPF’) 51 that has a 3500 Hz cut-off frequency, so that a filtered noise
`signal arises which has a frequency range that is comparable to the
`frequency range of the signal having a high frequency range.” Ex. 1001,
`
`6
`
`

`

`IPR2017-00437
`Patent 6,772,114 B1
`
`5:26–31. The parties’ agreement also is supported by a dictionary definition
`of the term “high-pass filter” (Ex. 2013, 246), and the testimony of
`Petitioner’s declarant, Dr. Schuyler Quackenbush, and Patent Owner’s
`declarant, Dr. Michael Johnson (Ex. 2014 ¶¶ 68–71; Ex. 2022, 34:13–
`36:23).
`Petitioner contends that Patent Owner’s proposed construction “is
`incomplete . . . because its definition circularly uses the term ‘filter,’ without
`explanation.” Pet. Reply 4. According to Petitioner, the term “filter” refers
`to a device or programming sequence. Id. at 3–4. Petitioner’s proposed
`construction of the term “filter” is consistent with the specification of the
`’114 patent, which states:
`The input signal is split up into two spectral portions, the signal
`having a low frequency range being the result of the processing
`of the input signal with the low-pass filter (“LPF”) 27, and the
`signal having a high frequency range being the result of
`determining the difference between the signal having a low
`frequency range coming from the low-pass filter 27 and the
`input signal delayed by a delay element (“DELAY”) 25.
`Ex. 1001, 3:13–20. Petitioner’s proposed construction of the term “filter”
`also is supported by a dictionary definition of the term “filter” (Ex. 1042,
`207), and the testimony of Petitioner’s declarant, Dr. Quackenbush (Ex.
`1044 ¶¶ 12–13).
`For the foregoing reasons, we construe the term “high-pass filter” to
`mean “a device or programming sequence that transmits frequencies above a
`given cutoff frequency and substantially attenuates all others.”
`2.
`Remaining Claim Terms and Phrases
`Petitioner proposes construing the phrase “second decoder
`sequentially applies a high-pass filter, a LPC synthesis filter and an amplifier
`
`7
`
`

`

`IPR2017-00437
`Patent 6,772,114 B1
`
`to a noise signal” (Pet. 25–26), and both parties propose construing the
`phrase “second coded signal within a high frequency range” (PO Resp. 12–
`14; Pet. Reply 3). We determine that those claim phrases do not require
`express construction to resolve the parties’ disputes regarding the asserted
`grounds of unpatentability in this case. See infra Sections II.C, II.D; Vivid
`Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999)
`(“[O]nly those terms need be construed that are in controversy, and only to
`the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.”).
`C.
`Anticipation of Claims 10–15 and 20 by Tucker
`Petitioner argues that claims 10–15 and 20 are anticipated by Tucker.
`Pet. 10–11. A claim is anticipated if each limitation of the claim is disclosed
`in a single prior art reference arranged as in the claim. Net MoneyIN, Inc. v.
`VeriSign, Inc., 545 F.3d 1359, 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2008). We have considered
`the parties’ arguments and supporting evidence, and we determine that
`Petitioner has not shown by a preponderance of the evidence that claims 10–
`15 and 20 are anticipated by Tucker.
`1.
`Overview of Tucker
`Tucker relates to “an audio coding system for encoding and decoding
`an audio signal.” Ex. 1004, 6:2–5. Specifically, to encode an input signal,
`Tucker discloses that the input signal is low-pass filtered to form a lower
`sub-band signal and decimated.3 Id. at 13:19–24, Fig. 1. The lower sub-
`band signal is then supplied to a narrowband encoder, which may be a
`vocoder or waveband encoder. Id. at 14:5–7, Fig. 1. The input signal also is
`high-pass filtered to form an upper sub-band signal and decimated. Id. at
`
`
`3 The term “decimate” in Tucker refers to down-sampling. Ex. 1002 ¶ 132
`(“decimating (or downsampling)”); Ex. 2014 ¶ 88.
`
`8
`
`

