UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`__________________________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`__________________________________
`
`AMAZON.COM, INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`VOCALIFE LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`
`IPR2021-01331
`U.S. Patent No. RE48,371
`
`DECLARATION OF JOHN M. STRAWN, PH.D.
`IN SUPPORT OF PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW
`OF CLAIMS 22-41 OF U.S. PATENT NO. RE48,371
`
`IPR PETITION
`US RE48,371
`Amazon Ex. 1007
`
`
`__________________________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`__________________________________
`
`AMAZON.COM, INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`VOCALIFE LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`
`IPR2021-01331
`U.S. Patent No. RE48,371
`
`DECLARATION OF JOHN M. STRAWN, PH.D.
`IN SUPPORT OF PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW
`OF CLAIMS 22-41 OF U.S. PATENT NO. RE48,371
`
`IPR PETITION
`US RE48,371
`Amazon Ex. 1007
`
`
`
`Amazon.com v. Vocalife LLC
`Declaration of Dr. John M. Strawn, Ph.D. – U.S. Patent RE48,371
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`
`
`BACKGROUND ----------------------------------------------------------------- 1
`
`
`
` ----- Experience and Qualifications------------------------------------------- 1
`The Instant Case ----------------------------------------------------------- 3
`Topics of Opinions -------------------------------------------------------- 4
` Materials Considered ----------------------------------------------------- 5
`APPLICABLE LEGAL STANDARDS --------------------------------------- 8
`
`
`
`
`
`Claim Construction ------------------------------------------------------- 9
`Obviousness -------------------------------------------------------------- 11
`PERSON OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART -------------------------- 15
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` TECHNOLOGY BACKGROUND ------------------------------------------- 17
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` Microphone Array Systems Were Well-Known --------------------- 17
`Determining Delays For Microphone Arrays Was Well-Known -- 18
`Adaptive Beamforming Algorithms Were Well-Known ----------- 19
`Sound Source Localization Algorithms Were Well-Known ------- 20
`Noise Reduction Algorithms Were Well-Known -------------------- 22
`Echo Cancellation Algorithms Were Well-Known ------------------ 23
` Using DSPs For Signal Processing Was Well-Known -------------- 24
`THE ’371 PATENT ------------------------------------------------------------- 28
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` OVERVIEW OF THE GROUNDS ------------------------------------------- 36
`
`
`
`
`
`Summary Of Opinions And Listing Of The Grounds --------------- 37
`The References Are Prior Art. ------------------------------------------ 37
`
`Table of Contents, Page 1
`
`
`
`Amazon.com v. Vocalife LLC
`Declaration of Dr. John M. Strawn, Ph.D. – U.S. Patent RE48,371
` CLAIMS 22-41 OF THE ’371 PATENT WOULD HAVE
`BEEN OBVIOUS ---------------------------------------------------------------- 39
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` Ground 1: Reuss and Dmochowski ------------------------------------ 39
`Claim 38 ----------------------------------------------------------- 39
`Preamble --------------------------------------------------- 39
`Array of Sound Sensors ---------------------------------- 40
`DSP --------------------------------------------------------- 42
`Beamforming Unit -------------------------------- 43
`Echo Cancellation Unit --------------------------- 46
` Noise Reduction Unit ----------------------------- 48
`Sound Source Localization Unit ---------------- 49
`SSL Unit That Estimates a
`Target Sound Signal’s Location --------- 49
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` By Determining a Delay ------------------ 57
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`A DSP Comprising the Four Units. ------------- 61
`Claim 39 ----------------------------------------------------------- 65
`Ground 2: Reuss, Dmochowski, and Li ------------------------------- 66
`Claim 22 ----------------------------------------------------------- 66
