Trials@uspto.gov
`571-272-7822
`
`
`
`
`
`Paper 7
`Entered: October 16, 2017
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`APPLE INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`SAINT LAWRENCE COMMUNICATIONS LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`_______________
`
`Case IPR2017-01077
`Patent 7,260,521 B1
`_______________
`
`
`
`Before ROBERT J. WEINSCHENK, SCOTT C. MOORE, and
`MICHELLE N. ANKENBRAND, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`MOORE, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`
`DECISION
`Institution of Inter Partes Review
`35 U.S.C. § 314(a) and 37 C.F.R. § 42.108
`
`
`
`
`
`571-272-7822
`
`
`
`
`
`Paper 7
`Entered: October 16, 2017
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`APPLE INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`SAINT LAWRENCE COMMUNICATIONS LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`_______________
`
`Case IPR2017-01077
`Patent 7,260,521 B1
`_______________
`
`
`
`Before ROBERT J. WEINSCHENK, SCOTT C. MOORE, and
`MICHELLE N. ANKENBRAND, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`MOORE, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`
`DECISION
`Institution of Inter Partes Review
`35 U.S.C. § 314(a) and 37 C.F.R. § 42.108
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-01077
`Patent 7,260,521 B1
`
`
`
`I.
`INTRODUCTION
`Apple, Inc. (“Petitioner”) filed a Petition (Paper 2; “Pet.”) to institute
`an inter partes review of claims 1, 2, 5–8, 10, 11, 14, 15, 17, 28, 29, 32, 33,
`35, 37, 38, 41, 42, 44, 55, 56, 59, 60, and 62 of U.S. Patent No. 7,260,521
`B1 (Ex. 1001; “the ’521 Patent”). Saint Lawrence Communications LLC
`(“Patent Owner”) filed a Preliminary Response (Paper 6; “Prelim. Resp.”).
`We have statutory authority over this dispute pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 314(a),
`which provides that an inter partes review may not be instituted “unless . . .
`there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect
`to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.”
`Upon consideration of the Petition, the Preliminary Response, and the
`evidence cited by the parties, we determine that Petitioner has established a
`reasonable likelihood that it will prevail with respect to all challenged
`claims. Accordingly, we institute an inter partes review. We have not made
`a final determination under 35 U.S.C. § 318(a) as to the patentability of any
`claim.
`
`II.
`BACKGROUND
`Related Proceedings
`A.
`Petitioner indicates that the ’521 Patent is the subject of multiple
`lawsuits in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas. Pet. 2.
`The ’521 Patent also was the subject of IPR2015-01875, which was
`terminated prior to issuance of a decision on institution, and IPR2016-
`00705, in which institution was denied. Id. at 2–3. Petitioner was not a
`party to either of these prior inter partes review proceedings. Id.
`
` 1
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-01077
`Patent 7,260,521 B1
`
`
`
`The ’521 Patent
`B.
`The ’521 Patent relates to digital encoding of a wideband signal, such
`as a speech signal. Ex. 1001, Abstract. An object of the invention is to
`efficiently encode a wideband signal using a Code Excited Linear Prediction
`(“CELP”) technique. Id. at 1:44–46, 2:48–52.
`CELP is a prior art technique in which a speech signal, for example, is
`sampled, and the samples are grouped into blocks called frames. Ex. 1001,
`1:44–49. A linear prediction (“LP”) filter is computed and transmitted for
`every frame. Id. at 1:50–51. The frames are then divided into smaller
`subframes, and an excitation signal is determined for each subframe. Id. at
`1:51–54. The excitation signal typically consists of two components: one
`component from the past excitation (also called the pitch or adaptive
`codebook), and a second component from an innovation codebook (also
`called the fixed codebook). Id. at 1:54–59. The excitation signal is
`transmitted to a decoder and used as the input of a LP synthesis filter in
`order to obtain synthesized speech. Id. at 1:59–61.
