`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`__________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`__________
`
`K/S HIMPP,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`BENHOV GMBH, LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`__________
`
`Case IPR2017-00930
`Patent 8,170,884
`
`Record of Oral Hearing
`Held: April 30, 2018
`__________
`
`
`
`
`Before BARBARA A. PARVIS, DANIEL N. FISHMAN, and CHARLES J.
`BOUDREAU, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-00930
`Patent 8,170,884
`
`
`
`APPEARANCES:
`
`ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER:
`
`
`DONALD R. STEINBERG, ESQ.
`CHRIS O’BRIEN, ESQ.
`Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr, LLP
`60 State Street
`Boston, Massachusetts 02109
`(617) 526-6453
`don.steinberg@wilmerhale.com
`
`
`
`ON BEHALF OF THE PATENT OWNER:
`
`
`HENRY A. PETRI, JR., ESQ.
`MARGAUX SAVEE, ESQ.
`Polsinelli
`1401 Eye Street, NW, Suite 800
`Washington, DC 20005
`(202) 777-8928
`hpetri@polsinelli.com
`
`and
`
`RUSS RIGBY, Intellectual Ventures Management
`
`
`
`
`The above-entitled matter came on for hearing on Monday, April 30,
`2018, commencing at 1:00 p.m. at the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office,
`600 Dulany Street, Alexandria, Virginia.
`
`2
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-00930
`Patent 8,170,884
`
`
`
`
`P R O C E E D I N G S
`- - - - -
`1:00 p.m.
`
`JUDGE PARVIS: Good afternoon, everyone. Please be seated.
`This is an oral argument in IPR 2017-00930. The challenged patent
`is US Patent No. 8,170,884 B2. Petitioner is K/S HIMPP. Patent Owner is
`Benhov GmbH, LLC.
`I'm Administrative Patent Judge Parvis. Judges Fishman and
`Boudreau are appearing remotely from the Denver and San Jose offices
`respectively.
`At this time, we'd like counsel to introduce yourselves, your partners
`and your guests, starting with Petitioner. Please use the microphone.
`MR. STEINBERG: Good afternoon.
`Donald Steinberg on behalf of the Petitioner from Wilmer-Hale.
`With me sitting at counsel table is Chris O'Brien, also from Wilmer-Hale.
`Thank you.
`JUDGE PARVIS: Thank you.
`MR. PETRI: Good afternoon, your honors.
`My name is Henry Petri with the Polsinelli firm on behalf of the
`Patent Owner. With me here today is Margaux Savee, also with our firm.
`JUDGE BOUDREAU: Excuse me.
`Could I just ask counsel to stand closer to the microphone? We can't
`hear online.
`MR. PETRI: I'm sorry.
`
`
`
`3
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-00930
`Patent 8,170,884
`
`Henry Petri on behalf of the Patent Owner. With me here today is
`Margaux Savee also of our firm. And sitting in the back row is Russ Rigby,
`in-house counsel, on behalf of the Patent Owner.
`JUDGE PARVIS: Thank you.
`JUDGE BOUDREAU: Thank you.
`We still seem to be having a problem with the microphone there.
`The sound is fading in and out.
`(Discussion off the record.)
`THE STAFF: Can you hear now?
`JUDGE BOUDREAU: Yeah, that's much better. Thank you.
`JUDGE PARVIS: For the record, we had a call with the parties
`Wednesday, April 25th, 2018, to discuss the Supreme Court's decision in
`SAS Institute, Incorporated versus Iancu.
`The parties were to meet and confer prior to the hearing today. We
`will give the parties a chance to comment briefly now, starting with Patent
`Owner.
`MR. PETRI: Thank you, Your Honor.
`Yes, we did confer with Petitioner's counsel. One of the suggestions
`that was made on the call by the Petitioner was withdrawing the claims that
`were instituted.
`We disagree with that proposal and we believe that those claims
`ought to be -- remain part of the case. And so -- so the trial instituted on
`those claims as well.