`Preamble --------------------------------------------------- 67
`A Microphone Array System ---------------------------- 67
`Array of Sound Sensors -------------------------- 67
`SSL Unit ------------------------------------------- 67
` Adaptive Beamforming Unit -------------------- 68
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Table of Contents, Page 2
`
`
`
`Amazon.com v. Vocalife LLC
`Declaration of Dr. John M. Strawn, Ph.D. – U.S. Patent RE48,371
` Noise Reduction Unit ----------------------------- 69
`Echo Cancellation Unit --------------------------- 69
`Implemented in a DSP --------------------------- 69
` Operative Communication ----------------------- 70
`Receiving Sound Signals -------------------------------- 71
`Determining a Delay ------------------------------------- 71
`Delay in Number of Samples -------------------- 74
`Delay Enables Beamforming -------------------- 79
`Estimating Target Sound Signal Location ------------- 80
`Performing Adaptive Beamforming -------------------- 81
`Performing Echo Cancellation -------------------------- 81
`Suppressing Ambient Noise ----------------------------- 82
`Claim 30 ----------------------------------------------------------- 82
`Claim 28 ----------------------------------------------------------- 82
`Claim 37 ----------------------------------------------------------- 83
`Claims 40-41 ------------------------------------------------------ 85
`Ground 3: Reuss, Dmochowski, Li, and Brandstein ---------------- 86
`Claims 23 and 31 ------------------------------------------------- 86
`Claims 24-25, 27, 32-33, and 35 ------------------------------- 92
`Claims 24 and 32 ----------------------------------------- 96
`Providing a Fixed Beamformer, Blocking
`Matrix, and Adaptive Filter ---------------------- 96
`Steering Directivity Pattern of Fixed
`Beamformer ---------------------------------------- 97
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Table of Contents, Page 3
`
`
`
`Amazon.com v. Vocalife LLC
`Declaration of Dr. John M. Strawn, Ph.D. – U.S. Patent RE48,371
`Feeding Ambient Noise Using a Blocking
`
`Matrix----------------------------------------------- 98
` Adaptively Filtering Ambient Noise Signals
`in Response to Voice Activity Detection ------ 99
`Claims 25 and 33 --------------------------------------- 100
`Claims 27 and 35 --------------------------------------- 101
` Motivations to Combine Brandstein’s GJBF with
`Reuss ----------------------------------------------------- 105
` Ground 4: Reuss, Dmochowski, Li, Brandstein, and Abutalebi - 108
`Claims 26 and 34 ----------------------------------------------- 109
`Sub-band Adaptive Filtering -------------------------- 109
`Splitting Enhanced Target Sound Signal and
`Ambient Noise Signals --------------------------------- 110
`Adaptively Filtering Ambient Noise Signals in
`Each Frequency Sub-Band ---------------------------- 113
`Synthesizing a Full-Band Sound Signal ------------- 114
`Claims 29 and 36 ----------------------------------------------- 114
`Sub-Band Noise Reduction ---------------------------- 115
`Delay (τ) ------------------------------------------------- 119
` Motivations to Combine --------------------------------------- 121
`Ground 5: Chen and Dmochowski ----------------------------------- 123
`Claim 38 --------------------------------------------------------- 123
`Preamble ------------------------------------------------- 123
`Array of Sound Sensors -------------------------------- 124
`DSP ------------------------------------------------------- 125
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Table of Contents, Page 4
`
`
`
`Amazon.com v. Vocalife LLC
`Declaration of Dr. John M. Strawn, Ph.D. – U.S. Patent RE48,371
`Beamforming Unit ------------------------------ 126
`
`Echo Cancellation Unit ------------------------- 130
` Noise Reduction Unit --------------------------- 133
`SSL Unit ----------------------------------------- 135
`SSL Unit That Estimates a
`Target Sound Signal’s Location ------- 135
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` By Determining a Delay ---------------- 139
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`DSP Comprising the Four Units -------------- 141
`Claim 39 --------------------------------------------------------- 144
`Ground 6: Chen, Dmochowski, and Li ------------------------------ 145