`The ’521 Patent discloses a method for selecting optimal pitch
`codebook parameters during the encoding process. Ex. 1001, 2:56–60. In
`the disclosed method, the pitch prediction error for a pitch codevector1 is
`calculated in each of at least two different signal paths, each of which is
`associated with a set of pitch codebook parameters. See id. at 2:56–62. At
`least one of the signal paths is filtered before the pitch prediction error is
`
`
`1 The ’521 Patent and the cited prior art references use the terms
`“codevector” and “code vector” interchangeably. For purposes of
`consistency, this Decision uses the term “codevector” except when quoting
`from a document that uses the term “code vector.”
`
` 2
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-01077
`Patent 7,260,521 B1
`
`
`calculated. Id. at 2: 62–65. The signal path having the lowest calculated
`pitch prediction error is chosen, and the pitch codebook parameters
`associated with this signal path are then selected for use. Id. at 2:65–3:2.
`
`Figure 3 of the ’521 Patent is reproduced below.
`
`
`Figure 3, shown above, is a block diagram of a preferred embodiment of the
`disclosed invention. Ex. 1001, 11:66–67. In this embodiment, memory
`module 303 stores the past excitation component of the excitation signal that
`was determined for a particular subframe. See id. at 12:1–2. Pitch codebook
`search module 301 and pitch codevector generator module 302 generate an
`optimum pitch codebook vector (i.e., a pitch codevector) VT for the
`subframe. Id. at 12:2–9. Codevector VT is passed through filters 305(1)
`(1) through Vf(K). Id. at
`through 305(K) to generate K filtered codevectors Vf
`(1) through Vf(K)) and an unfiltered
`12:20–23. The filtered versions of VT (Vf
`version of VT (Vf
`(0)) are then convolved with an impulse response signal h at
`
` 3
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-01077
`Patent 7,260,521 B1
`
`
`modules 304(0) through 304(K) to obtain codevectors y(0) through y(K). Id. at
`12:22–26; Fig. 3. Next, gain calculators 306, amplifiers 307, and subtractors
`308 calculate the mean squared pitch prediction error for each of
`codevectors y(0) through y(K). Id. at 12:26–44. Finally, selector 309 selects
`the pitch codebook parameters that correspond to the one of codevectors y(0)
`through y(K) that has the minimum mean squared pitch prediction error. Id.
`at 12:45–47.
`
`Illustrative Claims
`C.
`Challenged claims 1 and 55 are independent. Claim 1, which is
`illustrative of the claimed subject matter, is reproduced below.
` 1. A pitch analysis device for producing a set of pitch
`codebook parameters, comprising:
`a pitch codebook search device configured to generate a
`pitch code vector based on a digitized input audio
`data, wherein said digitized
`input audio data
`represents an input audio signal that has been
`sampled and digitized;
`a) at least two signal paths associated to respective sets
`of pitch codebook parameters representative of said
`digitized input audio data, wherein:
`i) each signal path comprises a pitch prediction error
`calculating device
`for calculating a pitch
`prediction error of said pitch codevector from said
`pitch codebook search device; and
`ii) at least one of said at least two signal paths
`comprises a filter for filtering the pitch codevector
`before supplying said pitch codevector to the pitch
`prediction error calculating device of said at least
`one signal path; and
`
` 4
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-01077
`Patent 7,260,521 B1
`
`
`
`b) a selector for comparing the pitch prediction errors
`calculated in said at least two signal paths, for
`choosing the signal path having the lowest calculated
`pitch prediction error and for selecting the set of pitch
`codebook parameters associated to the chosen signal
`path.
`
`References and Materials Relied Upon
`D.
`Petitioner relies on the following references and materials in support
`of the asserted grounds of unpatentability:
`
`References and Materials
`Yasheng Qian et al., Pseudo-Multi-Tap Pitch Filters in a
`Low Bit-Rate CELP Speech Coder, 14(4) SPEECH COMM.,
`339 (Elsevier Science B.V. 1994) (“Qian”)
`Digital Cellular Telecommunications System; Enhanced
`Full Rate (EFR) Speech Transcoding (GSM 06.60)
`(European Telecommunications Standards Institute 1997)
`(“GSM 6.60”)
`U.S. Patent No. 5,235,669 (iss. Aug. 10, 1993)
`(“Ordentlich”)
`Declaration of Jordan Cohen under 37 C.F.R. § 1.68
`(“Cohen Decl.”)