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`
`4
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-00930
`Patent 8,170,884
`
`Our position would be, in terms of briefing, that if this were
`following the normal course, we would file the Patent Owner response in
`response to the Institution Decision. But since we agreed with the
`conclusion of the Institution Decision regarding these non-instituted claims,
`we wouldn't be filing a brief. And so, our position would be there would be
`nothing for the Petitioner to respond to.
`However, if the Board is considering permitting the Petitioner to file
`some paper in response to institution of the previously non-instituted claims,
`then we would request the opportunity to file a reply in response to whatever
`Petitioner files.
`JUDGE PARVIS: Thank you.
`Petitioner.
`MR. STEINBERG: Thank you.
`That's -- it's consistent with what we discussed. We would have
`proposed something just slightly different in that it would seem to us
`following, as Patent Owner suggested, the normal course of a proceeding. If
`they want to file a brief, we would suggest they should do that in the essence
`of a Patent Owner response.
`Initially, we then would like to file a reply brief potentially including
`a declaration from our expert, we'll be responding to arguments, in effect,
`raised in their response, but raised in the preliminary response and as
`identified in the original institution decision denying some of the claims.
`It's hard for me to address the request for a sur-reply until we see
`what they want to request. I would just note that in the ordinary course of
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`
`5
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-00930
`Patent 8,170,884
`
`proceedings, there would not be automatically a sur-reply. We don't really
`understand why there should automatically be one in this case.
`We would also like the opportunity to have a hearing at the end of
`the briefing in order to make sure, as would happen in a more typical IPR,
`we have the chance to address any questions the panel has. Thank you.
`JUDGE PARVIS: Thank you. We will take the parties' comments
`under advisement and issue any orders, if necessary.
`Before we begin, we want to remind the parties that this hearing is
`open to the public and a full transcript of it will become part of the record.
`Also, please keep in mind that whatever is projected on the screen
`will not be viewable by the judges appearing remotely or anyone reading the
`transcript.
`When you refer to a document on the screen, please state, in the
`microphone, information to identify the document that you were referring to
`such as "Petitioner's demonstratives" and a slide number.
`As you know from our trial hearing order of March 29th, 2018, each
`side will have 60 minutes total to present its arguments. Because Petitioner
`has the burden to prove unpatentability, Petitioner will proceed first,
`followed by the Patent Owner. Petitioner may reserve some time, but only
`for rebuttal to Patent Owner's presentation. So any time, Counsel for
`Petitioner, you may proceed.
`MR. STEINBERG: Thank you, Your Honor.
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`
`6
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-00930
`Patent 8,170,884
`
`Good afternoon. I'm Donald Steinberg from Wilmer-Hale on behalf
`of petitioner, HIMPP. And with me, as I mentioned before, is Chris O'Brien.
`We'd like to reserve 20 minutes for rebuttal.
`I have four areas that I'd like to cover, and we have this outlined on
`Slide 2. I'll start with an overview of the '884 patent, briefly mention claim
`construction, then outline the prior art that's the focus of this proceeding, the
`Wang and the Marx patents, and then address the issues and limitations in
`dispute.
`In a nutshell, first, the Patent Owner contests whether the Wang
`patent discloses separate first and second audio signals. We will address that
`Wang specifically distinguishes between a first set of microphones for
`picking up the user's voice, and a second set of microphones for picking up
`the natural audio environment around the user, that is, the background audio.
`Additionally, it was also noted in the Institution Decision, Wang
`discloses two sets of audio signals in the form of first microphones picking
`up the user's voice; and second, transmitting recorded music.
`The second issue is that Patent Owner contests whether the
`combination of Wang and Marx discloses a storage medium in the
`transmitter side of the apparatus.
`We will explain that Wang discloses to a person of ordinary skill in
`the art, an audio mixer on the transmitter side, and that Marx discloses that
`such a mixer would have buffer storage.