`

`IPR2017-00437
`Patent 6,772,114 B1
`
`13:19–24, Fig. 1. The upper sub-band signal is then supplied to an upper
`sub-band analyzer, which analyzes the spectrum of the upper sub-band
`signal to determine its parametric coefficients and noise component. Id. at
`14:7–10, Fig. 1. The spectral parameters and the log of the noise energy are
`differentially encoded, supplied to a Rice coder, and then combined with the
`coded output from the narrowband encoder. Id. at 14:11–15, Fig. 1.
`To decode the encoded input signal, Tucker discloses that spectral
`parameters are obtained from the encoded data for the upper sub-band signal
`and applied to a spectral shape filter. Id. at 14:16–18, Fig. 2. The spectral
`shape filter produces a synthesized non-harmonic upper sub-band signal
`whose gain is adjusted in accordance with the noise energy value. Id. at
`14:18–21, Fig. 2. The synthesized signal is supplied to a processor, which
`interpolates4 the signal and reflects it to the upper sub-band. Id. at 14:21–23,
`Fig. 2. The encoded data for the lower sub-band signal is decoded by a
`narrowband decoder, interpolated, and then recombined with the upper sub-
`band signal to form a synthesized output signal. Id. at 14:23–27, Fig. 2.
`2.
`Claims 10 and 20
`Claim 10 recites, inter alia, a receiver that includes “a second
`decoder, wherein, based on the second coded signal, said second decoder
`sequentially applies a high-pass filter, a LPC synthesis filter and an amplifier
`to a noise signal to generate the second reconstructed signal.” Ex. 1001,
`8:3–7. Claim 20 recites a similar limitation. Id. at 10:1–8. Petitioner
`contends that Tucker discloses an upper sub-band decoder that applies a
`
`
`4 The term “interpolate” in Tucker refers to up-sampling followed by low-
`pass filtering. Ex. 1002 ¶ 142 (“an up-sampler followed by a low pass
`filter”); Ex. 2014 ¶ 106.
`
`9
`
`

`

`IPR2017-00437
`Patent 6,772,114 B1
`
`spectral shaping filter, a gain multiplier, and a processor to a noise signal.
`Pet. 39 (citing Ex. 1004, Fig. 2). With respect to the high-pass filter recited
`in claims 10 and 20, Petitioner contends:
`First, Tucker’s disclosure of a “processor 26” confirms that a
`“high pass filter” is among the components sequentially applied
`to the white noise signal. This processor interpolates
`(upsamples) the signal and “reflect[s]” the signal to the “upper
`band,” as shown in Figure 2. The POSA would understand that
`the teaching of “reflecting to the upper band” is a teaching that
`one should apply a “reflected” low pass filter (i.e., a high pass
`filter) to the signal, as illustrated below. Ex. 1002
`(Quackenbush) ¶¶ 150–52.
`Pet. 39–40 (internal footnote omitted), 53–54.5 In a footnote, Petitioner
`further asserts:
`Though interpolation typically involves application of a low
`pass filter to a signal, a “reflected” low pass filter is understood
`in the art to be a high pass filter. Ex. 1002 (Quackenbush)
`¶¶ 150-[1]51. Thus, the “interpolation” procedure invoked by
`the processor 26 in Tucker would be understood to apply a high
`pass filter to the signal. Id.
`Pet. 40 n.4. In other words, Petitioner contends that the phrase “[i]nterpolate
`and reflect to upper band” in Figure 2 of Tucker discloses a high-pass filter.
`Id. at 39–40, 53–54.
`
`Patent Owner responds that Petitioner has not shown sufficiently that
`Tucker discloses a decoder that applies a high-pass filter. PO Resp. 50–58.
`
`
`5 Petitioner includes a figure on pages 40 and 54 of the Petition that
`purportedly shows the “‘Reflected’ Magnitude Response of the Low-Pass
`Filter.” Pet. 40, 54. That figure is not from Tucker. That figure is from a
`different document (Ex. 1025, Fig. 4.1-8) and includes annotations by
`Petitioner’s declarant, Dr. Quackenbush (Ex. 1002 ¶ 151). As discussed
`below, Tucker does not disclose a reflected low-pass filter.
`
`10
`
`