`
`Exhibit No.
`1003
`
`1009
`
`1010
`
`1011
`
`Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response relies on the Declaration of
`Oded Gottesman, Ph.D. (Ex. 2004) (“Gottesman Decl.”).
`
`
` 5
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-01077
`Patent 7,260,521 B1
`
`
`
`E.
`
`Challenged Claim
`
`1, 2, 8, 55, 56, and 62
`5–7, 59, and 60
`10, 11, 14, 15, 17, 28, 29,
`32, 33, 35, 37, 38, 41, 42,
`and 44
`
`Asserted Grounds of Unpatentability
`
`Reference(s)
`
`Statutory
`Basis2
`35 U.S.C. § 102 Qian
`35 U.S.C. § 103 Qian and GSM 6.60
`35 U.S.C. § 103 Qian, GSM 6.60, and
`Ordentlich
`
`III. ANALYSIS
`A.
`Legal Standards
`
`1.
`
`Claim Construction
`We interpret claims of an unexpired patent using the broadest
`reasonable interpretation in light of the specification of the patent. 37 C.F.R.
`§ 42.100(b); see Cuozzo Speed Techs., LLC v. Lee, 136 S. Ct. 2131, 2144–46
`(2016) (concluding the broadest reasonable construction “regulation
`represents a reasonable exercise of the rulemaking authority that Congress
`delegated to the Patent Office”). There is a presumption that claim terms are
`given their ordinary and customary meaning, as would be understood by a
`person of ordinary skill in the art in the context of the specification. See In
`re Translogic Tech. Inc., 504 F.3d 1249, 1257 (Fed. Cir. 2007). An
`applicant may rebut that presumption by providing a definition of the term in
`the specification with reasonable clarity, deliberateness, and precision. In re
`Paulsen, 30 F.3d 1475, 1480 (Fed. Cir. 1994). An applicant also may
`
`
`2 Because the patent application resulting in the ’521 patent was filed before
`the effective date of the Leahy Smith America Invents Act (“AIA”), we refer
`to the pre-AIA versions of 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 and 103.
`
` 6
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-01077
`Patent 7,260,521 B1
`
`
`narrow the meaning of a claim term by disclaiming or disavowing claim
`scope; however, such a “disclaimer or disavowal of claim scope must be
`clear and unmistakable, requiring ‘words or expressions of manifest
`exclusion or restriction’ in the intrinsic record.” Unwired Planet, LLC v.
`Apple Inc., 829 F.3d 1353, 1358 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (quoting Teleflex, Inc. v.
`Ficosa N. Am. Corp., 299 F.3d 1313, 1327 (Fed. Cir. 2002)). In the absence
`of such a definition or disclaimer, limitations are not to be read from the
`specification into the claims. In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 1184 (Fed.
`Cir. 1993).
`
`2.
`
`Anticipation under 35 U.S.C. § 102
`Petitioner argues that challenged claims 1, 2, 8, 55, 56, and 62 are
`unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 102 as anticipated. Pet. 9. To anticipate a
`patent claim under 35 U.S.C. § 102, a single prior art reference must
`“describe every element of the claimed invention, either expressly or
`inherently,” to one of ordinary skill in the art. Advanced Display Sys., Inc. v.
`Kent State Univ., 212 F.3d 1272, 1282 (Fed. Cir. 2000). “[A] reference can
`anticipate a claim even if it does not expressly spell out all the limitations
`arranged or combined as in the claim, if a person of skill in the art, reading
`the reference, would at once envisage the claimed arrangement or
`combination.” Kennametal, Inc. v. Ingersoll Cutting Tool Co., 780 F.3d
`1376, 1381 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (internal quotations omitted).
`
`3.
`
`Obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103
`Petitioner also argues that challenged claims 5–7, 10, 11, 14, 15, 17,
`28, 29, 32, 33, 35, 37, 38, 41, 42, 44, 59, and 60 are unpatentable under
`35 U.S.C. § 103. See Pet. 10. A claim is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C.