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`
`7
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-00930
`Patent 8,170,884
`
`The '884 patent is titled "Use of Voice-To-Remaining Audio (VRA)
`in Consumer Applications." We have the front of the patent depicted on
`Slide No. 3. I don't think the other details are important for today.
`We show some excerpts of the '884 patent on Slide 4. The '884
`patent is focused on having two audio channels. One has primarily a voice
`signal, and the other has the remaining audio such as background noise or
`music, depending on the context.
`The '884 patent describes the ability to keep these two signals, the
`voice and the remaining audio, separate so that each can be adjusted
`independently.
`For example, I might want to have a voice signal that's relatively
`louder than the background noise or music, and someone else might want to
`have the background sounds relatively louder. The claims focus on this
`feature of separate first and second audio signals, each of which can be
`adjusted separately.
`Trial was instituted initially on Claims 9 to 13 and 17, and we're
`focused, of course, on those claims today. We show Claim 9 on Slide 5.
`The key limitations at issue are the storage medium holding the first
`and second audio signals and wherein the first and/or second audio signals
`can be independently adjusted. The second issue comes down to whether
`the two audio signals are kept separate so they can be independently
`adjusted.
`Turning to Slide 6, we show the other independent claim, Claim 17.
`It's in means plus function format, but the issue is narrow. It's whether the
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`
`8
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-00930
`Patent 8,170,884
`
`prior art discloses a means for adjusting the first audio signal and the second
`audio signal independent from each other, as with Claim 9, whether the two
`signals are separate.
`Unlike Claim 9, Claim 17 does not include the storage medium
`limitation. The means plus function aspects and analysis of the
`corresponding structures are not in dispute.
`For today's purposes, as I said, the Board instituted trial on Claims 9
`to 13 and 17. We show on Slide 17 -- I'm sorry -- Slide 7, that the institution
`on Claims 9 through 13 was based on Wang, Marx, and for some of the
`claims, some additional references. And the Board instituted as to Claim 17,
`based on Wang and some additional references. As I said before, the
`disputes are only on Wang and, to some degree, Wang's interactions with the
`Marx reference.
`Claim construction has turned out not to be a significant issue in this
`case. We listed on Slide 8, primarily because there are two constructions
`that, depending on how this plays out, may have some significance, as
`Petitioner proposed, the Board interpreted the voice signal to be a signal that
`contains primarily speech or voice. That is, it need not be just speech or
`voice. And the Board interpreted in the Institution Decision, remaining
`audio to be audio containing primarily non-speech sounds. The background
`or music that makes up the remaining audio can also have some voice.
`Patent Owner has not contested that the prior art has the corresponding
`structures for the means-plus-function limitations.
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`
`9
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-00930
`Patent 8,170,884
`
`Skipping ahead to Slide 10, we show excerpts from the Wang patent.
`Wang is directed to a wearable apparatus that allows different users to
`communicate with each other. We have some excerpts shown from Figures
`1 and 2 and some of the text on Slide 10.
`The apparatus of Wang has at least three microphones, as you can
`see in Figure 1, depicted as "Elements 20" on the left side of Slide 10, and
`some of those microphones are shown on the right in Figure 2 as Elements
`50 and 52 that can --
`JUDGE BOUDREAU: I'm sorry. Is it correct in Figure 2, there are
`only two microphones shown?
`MR. STEINBERG: It is correct that Figure 2 only shows two
`microphones. That's correct, but there are --
`JUDGE BOUDREAU: Okay.
`MR. STEINBERG: -- within the --
`JUDGE BOUDREAU: Are those intended as different embodiments
`or is one a generalization?
`How would you characterize that?
`MR. STEINBERG: Sure. Microphones 50 and 52 are described and
`identified in the Wang patent as those microphones that are used to capture
`the user's voice.
`The patent -- the Wang patent also describes other microphones that
`are used to capture the background audio. And I'll get into that a little bit
`more later, but the patent as we can see in Figure 1, shows at least three
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`
`10
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-00930
`Patent 8,170,884
`
`microphones. And the text of the Wang patent indicates there are probably
`four or more microphones actually being used in the Wang apparatus.