`

`IPR2017-00437
`Patent 6,772,114 B1
`
`We agree with Patent Owner. As discussed above, Petitioner contends that
`processor 26 in Figure 2 of Tucker includes a high-pass filter. Pet. 39–40,
`53–54. Figure 2 of Tucker is reproduced below.
`
`
`Ex. 1004, Fig. 2. Figure 2 of Tucker is a block diagram of a decoder. Id. at
`10:18–20. The block for processor 26 in Figure 2 of Tucker states
`“[i]nterpolate and reflect to upper band.” Id. at Fig. 2. Petitioner asserts that
`the term “[i]nterpolate” in Figure 2 of Tucker refers to an up-sampler
`followed by a low-pass filter. Pet. 38 (“It was well-known in the art as of
`the priority date that an interpolator comprises an up-sampler followed by a
`low-pass filter.”); Pet. Reply 24 (“‘Interpolate’ means ‘upsample and low-
`pass filter.’”); Tr. 5:12–6:6; Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 54, 142, 151; Ex. 1044 ¶ 50. Thus,
`to show that processor 26 in Figure 2 of Tucker includes a high-pass filter,
`
`11
`
`

`

`IPR2017-00437
`Patent 6,772,114 B1
`
`Petitioner relies on the phrase “reflect to upper band.”6 Pet. 39–40 (“The
`POSA would understand that the teaching of ‘reflecting to the upper band’ is
`a teaching that one should apply a ‘reflected’ low pass filter (i.e., a high pass
`filter).”), 53 (same); Pet. Reply 24 (“Box 26, in contrast, also says ‘reflect to
`upper band.’”); Tr. 5:12–6:6; Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 150–153; Ex. 1044 ¶¶ 48–50.
`Specifically, Petitioner argues that the phrase “reflect to upper band”
`means that processor 26 in Tucker applies “a ‘reflected’ low pass filter (i.e.,
`a high pass filter).” Pet. 39, 53; see Ex. 1002 ¶ 151; Ex. 1044 ¶ 48. In other
`words, Petitioner argues that the phrase “reflect to upper band” means that
`the low-pass filter itself is reflected to the upper band. Pet. 39, 53; Ex. 1002
`¶ 151; Ex. 1044 ¶ 48. Similarly, Petitioner’s declarant, Dr. Quackenbush,
`states that “if the low-pass filter that is used in conjunction with the Tucker
`PCT had a cutoff frequency of 4kHz . . . , the ‘reflected’ version of this filter
`used in the upper band would be a high-pass filter with a cutoff frequency of
`4kHz.” Ex. 1002 ¶ 151 (emphasis added). Dr. Quackenbush also cites to
`Smith7 as evidence that using spectral reversal to create a high-pass filter
`from a low-pass filter was well-known in the art. Id. ¶ 152.
`
`6 We do not understand Petitioner as asserting that the term “[i]nterpolate” in
`Figure 2 of Tucker by itself refers to a high-pass filter. However, to the
`extent Petitioner presents such an argument, it is not persuasive. First, it is
`inconsistent with Petitioner’s assertion that the term “[i]nterpolate” in Figure
`2 of Tucker refers to an up-sampler followed by a low-pass filter. Pet. 38;
`Pet. Reply 24; Tr. 5:12–6:6; Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 54, 142, 151; Ex. 1044 ¶ 50.
`Second, if the term “[i]nterpolate” in Figure 2 of Tucker by itself referred to
`a high-pass filter, it would render the phrase “reflect to upper band”
`superfluous, as there would be no reason to reflect the output of a high-pass
`filter to the upper band. Ex. 2014 ¶¶ 118–119.
`7 Steven W. Smith, The Scientist and Engineer’s Guide to Digital Signal
`Processing (1st ed. 1997) (Ex. 1006, “Smith”).
`
`12
`
`