`
` 7
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-01077
`Patent 7,260,521 B1
`
`
`§ 103 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 such subject matter pertains.” 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). The question of
`obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103 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 skill in the art; and (4) objective evidence of nonobviousness,
`i.e., secondary considerations. Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 17–
`18 (1966).
`
`Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art
`B.
`As discussed above, the level of ordinary skill in the art to which the
`’521 patent pertains is relevant to claim construction, anticipation, and
`obviousness. Petitioner does not propose a specific formulation regarding
`the level of ordinary skill in the art to which the ’521 patent pertains.
`Instead, Petitioner argues that the class of people having ordinary skill in the
`art would “include someone who had, at the priority date of the ’521 patent,
`(i) a Master’s of Science (M.S.) degree in Electrical Engineering or
`equivalent training, and (ii) at least three to five years of relevant industry
`experience in the field of speech coding technology.” Pet. 10 (citing
`Ex. 1010 ¶¶ 24–26).
`In its Preliminary Response, Patent Owner does not set forth a specific
`formulation regarding the level of ordinary skill in the art, or object to
`Petitioner’s contentions regarding who would qualify as one of ordinary skill
`in the art. However, Patent Owner’s declarant opines that one of ordinary
`skill in the art “would have had at least a bachelor of science degree in
`
` 8
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-01077
`Patent 7,260,521 B1
`
`
`Electrical Engineering, with knowledge and experience in speech coding and
`speech enhancement and specifically with Code Excited Linear Prediction
`(CELP) coding and alike, and at least two years of experience working with
`speech coding technologies.” Ex. 2004 ¶ 61.
`On this record, we decline to adopt a specific formulation regarding
`the level of ordinary skill in the art, and instead find that the cited references
`are representative of the level of ordinary skill in the art. See Okajima v.
`Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (the level of ordinary skill
`in the art may be evidenced by the cited references themselves). However,
`our analysis of the issues below would have been the same had we adopted
`Petitioner’s proposed formulation, or the formulation proposed by Patent
`Owner’s declarant.
`
`1.
`
`Claim Construction
`C.
`“filter for filtering” (Claims 1, 2, 11, 29, and 38)
`Petitioner proposes that we construe the claim limitation “filter for
`filtering” as encompassing a frequency shaping filter. Pet. 11–12. In its
`Preliminary Response, Patent Owner does not raise any specific, substantive
`objection to Petitioner’s proposed construction. See Prelim. Resp. 16.
`On this record, we are persuaded by Petitioner’s argument. See Pet.
`11–12; Ex. 1011 ¶¶ 50–52. For example, the specification describes an
`embodiment that computes filtered versions of a pitch codevector “using K
`different frequency shaping filters,” and then selects “the frequency shaping
`filter 305(j) which minimizes the mean squared pitch prediction error.”
`Ex. 1001, 12:20–21, 30–32. Accordingly, on this record, we determine that
`claim term “filter for filtering” encompasses a frequency shaping filter.
`
` 9
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-01077
`Patent 7,260,521 B1
`
`
`2.
`“pitch codebook” (Claims 1, 7, 10, and 55)
`Petitioner proposes that we construe the claim limitation “pitch
`codebook” as being synonymous with the terms “past excitation” and
`“adaptive codebook.” Pet. 12. In its Preliminary Response, Patent Owner
`does not raise any specific, substantive objection to Petitioner’s proposed
`construction. See Prelim. Resp. 16.
`On this record, we are persuaded that a person of ordinary skill in the
`art would understand the claim term “pitch codebook” to by synonymous
`with the terms “past excitation” and “adaptive codebook.” See Pet. 12;
`Ex. 1011 ¶¶ 53–55. For example, the specification uses the terms “past
`excitation” and “adaptive codebook” interchangeably, and also uses the
`terms “adaptive” and “pitch” interchangeably when referring to codebooks
`and codevectors. See, e.g., Ex. 1001, 1:56–69, 6:57. Accordingly, on this
`record, we determine that the claim term “pitch codebook” is synonymous
`with the terms “past excitation” and “adaptive codebook.”
`
`3.