`I'll just add, additionally, in the Wang patent, that the signals from
`the microphones can be played at various speakers, which are shown as
`Element 16 in Figure 1 on the left, and Elements 42 and 44 in Figure 2 on
`the right.
`And just to be clear, the notion is that the microphones that -- from
`an apparatus that one user is wearing, can allow the sounds to be broadcast
`to a similar apparatus that another user is wearing.
`Wang describes in its abstract, as we show on Slide 11, that the
`apparatus can capture spatialized 3D sound from selected directions, plural.
`In reinforcing this concept, Wang explains that if there are multiple
`sound sources in, to use Wang's language, "User B space" where User B is
`doing the transmitting, then User A, the person receiving the transmission,
`can place each sound source in an appropriate position from the perspective
`of User A's ears.
`These passages tell us that Wang involves the ability to transmit
`distinct sound sources so that the recipient can mix the signals so as to
`position and hear them however the recipient chooses.
`JUDGE FISHMAN: So is it your position that the mixing occurs by
`User A just repositioning the microphones, that there -- or is there some
`ability for Wang to vary the mixing of the signals using, say, a hardware
`component to do so?
`MR. STEINBERG: So there's, I think, two aspects to that.
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`
`11
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-00930
`Patent 8,170,884
`
`Wang discloses that the mixing of the signals and control of the
`phase and amplitude of the signals can occur both at the transmitter and the
`receiver sides. And, therefore, there is hardware on both sides that allows
`you to mix the signals.
`It is -- additionally, Wang talks about how there's a directional aspect
`-- and, I'm sorry, I'm supposed to look straight ahead, aren't I, when I'm
`talking to you. It's very difficult.
`Wang describes that there's a directional aspect to the microphones,
`which we believe is tied in, in two aspects. One, is you can have actually
`directional microphones, but also in just -- in controlling the phase and
`amplitude, that is another way to provide a directional aspect. And that can
`be done either by the transmitter or by the receiver or by the users at the two
`different locations.
`Did I answer your question?
`JUDGE FISHMAN: Yeah. I'm trying to understand what you are
`mapping to the means for adjusting the first audio signal and the second
`audio signal independent of each other by a listener in Claim 17.
`MR. STEINBERG: So the -- the means for adjusting is the user
`interface which is shown in the patent, for example, in Figure 3, that
`provides the ability to adjust either of the signals.
`And then, there's a -- in terms of what actually does the adjusting or
`the mixing of the signals, that's done in the mixer.
`JUDGE FISHMAN: And the mixer is under the control of the
`listener?
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`
`12
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-00930
`Patent 8,170,884
`
`MR. STEINBERG: There are mixers on both sides so that if the
`listener is doing it, then, yes, the mixer is under the control of the listener,
`but important for this case there's also a mixer on the transmitter side, and
`the patent specifically talks about the ability to control the phase on the
`transmitter side as well. And obviously, that has to be done with hardware
`on the transmitter side.
`JUDGE FISHMAN: I'm just asking because Claim 17 explicitly
`requires that the means for adjusting be under the control of the listener.
`Is that your understanding as well?
`MR. STEINBERG: Yes, that's correct.
`In Claim 17, there is a means for adjusting the first audio signal and
`the second audio signal. That's controlled by the listener using the user
`interface which is shown in the Figure 3 of the patent. And then there's
`means for receiving the signals and this is all done on the receiver side in
`Claim 17, that's correct.
`I was talking about the transmitter, because for Claim 9 it becomes
`important what's on the transmitter side. I apologize. I didn't realize you
`were just talking about Claim 17.
`JUDGE FISHMAN: Great. Okay. Thank you.
`JUDGE BOUDREAU: Along those same lines, your expert opines
`that there must be a mixer associated with the transmit side of Wang.
`Can you point to any support in Wang for that opinion?
`Is it expressed? Is it implied?
`How would you find that in Wang?