`

`IPR2017-00437
`Patent 6,772,114 B1
`
`
`Petitioner’s argument is not persuasive. As Patent Owner points out,
`the written description of Tucker indicates that the phrase “reflect to upper
`band” in Figure 2 refers to reflecting a signal to the upper band, not
`reflecting the low-pass filter to the upper band. PO Resp. 55 (“the last step
`in the processor is to reflect the signal to the upper band”); Ex. 2014 ¶ 121.
`In particular, Tucker states that “[t]he synthesised signal then passes to a
`processor 26[,] which interpolates the signal and reflects it to the upper sub-
`band.” Ex. 1004, 14:21–23 (emphasis added). In other words, Tucker
`discloses that processor 26 interpolates a signal (which, as discussed above,
`involves applying an up-sampler and a low-pass filter) and then reflects the
`interpolated signal to the upper band. Id.; Tr. 6:25–7:8; Ex. 2014 ¶ 121
`(“The ‘it’ in this sentence is clearly referring back to the signal itself.”).
`Thus, contrary to Petitioner’s assertion, Tucker does not disclose reflecting a
`low-pass filter to the upper band so as to create a high-pass filter.
`Petitioner also argues that, even if the phrase “[i]nterpolate and reflect
`to upper band” in Figure 2 of Tucker means that processor 26 applies an up-
`sampler, a low-pass filter, and then reflects the output of the low-pass filter
`to the upper band, Tucker still discloses a high-pass filter. Pet. Reply 20–26.
`Specifically, Petitioner contends that Tucker discloses “a two-step process,
`where after interpolating and low-pass filtering, the low-frequency 0–4 kHz
`signal is reflected to the 4–8 kHz band.” Id. at 25 (citing Ex. 1044 ¶ 48).
`According to Petitioner, because that two-step process produces an upper
`sub-band signal, the “implementation details are immaterial.” Pet. Reply 25
`(citing Ex. 1044 ¶ 48).
`Petitioner’s argument is not persuasive. As discussed above, we
`construe the term “high-pass filter” to mean a device or programming
`
`13
`
`

`

`IPR2017-00437
`Patent 6,772,114 B1
`
`sequence that transmits frequencies above a given cutoff frequency and
`substantially attenuates all others. See supra Section II.B.1. Consistent with
`that construction, Petitioner’s declarant, Dr. Quackenbush, explains that a
`high-pass filter “take[s] an input signal and then transmit[s] the higher
`frequencies of that input signal while substantially attenuating the lower
`frequencies of that signal.” Ex. 1044 ¶ 12. Further, according to Dr.
`Quackenbush, the difference between a low-pass filter and a high-pass filter
`is that “a low pass filter is applied to a signal to preserve its low frequency
`components, and . . . a high pass filter is applied to a signal to preserve its
`high frequency components.” Ex. 1002 ¶ 51.
`As discussed above, Tucker discloses applying a low-pass filter to an
`input signal and then reflecting the output of the low-pass filter to the upper
`band. Pet. Reply 25; Tr. 6:25–7:8; Ex. 1004, 14:21–23; Ex. 2014 ¶ 121. In
`that sequence, the low-pass filter transmits frequencies of the input signal
`below a given cutoff frequency, thereby preserving the low frequency
`components of the input signal, and then reflects those low frequency
`components to a higher frequency band. Ex. 1002 ¶ 51; Ex. 2014 ¶ 122;
`Ex. 2023, 20:4–14. Petitioner acknowledged at the oral hearing that
`transmitting the low frequency components of an input signal and reflecting
`them to a higher frequency band is not the same as transmitting the high
`frequency components of an input signal. Tr. 7:22–8:6 (“if you were to
`simply take a low-pass filter and reflect its output you might not get the
`same result as if you applied a high-pass filter.”). Similarly, Petitioner’s
`declarant, Dr. Quackenbush, acknowledged that a low-pass filter whose
`output is reflected to the upper band does not transmit the high frequency
`components of an input signal. Ex. 2023, 66:5–17. Thus, although the
`
`14
`
`