`
`“pitch gain” (Claims 5, 6, 7, 14, 15, 32, 33, 41, 42, 59, and 60)
`Petitioner proposes that we construe the claim limitation “pitch gain”
`as being synonymous with the terms “pitch codebook gain,” “adaptive
`codebook gain,” or “pitch filter coefficient.” Pet. 13. In its Preliminary
`Response, Patent Owner does not raise any specific, substantive objection to
`Petitioner’s proposed construction. See Prelim. Resp. 16.
`On this record, we agree with Petitioner’s proposed construction. As
`discussed above, the specification uses the terms “pitch” and “adaptive”
`synonymously. See § III.C.2, supra. The specification also uses the terms
`“pitch gain” and “pitch codebook gain” synonymously when it refers to the
`
`
`10
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-01077
`Patent 7,260,521 B1
`
`
`variable “b” as “Pitch gain (or pitch codebook gain).” Ex. 1001, 6:63. In
`addition, the specification uses the variable “b” (i.e., the pitch gain or pitch
`codebook gain) as the coefficient of the vector “z” in a transfer function that
`represents a pitch filter. Id. at 10:19–25, 6:53; Ex. 1011 ¶ 57. Accordingly,
`on this record, we determine that the claim term “pitch gain” is synonymous
`with the terms “pitch codebook gain,” “adaptive codebook gain,” and “pitch
`filter coefficient.”
`
`4.
`
`“perceptual weighting filter” (Claim 10)
`Petitioner proposes that we construe the claim limitation “perceptual
`weighting filter” as including “a filter having the transfer function of the
`form W(z)=A(z/γ1)/A(z)/γ2).” Pet. 13–14. In its Preliminary Response,
`Patent Owner does not raise any specific, substantive objection to
`Petitioner’s proposed construction. See Prelim. Resp. 16.
`The record supports Petitioner’s proposed construction. Pet. 13–14;
`Ex. 1011 ¶¶ 59–61. In particular, the specification describes a “perceptual
`weighting filter 105” that has “a transfer function W(z) in the form:
`W(z)=A(z/γ1)/A(z)/γ2) where 0< γ1< γ2≤1.” Ex. 1001, 8:39–44. However,
`Petitioner’s proposed construction omits the phrase “0< γ1< γ2≤1,” which
`limits the values of γ1 and γ2. On this record, and consistent with the
`specification, we determine that the claim term “perceptual weighting filter”
`encompasses a filter having the a transfer function of the form
`“W(z)=A(z/γ1)/A(z)/γ2) where 0< γ1< γ2≤1.”
`
`
`11
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-01077
`Patent 7,260,521 B1
`
`
`5.
`“means for calculating said pitch gain b(j) using the relation:
`
`b(j)=xty(j)/∥y(j)∥2 where j=0, 1, 2, . . . , K, and K corresponds to a
`
`number of signal paths, and where x is said pitch search target vector
`and y[(]j) is said convolved pitch codevector” (Claim 6)
`Because this claim term includes the word “means,” it is
`presumptively a means-plus-function claim limitation under 35 U.S.C.
`§ 112, paragraph 6,3 and is construed to cover the corresponding structure,
`material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
`Williamson v. Citrix Online, LLC, 792 F.3d 1339, 1348–49 (Fed. Cir. 2015)
`(en banc). “Construing a means-plus-function claim term is a two-step
`process. The court must first identify the claimed function. Then, the court
`must determine what structure, if any, disclosed in the specification
`corresponds to the claimed function.” Id. at 1351 (internal citation omitted).
`Petitioner proposes that we construe this claim term as a means-plus-
`function limitation having a recited function of “calculating said pitch gain
`b(j),” and the corresponding structure to be “a processor configured such that
`
`b(j)=xty(j)/∥y(j)∥2 where j=0, 1, 2, . . . , K, and K corresponds to a number of
`
`signal paths, and where x is said pitch search target vector and y(j) is said
`convolved pitch codevector; and equivalents thereof.” Pet. 14; Ex. 1011
`¶¶ 62–64. The Eastern District of Texas previously adopted this
`construction in litigation involving the ’521 patent. See Ex. 1016, 38–39.