`Claim 22 --------------------------------------------------------- 145
` Microphone Array System ---------------------------- 145
`Array of Sound Sensors ------------------------ 145
`SSL Unit ----------------------------------------- 146
` Adaptive Beamforming Unit ------------------ 146
` Noise Reduction Unit --------------------------- 146
`Echo Cancellation Unit ------------------------- 147
`Implemented in a DSP ------------------------- 147
` Operative Communication --------------------- 147
`Receiving Sound Signals ------------------------------ 148
`Determining a Delay ----------------------------------- 149
`Number of Samples ----------------------------- 149
`Delay Enables Beamforming ------------------ 150
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Table of Contents, Page 5
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Amazon.com v. Vocalife LLC
`Declaration of Dr. John M. Strawn, Ph.D. – U.S. Patent RE48,371
`Estimating Location of Target Sound Signal ------- 150
`
`Performing Adaptive Beamforming ------------------ 150
`Performing Echo Cancellation ------------------------ 151
`Suppressing Ambient Noise --------------------------- 151
`Claim 30 --------------------------------------------------------- 151
`Claim 28 --------------------------------------------------------- 151
`Claim 37 --------------------------------------------------------- 152
`Claims 40-41 ---------------------------------------------------- 154
` Ground 7: Chen, Dmochowski, Li, and Brandstein --------------- 154
`Claims 23 and 31 ----------------------------------------------- 155
`Claims 24-25, 27, 32-33, and 35 ----------------------------- 156
` Ground 8: Chen, Dmochowski, Li, Brandstein, and Abutalebi -- 157
` SECONDARY CONSIDERATIONS -------------------------------------- 158
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` CONCLUSION ---------------------------------------------------------------- 158
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Table of Contents, Page 6
`
`
`
`Amazon.com v. Vocalife LLC
`Declaration of John M. Strawn, Ph.D. – U.S. Patent RE48,371
`
`
`I, John M. Strawn, Ph.D., do hereby declare:
`
`
`
`BACKGROUND
`
` Experience and Qualifications
`I am a consultant at S Systems, Inc. My areas of expertise include dig-
`
`1.
`
`ital audio and digital signal processing. I provide technical consulting services for
`
`developing software for digital signal processors.
`
`2.
`
`I hold a Ph.D. from Stanford University (awarded in 1985), where I
`
`conducted research for my dissertation at the Center for Computer Research in Mu-
`
`sic and Acoustics (CCRMA). I am a Fellow and Life Member of the Audio
`
`Engineering Society (AES) and I have served as Convention Chair for several AES
`
`Conventions. I am also a member of the Acoustical Society of America and a Life
`
`Senior Member of the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE). I
`
`have given presentations and authored publications relating to digital audio
`
`engineering.
`
`3.
`
`I have many years of digital signal processor programming experience
`
`dating back to my Ph.D. thesis work at Stanford University. There, I developed code
`
`in various high-level languages (Algol, Fortran, SAIL) and PDP-10 assembly lan-
`
`guage for digital audio processing applications. During that time, I also worked as
`
`a consultant, developing software for various companies. In the early 1980’s at
`
`-1-
`
`
`
`Amazon.com v. Vocalife LLC
`Declaration of John M. Strawn, Ph.D. – U.S. Patent RE48,371
`
`
`CCRMA, I implemented spectral subtraction noise reduction for speech based on
`
`the classic article by Boll.1 This involves converting to the frequency domain;
`
`estimating the background noise during times of no speech; subtracting the
`
`background noise estimate from the speech signal; and converting to the time
`
`domain.
`
`4.
`
`From 1985 to 1986, I continued working as a programmer at Lu-
`
`casfilm/Droid Works, designing signal processing modules, including developing
`
`code for the TI TMS 32010 digital signal processor. Moreover, as Vice President
`
`and subsequently President at Yamaha Music Technologies, I oversaw projects re-
`
`lating to digital signal processing, software, and electronic music technologies.
`
`5.