`

`IPR2017-00437
`Patent 6,772,114 B1
`
`output of processor 26 in Tucker is an upper sub-band signal, processor 26
`does not apply a high-pass filter. Tr. 7:22–8:6; Ex. 2014 ¶ 122; Ex. 2023,
`66:5–17.
`We are careful to note that we do not interpret the term “high-pass
`filter” to require a single-step operation. As Petitioner points out (Pet. Reply
`4–5), the ’114 patent describes applying a high-pass filter by “determining
`the difference between the signal having a low frequency range coming from
`the low-pass filter 27 and the input signal delayed by a delay element
`(‘DELAY’) 25” (Ex. 1001, 3:13–20). In other words, the ’114 patent
`describes a two-step sequence for applying a high-pass filter. Id.
`However, the sequence described by the ’114 patent is different than
`the sequence disclosed by Tucker. Specifically, the sequence described by
`the ’114 patent transmits frequencies of an input signal above a given cutoff
`frequency and substantially attenuates all others, thereby preserving the high
`frequency components of the input signal. Ex. 1002 ¶ 79. In contrast,
`although the output of processor 26 in Tucker is an upper sub-band signal,
`Tucker does not apply a high-pass filter. Tr. 7:22–8:6; Ex. 2014 ¶ 122; Ex.
`2023, 66:5–17. As discussed above, the sequence disclosed by Tucker
`transmits frequencies of an input signal below a given cutoff frequency,
`thereby preserving the low frequency components of the input signal, and
`then reflects those low frequency components to a higher frequency band.
`Ex. 1004, 14:21–23; Ex. 1002 ¶ 51; Ex. 2014 ¶ 122; Ex. 2023, 20:4–14. As
`also discussed above, transmitting the low frequency components of an input
`signal and reflecting them to a higher frequency band is not the same as
`transmitting the high frequency components of an input signal. Tr. 7:22–
`
`15
`
`

`

`IPR2017-00437
`Patent 6,772,114 B1
`
`8:6; Ex. 2014 ¶ 122; Ex. 2023, 66:5–17. Thus, the sequence disclosed by
`Tucker is not a high-pass filter.
`Petitioner also argues that, because the low-pass filter in Tucker is
`preceded by an up-sampler, the result of applying a low-pass filter and
`reflecting its output to the upper band “in this context” would be the same as
`applying a high-pass filter. Pet. Reply 21–23; Tr. 8:6–11. More
`specifically, Petitioner contends that the up-sampler produces a signal that is
`a mirror image around the center of the spectrum (e.g., the 4–8 kHz portion
`of the signal is a mirror image of the 0–4 kHz portion of the signal). Pet.
`Reply 21; Tr. 8:6–11. Thus, according to Petitioner, if “you low-pass filter
`and reflect that output, the result is exactly the same as if in one step you
`attenuated only the lower frequencies.” Tr. 8:10–11 (emphasis added).
`Petitioner’s argument is not persuasive. As discussed above, a low-
`pass filter whose output is reflected to the upper band does not transmit
`frequencies of an input signal above a given cutoff frequency and
`substantially attenuate all others, so as to preserve the high frequency
`components of the input signal. Tr. 7:22–8:6; Ex. 2014 ¶ 122; Ex. 2023,
`66:5–17. Thus, even if Petitioner is correct that a low-pass filter whose
`output is reflected to the upper band will produce the same result as a high-
`pass filter in the specific context of Tucker’s system (i.e., when preceded by
`an up-sampler), Tucker does not disclose a high-pass filter.
`
`Further, the specification of the ’114 patent indicates that the decoder
`of claims 10 and 20 that applies a high-pass filter is an improvement over
`the decoder of Tucker that applies an up-sampler followed by a low-pass
`filter whose output is reflected to the upper band. As discussed above,
`Tucker’s encoder decimates (i.e., down-samples) an upper sub-band signal.
`
`16
`
`