`Patent Owner does not raise any specific, substantive objection to
`Petitioner’s proposed construction. See Prelim. Resp. 16.
`
`
`3 Because the patent application resulting in the ’521 patent was filed before
`the effective date of the AIA, we refer to the pre-AIA version of 35 U.S.C.
`§ 112.
`
`
`12
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-01077
`Patent 7,260,521 B1
`
`
`As discussed above, we apply a “broadest reasonable interpretation”
`standard, which differs from the claim construction standard applied in
`district court. For means-plus-function limitations, however, our reviewing
`court has held that “the ‘broadest reasonable interpretation’ . . . is that
`statutorily mandated in [35 U.S.C. § 112] paragraph six.” In re Donaldson
`Co., 16 F.3d 1189, 1194 (Fed. Cir. 1994) (en banc). In addition, although
`we are not bound by district court constructions, we consider the district
`court’s reasoned analysis. Cf. Power Integrations, Inc. v. Lee, 797 F.3d
`1318, 1326 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (“The fact that the board is not generally bound
`by a previous judicial interpretation of a disputed claim term does not mean,
`however, that it has no obligation to acknowledge that interpretation or to
`assess whether it is consistent with the broadest reasonable construction of
`the term.”).
`On this record, we are persuaded that the above-recited claim
`limitation is a means-plus-function limitation, and that the construction the
`Eastern District of Texas adopted is consistent with the broadest reasonable
`construction of this limitation. See Pet. 14; Ex. 1011 ¶¶ 62–64; Ex. 1016,
`38–39; Ex. 1001, 12:35–44 Accordingly, on this record, we construe this
`claim limitation as a means-plus-function limitation having a recited
`function of “calculating said pitch gain b(j)” and a corresponding structure of
`
`“a processor configured such that b(j)=xty(j)/∥y(j)∥2 where j=0, 1, 2, . . . , K,
`
`and K corresponds to a number of signal paths, and where x is said pitch
`search target vector and y(j) is said convolved pitch codevector.”4
`
`4 We omit the language “and equivalents thereof” from the corresponding
`structures of this and other means-plus-function limitations we construe in
`
`
`13
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-01077
`Patent 7,260,521 B1
`
`
`6.
`“means for calculating an energy of the corresponding pitch
`prediction error” (Claim 8)
`Because this claim term includes the word “means,” it is
`presumptively a means-plus-function claim limitation. Williamson, 792 F.3d
`at 1348–49.
`Petitioner proposes that we construe this claim term as a means-plus-
`function limitation having the recited function of “calculating an energy of
`the corresponding pitch prediction error” and the corresponding structure of
`
`“a processor configured such that (cid:1831)=ǁ(cid:1876)−(cid:1854)(cid:1877)(cid:1846)ǁ2; and equivalents thereof.”
`
`Pet. 14–15; Ex. 1011 ¶¶ 65–67. The Eastern District of Texas previously
`adopted this construction in litigation involving the ’521 patent. See
`Ex. 1016, 27–28. Patent Owner does not raise any specific, substantive
`objection to Petitioner’s proposed construction. See Prelim. Resp. 16.
`On this record, we are persuaded that the above-recited claim
`limitation is a means-plus-function limitation, and that the construction the
`Eastern District of Texas adopted is consistent with the broadest reasonable
`construction of this limitation. See Pet. 14–15; Ex. 1011 ¶¶ 65–67; Ex.
`1016, 27–28; Ex. 1001, 10:54–60. Accordingly, on this record, we construe
`this claim limitation as a means-plus-function limitation having a recited
`
`
`this Decision, but that difference does not render our constructions different
`from those adopted by the Eastern District of Texas. The language “and
`equivalents thereof” in the District Court’s constructions is not a description
`of corresponding structure, but instead is a reference to the fact that means-
`plus-function limitations are construed to cover the recited structure “and
`equivalents thereof.” 35 U.S.C. § 112, ¶ 6. Even though this Decision only
`identifies the corresponding structures set forth in the ’521 patent
`specification, our constructions encompass “equivalents thereof” pursuant to
`35 U.S.C. § 112, ¶6.