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`
`13
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-00930
`Patent 8,170,884
`
`MR. STEINBERG: Sure. Let me just jump right ahead to that then.
`But in a nutshell, Wang specifically talks about controlling the phase
`and amplitude from the transmitter and the receiver sides. It specifically
`talks about having a mixer that controls the amplitude and phase.
`It only specifically describes the mixer on the receiver side, but the --
`and it's silent about what happens on the transmitter side other than saying
`that you can control the amplitude and phase on the transmitter side. So let
`me just jump right into the evidence supporting that.
`Let's see. If I can jump -- I'd like to address sort of collectively the
`evidence of why there are -- well, let me try to just -- I apologize. Let me
`focus on your question in particular: How do we know that there's control
`on the transmitter side? And let me just see if I can get the right slide up.
`So if we look, for example, at Slide 19, Wang talks about how the
`microphones would be provided with a directional input characteristic aimed
`at the user to capture her voice and then -- while ignoring, to some extent,
`the sound from other directions.
`So the directional input characteristic, one of the ways to do that, and
`something described specifically in Wang, is that you can control the phase
`of the signal.
`And to show that further, just to be sure I'm -- no one thinks I'm
`making this up, Wang specifically says: "The microphones are
`electronically controlled" -- I'm now on Slide 22, Your Honors -- "such that
`the amplitude and phase of the signal coming out from each microphone can
`be varied electronically."
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`
`14
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-00930
`Patent 8,170,884
`
`Wang separately says: That the -- has pretty much the same
`language on the speaker side, that the speakers can be electronically
`controlled in the same way. So it is separate passages for the microphones
`and the speakers.
`So we know that each can be electronically controlled such that the
`amplitude and phase of the signals can be varied electronically.
`Now, how is that done?
`For the speakers, Wang specifically says: "We've got this mixer."
`So then, how is it done on the microphone side?
`And what our expert, Dr. Kiaei, has testified to, is that the way it
`would be done and the way a person of ordinary skill in the art would
`understand it, is that the same thing you have on the receiver side, you
`would have on the transmitter side, because that would likewise enable you
`to control the amplitude and the phase of the signal coming out of each -- in
`this case, of each microphone. So that's how we know that there's likely to
`be control on the microphone side.
`Now, in response, the next question would be, you know, so what
`does the Patent Owner say? And I just want to pull up what he says in terms
`of the control of the microphones -- sorry, I only have a remote, so I can
`only go one at a time.
`We asked Patent Owner's expert, "What's going on with the
`microphones?" "What's the control?"
`JUDGE PARVIS: You're on Slide 34?
`MR. STEINBERG: I'm sorry. Thank you. I'm on Slide 34.
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`
`15
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-00930
`Patent 8,170,884
`
`And Patent Owner's expert agreed that Wang's microphones are
`electronically controlled. We have his deposition testimony here. He says:
`"The microphones are electronically controlled so that the amplitude and
`phase of the microphones can be varied."
`Their expert also agreed -- I'm now on the next slide, Slide 35 -- that
`Wang teaches the use of an audio mixer to control the phase of the audio
`signals. We have his deposition testimony for that shown now.
`Now, as I said, Wang only specifically describes an audio mixer on
`the receiver side, but, as our expert explained, it would be obvious that the
`same mixer to control the signals would exist on the transmitter side.
`Now, in response to that, we asked, you know, how does this work
`from the -- of the Patent Owner's expert. And we have on Slide 36, how he
`responded to saying, "Yes, there's -- the patent specifically talks about
`control and control would seem to be done by a mixer."
`So even though Wang specifically describes electronic control of the
`microphones, and even though Wang explains the use of an audio mixer to
`provide this electronic control, Patent Owner's expert says: "That a person
`of ordinary skill in the art reading the Wang specification, would understand
`that although it's mentioned, there's no control on the transmitter side." And
`respectively -- respectfully -- I'm sorry -- we don't see how that position can
`be deemed credible.
`We think the more probable explanation is that Wang means what it
`says in that a person of ordinary skill in the art would understand Wang to
`disclose electronic control of the microphones just like Wang actually says.