`
`As a consultant at S Systems, Inc., I continued to develop software for
`
`projects involving digital signal processing and digital signal processors. I am an
`
`acknowledged black belt in programming and optimizing DSP processors from An-
`
`alog Devices, Motorola, Texas Instruments, and others. I have helped design digital
`
`signal processors (e.g., Analog Devices, VM Labs, Atari). I have published analyses
`
`
`1 Boll, S. “Suppression of acoustic noise in speech using spectral subtraction.” IEEE
`
`Transactions on Acoustics, Speech, and Signal Processing 27(2):113-120, April
`
`1979.
`
`-2-
`
`
`
`Amazon.com v. Vocalife LLC
`Declaration of John M. Strawn, Ph.D. – U.S. Patent RE48,371
`
`
`and critiques of digital signal processors. I have held lectures on how to program
`
`digital signal processors. My focus has included general digital signal processing,
`
`audio processing, sub-band processing, the Fourier transform, and compression.
`
`Through my consulting work, I have conducted an extensive review of echo cancel-
`
`lation and noise reduction for speech, including beamforming. For example, I
`
`implemented noise reduction for speech as part of my work for Yamaha using the
`
`well-known technique of Ephraim and Malah.2
`
`6. My experience and qualifications are summarized in my curriculum
`
`vitae, a copy of which is provided as Ex. 1008.
`
`The Instant Case
`
`
`I have been retained by Petitioner Amazon.com, Inc. (“Petitioner” or
`
`7.
`
`“Amazon”) as a technical expert in this matter.
`
`8.
`
`I am being compensated for my work on this case. My compensation
`
`does not depend on the content of this Declaration or the outcome of these
`
`
`2 Ephraim, Y., and D. Malah. “Speech Enhancement Using a Minimum Mean Square
`
`Error Short-Time Spectral Amplitude Estimator.” IEEE Transactions on Acoustics
`
`Speech and Signal Processing 32(6):1109-1121, Dec. 1984.
`
`-3-
`
`
`
`Amazon.com v. Vocalife LLC
`Declaration of John M. Strawn, Ph.D. – U.S. Patent RE48,371
`
`
`proceedings. I do not own any stock in Amazon and, to my knowledge, I have no
`
`financial interest in Amazon.
`
`9.
`
`I understand that Amazon is filing a Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`
`claims 22-41 of U.S. Patent No. RE48,371 (“the ’371 patent”). I understand that the
`
`’371 patent is purportedly owned by Vocalife LLC (“Patent Owner” or “Vocalife”).
`
`I have been asked to provide technical expert opinions, including an opinion con-
`
`cerning the patentability of claims 22-41 of the ’371 patent.
`
` Topics of Opinions
`I offer opinions in this Declaration on the following general topics:
`
`10.
`
`• The subject matter described and claimed in the ’371 patent;
`
`• The level of ordinary skill in the art pertaining to the ’371 patent;
`
`• The teachings of the prior art; and
`
`• Whether claims 22-41 of the ’371 patent would have been obvious to a
`
`person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the alleged invention in
`
`view of the prior art.
`
`11.
`
`I also provide background information on signal processing and micro-
`
`phone array devices.
`
`12. Section headings, figure captions, table headings, and table captions in
`
`this Declaration are descriptive, not limiting.
`
`-4-
`
`
`
`Amazon.com v. Vocalife LLC
`Declaration of John M. Strawn, Ph.D. – U.S. Patent RE48,371
`
`
` Materials Considered
`In preparing this Declaration, I have considered the following materi-
`
`13.
`
`als:
`
`Exhibit No.