`
`
`14
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-01077
`Patent 7,260,521 B1
`
`
`function of “calculating an energy of the corresponding pitch prediction
`error” and a corresponding structure of “a processor configured such that
`
`(cid:1831)=ǁ(cid:1876)−(cid:1854)(cid:1877)(cid:1846)ǁ2.”
`
`7.
`
`“means for comparing the energies of said pitch prediction errors of
`the different signal paths and for choosing as the signal path having
`the lowest calculated pitch prediction error the signal path having the
`lowest calculated energy of the pitch prediction error” (Claim 8)
`Because this claim term includes the word “means,” it is
`presumptively a means-plus-function claim limitation. Williamson, 792 F.3d
`at 1348–49.
`Petitioner proposes that we construe this claim term as a means-plus-
`function limitation having a recited function of “comparing the energies of
`said pitch prediction errors of the different signal paths and choosing the
`signal path having the lowest calculated pitch prediction error” and the
`corresponding structure of “a processor configured for choosing the signal
`path having the lowest calculated energy of the pitch prediction error; and
`equivalents thereof.” Pet. 15; Ex. 1011 ¶¶ 68–70. The Eastern District of
`Texas previously adopted this construction in litigation involving the ’521
`patent. See Ex. 1016, 40–41. Patent Owner does not raise any specific,
`substantive objection to Petitioner’s proposed construction. See Prelim.
`Resp. 16.
`On this record, we are persuaded that the above-recited claim
`limitation is a means-plus-function limitation, and that the construction the
`Eastern District of Texas adopted is consistent with the broadest reasonable
`construction of this limitation. See Pet. 15; Ex. 1011 ¶¶ 68–70; Ex. 1016,
`40–41. Accordingly, on this record, we construe this claim limitation as a
`
`
`15
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-01077
`Patent 7,260,521 B1
`
`
`means-plus-function limitation having a recited function of “comparing the
`energies of said pitch prediction errors of the different signal paths and
`choosing the signal path having the lowest calculated pitch prediction error”
`and a corresponding structure of “a processor configured for choosing the
`signal path having the lowest calculated energy of the pitch prediction
`error.”
`
`8.
`
`“convolution unit for convolving the pitch codevector with a weighted
`synthesis filter impulse response signal” (Claim 5)
`Although this claim limitation does not include the word “means,”
`this limitation is drafted in the same format as a traditional means-plus-
`function limitation and merely replaces the term “means” with the nonce
`word “device.” “Generic terms such as ‘mechanism,’ ‘element,’ ‘device,’
`and other nonce words that reflect nothing more than verbal constructs may
`be used in a claim in a manner that is tantamount to using the word ‘means’ .
`. . and therefore may invoke § 112, para. 6.” Williamson, 792 F.3d at 1350
`(quoting Mass. Inst. of Tech. & Elecs. for Imaging, Inc. v. Abacus Software,
`462 F.3d 1344, 1354 (Fed. Cir. 2006)).
`Petitioner proposes that we construe this claim term as a means-plus-
`function limitation having a recited function of “convolving the pitch
`codevector with a weighted synthesis filter impulse response signal” and the
`corresponding structure of “a processor configured to convolve the vectors
`vf(j) with the impulse response h to obtain the vectors y(j), where j = 0, 1, 2, . .
`. , K, and equivalents thereof.” Pet. 15–16; Ex. 1011 ¶¶ 71–73. The Eastern
`District of Texas previously adopted this construction in litigation involving
`the ’521 patent. See Ex. 1016, 48–49. Patent Owner does not raise any
`
`
`16
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-01077
`Patent 7,260,521 B1
`
`
`specific, substantive objection to Petitioner’s proposed construction. See
`Prelim. Resp. 16.
`On this record, we are persuaded that the above-recited claim
`limitation is a means-plus-function limitation, and that the construction the
`Eastern District of Texas adopted is consistent with the broadest reasonable
`construction of this limitation. See Pet. 15–16; Ex. 1011 ¶¶ 71–73; Ex.