`

`IPR2017-00437
`Patent 6,772,114 B1
`
`Ex. 1004, 13:19–24, Fig. 1; Ex. 1002 ¶ 132 (“decimating (or
`downsampling)”); Ex. 2014 ¶ 88. As a result, Tucker’s decoder interpolates
`(i.e., up-samples and low-pass filters) the encoded upper sub-band signal and
`then reflects it to the upper band in order to reconstruct the original signal.
`Ex. 1004, 14:21–23, Fig. 2; Ex. 1002 ¶ 142 (“an up-sampler followed by a
`low pass filter”); Ex. 2014 ¶ 106. To improve on prior systems, the ’114
`patent states that “[i]t is an object of the invention to provide a transmission
`system in which the necessary computation capacity is reduced.” Ex. 1001,
`1:60–62. In particular, the ’114 patent reduces the computation capacity
`needed for the high frequency portion of an input signal by omitting a down-
`sampler from the encoding process, and, thus, also omitting an up-sampler
`from the decoding process. Id. at 2:10–17, 4:7–11, Figs. 2, 3. Both the
`encoder and the decoder of the ’114 patent instead use a simple high-pass
`filter. Id. at 2:10–17, 3:13–20, 4:7–11, 5:26–31, Figs. 2, 3. As such, the
`’114 patent indicates that it reduces computation capacity and improves on
`prior systems, such as Tucker’s system, by applying a high-pass filter
`instead of an up-sampler and a low-pass filter whose output is reflected to
`the upper band.
`For the foregoing reasons, Petitioner has not shown sufficiently that
`Tucker discloses a decoder that applies a high-pass filter, as recited in claims
`10 and 20. Therefore, Petitioner has not shown by a preponderance of the
`evidence that claims 10 and 20 are anticipated by Tucker.
`3.
`Claims 11–15
`Claims 11–15 depend from claim 10. Ex. 1001, 8:8–41. Petitioner’s
`arguments and evidence regarding claims 11–15 do not compensate for the
`deficiency discussed above for claim 10. See Pet. 42–50. Therefore,
`
`17
`
`

`

`IPR2017-00437
`Patent 6,772,114 B1
`
`because Petitioner has not shown by a preponderance of the evidence that
`claim 10 is anticipated by Tucker, Petitioner also has not shown by a
`preponderance of the evidence that claims 11–15 are anticipated by Tucker.
`See supra Section II.C.2.
`D. Obviousness of Claims 10–16, 20, and 21 Over Tucker and the
`Well-Known Art
`Petitioner argues that claims 10–16, 20, and 21 would have been
`obvious over Tucker and the well-known art. Pet. 11. A claim is
`unpatentable as obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) if the differences between
`the claimed subject matter and the prior art are such that the subject matter
`as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a
`person having ordinary skill in the art to which the subject matter pertains.
`KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 406 (2007). The question of
`obviousness is resolved on the basis of underlying factual determinations,
`including: (1) the scope and content of the prior art; (2) any differences
`between the claimed subject matter and the prior art; (3) the level of ordinary
`skill in the art; and (4) any objective indicia of non-obviousness. Graham v.
`John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 17–18 (1966).
`We have considered the parties’ arguments and supporting evidence,
`and we determine that Petitioner has not shown by a preponderance of the
`evidence that claims 10–16, 20, and 21 would have been obvious over
`Tucker and the well-known art.
`1.
`Claims 10 and 20
`As discussed above, claim 10 recites, inter alia, a receiver that
`includes “a second decoder, wherein, based on the second coded signal, said
`second decoder sequentially applies a high-pass filter, a LPC synthesis filter
`and an amplifier to a noise signal to generate the second reconstructed
`
`18
`
`

`

`IPR2017-00437
`Patent 6,772,114 B1
`
`signal,” and claim 20 recites a similar limitation. Ex. 1001, 8:3–7, 10:1–8.
`Petitioner’s obviousness analysis in the Petition focuses on the phrase
`“sequentially applies.” Pet. 56–58. Specifically, Petitioner argues that “[i]f
`the order matters . . . , the claims would still have been obvious.” Id. at 57.
`Petitioner’s obviousness analysis in the Petition does not address the “high-
`pass filter” recited in claims 10 and 20. See id. at 56–58. Thus, Petitioner’s
`theory of unpatentability in the Petition relies solely on Petitioner’s assertion
`that Tucker discloses a high-pass filter. Pet. 39–40, 53–54; see supra
`Section II.C.2.
`Petitioner argues for the first time in the Reply that it would have been
`obvious to include a high-pass filter in processor 26 of Tucker. Pet. Reply
`26–28. In particular, Petitioner argues:
`If there were any doubt that Tucker teaches a low-pass filter
`and high-pass filter in boxes 32 and 26 of Tucker’s first and
`secon