`
`Description
`
`1001
`
`1003
`
`1005
`
`1009
`
`1010
`
`1011
`
`1012
`
`1013
`
`U.S. Patent No. RE48,371 (“the ’371 patent”)
`
`U.S. Patent No. RE47,049 (“the ’049 patent”)
`
`U.S. Patent No. 8,861,756 (“the ’756 patent”)
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,359,504 (“Reuss”)
`
`U.S. Patent Publication US 2006/0147063 (“Chen”)
`
`Dmochowski, Jacek, et al., Direction of Arrival Estimation
`Using a Parameterized Spatial Correlation Matrix, 15 IEEE
`Transactions on Audio, Speech, and Language Processing 4
`(May 2007) (“Dmochowski”)
`
`Li, Qi, et al., A Portable USB-Based Microphone Array De-
`vice for Robust Speech Recognition, 2009 IEEE International
`Conference of Acoustics, Speech, and Signal Processing
`(2009) (“Li”)
`
`Declaration of Gerard P. Grenier, Senior Director of Content
`Management of The Institute of Electrical and Electronics
`Engineers, Inc., Regarding Li
`
`1014
`
`Declaration of Lin-Shan Lee, General Chair, ICASSP 2009
`
`-5-
`
`
`
`Amazon.com v. Vocalife LLC
`Declaration of John M. Strawn, Ph.D. – U.S. Patent RE48,371
`
`
`Exhibit No.
`
`Description
`
`1015
`
`1016
`
`1017
`
`1018
`
`1019
`
`1020
`
`1021
`
`1022
`
`1023
`
`1024
`
`Excerpts from BRANDSTEIN, MICHAEL, MICROPHONE AR-
`RAYS: SIGNAL PROCESSING TECHNIQUES AND APPLICATIONS
`(Springer 2001) (“Brandstein”)
`
`U.S. Patent Pub. No. 2004/0071284 (“Abutalebi”)
`
`Papp, Istvan, et al., Hands-Free Voice Communication Plat-
`form Integrated with TV, 2009 Digest of Technical Papers In-
`ternational Conference on Consumer Electronics (Jan. 2009)
`(“Papp”)
`
`Greenberg, Julie, et al., Evaluation of an Adaptive Beamform-
`ing Method for Hearing Aids, The Journal of the Acoustical
`Society of America 91 (1992) (“Greenberg”)
`
`Hoshuyama, Osamu, et al. A Realtime Robust Adaptive Mi-
`crophone Array Controlled by an SNR Estimate, Proceedings
`of the 1998 IEEE International Conference on Acoustics,
`Speech and Signal Processing (ICASSP ’98) (“Hoshuyama”)
`
`WO 2008/041878 (“Saric”)
`
`Excerpts from WOLFEL, MATTHIAS, ET AL., DISTANT SPEECH
`RECOGNITION (Wiley 2009) (“Wolfel”)
`
`Excerpts from HAYKIN, SIMON AND LUI, K.J., HANDBOOK ON
`ARRAY PROCESSING AND SENSOR NETWORKS (Wiley 2010)
`(“Haykin”)
`
`U.S. Patent Publication 2009/0141907 (“Kim”)
`
`U.S. Patent Publication 2004/0161121 (“Chol”)
`
`-6-
`
`
`
`Amazon.com v. Vocalife LLC
`Declaration of John M. Strawn, Ph.D. – U.S. Patent RE48,371
`
`
`Exhibit No.
`
`1025
`
`1026
`
`1027
`
`1028
`
`1029
`
`1030
`
`1031
`
`1032
`
`1033
`
`Description
`
`DiBiase, Joseph, A High-Accuracy, Low-Latency Technique
`for Talker Localization in Reverberant Environments Using
`Microphone Arrays, Thesis, Brown University (May 2002)
`(“DiBiase”)
`
`Claim Construction Memorandum and Order from Vocalife
`LLC v. Amazon.com, Inc. and Amazon.com LLC, No. 2:19-
`cv-00123-JRG (E.D. Tex. filed April 16, 2019)
`
`Griebel, Scott M., “A Microphone System for Speech Source
`Localization, Denoising, and Dereverberation,” Ph.D. Thesis,
`Harvard University (Apr. 2002) (“Griebel”)
`
`Declaration of Gerard P. Grenier, Senior Director of Content
`Management of The Institute of Electrical and Electronics
`Engineers, Inc., Regarding Dmochowski
`
`Excerpts from VASEGHI, SAEED V., ADVANCED DIGITAL SIG-
`NAL PROCESSING AND NOISE REDUCTION (2d ed. Wiley 2000)
`
`Thompson, Tom, Digital Signal Processing, ComputerWorld
`(March 12, 2001)
`
`Asaei, Afsaneh, et al., Verified speaker localization utilizing
`voicing level in split-bands, 89 Signal Processing 1038-1049
`(2009)
`
`Excerpts from OPPENHEIM, ALAN V., ET AL., DISCRETE-TIME
`SIGNAL PROCESSING (2d ed. Prentice Hall 1999)
`
`Excerpts from TASHEV, IVAN, SOUND CAPTURE AND PRO-
`CESSING (Wiley 2009)
`
`-7-
`
`
`
`Amazon.com v. Vocalife LLC
`Declaration of John M. Strawn, Ph.D. – U.S. Patent RE48,371
`
`
`Exhibit No.