`1016, 48–49; Ex. 1001, 12:18–26. Accordingly, on this record, we construe
`this claim limitation as a means-plus-function limitation having a recited
`function of “convolving the pitch codevector with a weighted synthesis filter
`impulse response signal” and a corresponding structure of “a processor
`configured to convolve the vectors vf(j) with the impulse response h to obtain
`the vectors y(j), where j = 0, 1, 2, . . . , K.”
`
`9.
`
`“signal forming device for producing an encoded wideband signal”
`(Claim 10)
`This claim limitation uses the nonce word “device,” and is drafted in
`the same format as a traditional means-plus-function limitation. See
`Williamson, 792 F.3d at 1350. Petitioner proposes that we construe this
`claim term as a means-plus-function limitation having a recited function of
`“producing an encoded wideband [speech] signal” and the corresponding
`structure of “a processor configured to multiplex the pitch codebook
`parameters T, b, and j, the innovation codebook parameters k and g, and the
`synthesis filter coefficients Â(z); and equivalents thereof.” Pet. 16; Ex. 1011
`¶¶ 74–76. The Eastern District of Texas previously adopted this
`construction in litigation involving the ’521 patent. See Ex. 1016, 59–61.
`
`
`17
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-01077
`Patent 7,260,521 B1
`
`
`Patent Owner does not raise any specific, substantive objection to
`Petitioner’s proposed construction. See Prelim. Resp. 16.
`We are persuaded that the above-recited claim limitation is a means-
`plus-function limitation. See Pet. 16; Ex. 1011 ¶¶ 74–76; Ex. 1016, 59–61.
`However, Petitioner has offered no persuasive evidence or argument that the
`“encoded wideband signal” of claim 10 is limited to a speech signal.
`Accordingly, we decline to include the term “speech” in the recited function.
`On this record, we also are persuaded that the structure identified by the
`Eastern District of Texas is consistent with the broadest reasonable
`construction of this limitation. See Pet. 16; Ex. 1011 ¶¶ 74–76; Ex. 1016,
`59–61; Ex. 1001, 13:22–24. Accordingly, on this record, we construe this
`claim limitation as a means-plus-function limitation having a recited
`function of “producing an encoded wideband signal” and a corresponding
`structure of “a processor configured to multiplex the pitch codebook
`parameters T, b, and j, the innovation codebook parameters k and g, and the
`synthesis filter coefficients Â(z).”
`
`10.
`
`“pitch codebook search device responsive to the perceptually
`weighted signal and linear prediction synthesis filter coefficients for
`producing the pitch codevector and an innovative search target
`vector” (Claim 10)
`This claim limitation uses the nonce word “device,” and is drafted in
`the same format as a traditional means-plus-function limitation. See
`Williamson, 792 F.3d at 1350. Petitioner proposes that we construe this
`claim term as a means-plus-function limitation having a recited function of
`“producing the pitch codevector and an innovative search target vector” and
`the corresponding structure of “a processor: configured for maximizing the
`
`
`18
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-01077
`Patent 7,260,521 B1
`
`
`
`search criterion (cid:1829)=(cid:1876)(cid:1872)(cid:1877)(cid:1846)/√((cid:1877)t(cid:1846)(cid:1877)(cid:1846)(cid:4667) configured such that vT(n)=u(n-T) for n=0 .
`
`. . n=N-1, when T>N, and vT(n) is the available samples from the past
`excitation when T<N; and configured such that x′=x-byT; and equivalents
`thereof.” Pet. 16–17; Ex. 1011 ¶¶ 77–79. The Eastern District of Texas
`previously adopted this construction in litigation involving the ’521 patent.
`See Ex. 1016, 71–73. Patent Owner does not raise any specific, substantive
`objection to Petitioner’s proposed construction. See Prelim. Resp. 16.
`On this record, we are persuaded that the above-recited claim
`limitation is a means-plus-function limitation, and that the construction the
`Eastern District of Texas adopted is consistent with the broadest reasonable
`construction of this limitation. See Pet. 16–17; Ex. 1011 ¶¶ 77–79; Ex.
`1016, 71–73; Ex. 1001, 10:35–46, 12:62–13:2. Accordingly, on this record,
`we construe this claim limitation as a means-plus-function li
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