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`
`16
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-00930
`Patent 8,170,884
`
`Wang discloses that the microphones have a directional input
`characteristic. Wang discloses that its microphones and its speakers are
`electronically controlled, and that the speakers are controlled using a mixer.
`So the microphones with electronic control described the same way,
`also would be expected by a person of ordinary skill in the art to have that
`electronic control with a mixer.
`And then as our expert provided in his initial declaration, and we
`have this on Slide 37, "If we take Marx's teaching that an audio mixer has a
`buffer, the buffer is used before transmission, and it would have been
`obvious that the audio mixer of Wang likewise has a buffer prior to
`transmission that's associated with the microphones."
`Is there a -- I'll continue unless there's another question on this line.
`JUDGE FISHMAN: That's fine.
`MR. STEINBERG: Thank you.
`So the -- we sort of addressed, I think, pretty completely our
`comments for the second issue about the electronic control on the -- so
`jumping back to Slide 15 for a moment, there were two issues raised by the
`Patent Owner.
`The second issue had to do with the -- I'm sorry, we -- let me jump
`back a little bit. There were two issues. The first issue was whether there's a
`first audio signal and a second audio signal, and I want to address that more
`thoroughly.
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`
`17
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-00930
`Patent 8,170,884
`
`The second issue talks about whether there's a storage medium that
`holds the first and second signals. Part of that question is, of course,
`whether there's a mixer on the transmitter side.
`And then if there's a mixer on the transmitter side, as I was just
`saying, that then would, as we see described in the Marx patent, have a
`buffer in it. And that's why we say there's a storage buffer on the transmitter
`side, because the issue is not specifically about whether there is a mixer on
`the transmitter side, right?
`The claim language at issue is, is there a storage buffer? And what
`we're saying, is the storage buffer would be in the mixer that you would
`expect to have on the transmitter side.
`So I want to go back to the first issue now, because I think we've
`largely addressed the second one, about the two microphones and two
`separate signals.
`As we discussed a few minutes ago before talking about the control -
`- and I come back to this on -- started to talk about it, and we'll get to it in
`more detail now on Slide 16 -- Wang explains -- and I think this is most
`clear at Column 4 -- that there are two sets of microphones.
`One set is as close to the two ears respectively as possible to pick up
`sound similar in nature to that received by the two ears. This is the
`background audio and we show it in red on Slide 16.
`And the second set that is the rest of the microphones, are distributed
`around the neck and two shoulders on either side of the user's collarbone to
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`
`18
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-00930
`Patent 8,170,884
`
`capture the user's voice, as we show in blue on Slide 16. There's no real
`dispute that Wang describes two sets of microphones.
`As you can see on Slide 17, Patent Owner's expert really agrees. Mr.
`Anderson agreed that at Column 4, lines 60 to 65, Wang is distinguishing
`between two microphones close to the ears and the rest of the microphones.
`So unless those microphones are directed to providing two signals,
`as we believe the other portions of Wang indicate, there's no reason for
`Wang to make this distinction in Column 4.
`Petitioner's expert laid out the description of the two sets of
`microphones in his two declarations, and we show this on Slide 18. The
`Reply summarizes what was stated in the initial declaration; Wang has one
`set of microphones around the neck and shoulders, or at the collarbone, and
`that captures the wearer's voice.
`Wang is clear, as we show on Slide 19, that these microphones
`capture the wearer's speech and are directional to better capture the wearer's
`speech while ignoring sounds from other directions.
`On Slide 19, we have an annotated version of Figure 2 from Wang
`with the microphones from the wearer's voice highlighted. You had asked
`about Microphones 50 and 52, and that's what we show on Slide 19.
`Now, Petitioner's expert also described, as we show on Slide 20, the
`second set of microphones positioned to capture the background audio of the
`user, "the natural auditory space of the user," to use the language from
`Wang, or "the remaining audio," as described in the claims. And this is
`taken from our expert's reply declaration summarizing his opinions.