`
`Description
`
`1034
`
`1041
`
`Frantz, Gene, Digital Signal Processor Trends, IEEE Micro,
`vol. 20, no. 6, pp. 52-59, Nov/Dec 2000
`
`Complete Listing of eXpressDSPTM-Compliant Third-Party
`Algorithms (Texas Instruments, 2002)
`
`
`
`14.
`
`I have also relied on my education, training, and experience, and my
`
`knowledge of pertinent literature in the field of the ’371 patent.
`
` APPLICABLE LEGAL STANDARDS
`I have been asked to provide my opinion as to whether the claims of the
`15.
`
`’371 patent would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the
`
`time of the alleged invention, in view of the prior art.
`
`16.
`
`I am a software engineer by training and profession. The opinions I am
`
`expressing in this report involve the application of my training and technical
`
`knowledge and experience to the evaluation of certain prior art with respect to the
`
`’371 patent.
`
`17. Although I have been involved as a technical expert in patent matters
`
`before, I am not an expert in patent law. Therefore, the attorneys from Knobbe,
`
`Martens, Olson & Bear, LLP have provided me with guidance as to the applicable
`
`-8-
`
`
`
`Amazon.com v. Vocalife LLC
`Declaration of John M. Strawn, Ph.D. – U.S. Patent RE48,371
`
`
`patent law in this matter. The paragraphs below express my understanding of how I
`
`must apply current principles related to patent validity to my analysis.
`
` Claim Construction
`It is my understanding that in determining whether a patent claim is
`
`18.
`
`obvious in view of the prior art, the Patent Office construes the claim by giving the
`
`claim terms their plain and ordinary meaning, as they would have been understood
`
`by a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention in view of the
`
`intrinsic record (patent specification and file history). For the purposes of this
`
`review, and to the extent necessary, I have interpreted each claim term in accordance
`
`with its plain and ordinary meaning as it would have been understood by a person of
`
`ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention, in view of the intrinsic record. I
`
`have been instructed that the time of the invention is September 24, 2010, which I
`
`understand to be the date the provisional application to which the ’371 patent claims
`
`priority was filed.
`
`19.
`
`I understand that a patent and its prosecution history are considered
`
`“intrinsic evidence” and are the most important sources for interpreting claim
`
`language in a patent. The prosecution history of related patents and applications can
`
`also be relevant.
`
`-9-
`
`
`
`Amazon.com v. Vocalife LLC
`Declaration of John M. Strawn, Ph.D. – U.S. Patent RE48,371
`
`
`20.
`
`I understand that sources extrinsic to a patent and its prosecution history
`
`(such as dictionary definitions and technical publications) may also be used to help
`
`interpret the claim language, but that such extrinsic sources cannot be used to
`
`contradict the unambiguous meaning of the claim language that is evident from the
`
`intrinsic evidence.
`
`21.
`
`I understand that Amazon and the Patent Owner were involved in a
`
`prior lawsuit I will refer to as Vocalife I involving a patent (“the ’049 patent”) [Ex.