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`
`19
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-00930
`Patent 8,170,884
`
`So if we turn to Slide 21, we can see from Wang that the second set
`of microphones captures background or remaining audio, the sounds
`received by the wearer's ears.
`In Slide 21, we have another annotated version of Figure 2 from
`Wang with the microphones for the background audio highlighted.
`Now, to be clear, these are not microphones shown in Figure 2, but
`we wanted to sort of illustrate how this would be consistent with what's
`described in the Wang patent. These are distinct microphones from the
`microphones 50 and 52 that are designed to capture the user's speech.
`Now, we know these two sets --
`JUDGE PARVIS: Would these be primarily non-speech sounds?
`MR. STEINBERG: That's correct. So that the ones capturing the
`user's voice, microphones 50 and 52, are capturing speech. The other
`microphones, this natural auditory environment, is whatever else you're
`hearing in the background; the birds, traffic, whatever it is.
`JUDGE PARVIS: Primarily non-speech?
`MR. STEINBERG: Exactly.
`JUDGE FISHMAN: Counselor, the -- let's assume, for argument's
`sake, that there is a mixer in the transmit side of Wang.
`MR. STEINBERG: Yes.
`JUDGE FISHMAN: Can you point us to the evidence that the
`output of that mixture would then be transmitted in such a manner that a
`receiver would be able to separate a first voice signal and a remaining audio
`signal?
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`
`20
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-00930
`Patent 8,170,884
`
`The fact that there's a mixer doesn't necessarily imply that those
`signals will be separable when they're received by a receiver, which I
`believe is the requirement of Claim 9.
`MR. STEINBERG: Right.
`So to be clear, the -- Wang talks about that there are -- that there's
`the ability to control the phase and the amplitude of the signals on both the
`transmitter and the receiver side. And very specifically describes for the
`receiver, the mixer and the ability to combine the signals.
`So I think just the test -- just the description immediately describing
`the receiver shows that you have the ability to control it on the receiver side.
`The way we understand that to be is that the -- what happens on the
`transmitter side, is it allows you to adjust the amplitude and phase of each of
`the signals, but they -- although we understand that would be done with a
`mixer, the signals are not actually mixed together at the transmitter because
`if you mix them together, as you're pointing out, it makes it much more
`difficult to then separate them out at the receiver.
`But what Wang describes is that on the receiver side -- and if we
`look at Figure 3 of Wang -- we have that in a number of the slides. Let me
`just jump to Slide 28 for a moment.
`On the receiver side of Wang, we can see that from the antenna,
`there's a demodulator which separates out the individual audio signals.
`And then -- so you've -- if you've had four different signals on the
`transmitter side, you've got four different signals on the receiver side, and
`then there's an audio mixer that will then combine them together to be
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`
`21
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-00930
`Patent 8,170,884
`
`placed in the appropriate speakers, but the idea is that you're transmitting
`from the transmitter, and you could have any of various forms of modulation
`in order to get the signal separately transmitted so that on the receiver side
`here, as shown in Figure 3, you're able to then separate out the signals and
`then listen to each one separately, as required by the claims. So I think it's --
`Wang is very clear that each of the signals can be separately listened to on
`the receiver side.
`So I'll go back to the -- let me go back to the -- the microphones. I
`think we were at Slide 22. Wang describes that the two -- describes, as I
`was saying before, he describes the two sets of microphones, describes them
`separately, talks about how they're placed differently, some close to the ears,
`some around the collarbone.
`And as we show on Slide 22, he describes how the signal from each
`microphone can be controlled to capture sound from selected directions.
`With individual control of each microphone, as Wang provides, the
`microphones can be controlled, as explained in Wang, so that some pick up
`the wearer's voice, and others pick up the sounds around the wearer, and
`then the sounds from the different sources can be placed on the receiver side
`in different places.
`Now, our expert explained that the statements from Wang, and we
`talked about this in Slide 23, indicate that by varying the phase of each
`microphon
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