`
`1003] that is related to the ’371 patent. More specifically, I understand that the ’049
`
`patent was a first reissue patent of U.S. Patent No. 8,861,756 [Ex. 1005] and the ’371
`
`patent is a second reissue of the same patent. I understand that the ’371 patent shares
`
`many claim terms with the ’049 patent and that the Court construed some of those
`
`terms in Vocalife I. [Ex. 1026]. I have reviewed the Court’s claim construction
`
`order from Vocalife I and below I identify the constructions that are relevant to my
`
`opinions.
`
`22. The Court construed “adaptive beamforming” to mean “a beamforming
`
`process where the directivity pattern of the microphone array is capable of being
`
`adaptively steered in the direction of a target sound signal emitted by a target sound
`
`source in motion.” [Ex. 1026, p. 54].
`
`-10-
`
`
`
`Amazon.com v. Vocalife LLC
`Declaration of John M. Strawn, Ph.D. – U.S. Patent RE48,371
`
`
`23. The Court found that “sound source localization unit” has its plain and
`
`ordinary meaning and connotes structure, namely “software/hardware in a DSP that
`
`includes functionality for locating a sound source” [Ex. 1026, pp. 45-46].
`
`24.
`
` For this proceeding, I have been instructed to adopt these constructions
`
`in my analysis, and I have done so. I do not believe that any of the Court’s other
`
`constructions impact my analysis of whether the claims would have been obvious.
`
`Unless expressly stated herein, I have applied the plain and ordinary meaning of the
`
`claim terms, which I understand is the meaning that a person of ordinary skill in the
`
`art would have given to terms in September 2010 based on a review of the intrinsic
`
`evidence.
`
` Obviousness
`It is my understanding that a claim is “obvious” if the claimed subject
`
`25.
`
`matter as a whole would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at
`
`the time of the alleged invention. I understand that an obviousness analysis involves
`
`a number of considerations. I understand that the following factors must be
`
`evaluated to determine whether a claim would have been obvious: (i) the scope and
`
`content of the prior art; (ii) the differences, if any, between each claim of the ’371
`
`patent and the prior art; (iii) the level of ordinary skill in the art in September 2010;
`
`and (iv) additional considerations, if any, that indicate that the invention was obvious
`
`-11-
`
`
`
`Amazon.com v. Vocalife LLC
`Declaration of John M. Strawn, Ph.D. – U.S. Patent RE48,371
`
`
`or not obvious. I understand that these “additional considerations” are often referred
`
`to as “secondary considerations” of non-obviousness or obviousness.
`
`26.
`
`I also understand that the frame of reference when evaluating
`
`obviousness is what a hypothetical person of ordinary skill in the pertinent art would
`
`have known in September 2010. I understand that the hypothetical person of
`
`ordinary skill is presumed to have knowledge of all pertinent prior art references.
`
`27.
`
`I understand that a prior art reference may be a pertinent prior art
`
`reference (or “analogous art”) if it is in the same field of endeavor as the patent or if
`
`it is pertinent to the problem that the inventors were trying to solve. A reference is
`
`reasonably pertinent if it logically would have commended itself to an inventor’s
`
`attention in considering the problem at hand. If a reference relates to the same prob-
`
`lem as the claimed invention, that supports use of the reference as prior art in an
`
`obviousness analysis. Here, all of the references relied on in my obviousness anal-
`
`ysis below are in the same field of endeavor as the ’371 patent, e.g., microphone
`
`array signal processing. The references are also pertinent to a particular problem the
`
`inventor was focused on, e.g., enhancing sound quality using signal processing
`
`techniques.
`
`28.
`
`It is my understanding that something is “inherent in,” and therefore
`
`taught by, the prior art, if it necessarily flows from the explicit disclosure of the prior
`
`-12-
`
`
`
`Amazon.com v. Vocalife LLC
`Declaration of John M. Strawn, Ph.D. – U.S. Patent RE48,371
`
`
`art. I understand that the fact that a certain result or characteristic may be present in
`
`the prior art is not sufficient to establish inherency. However, if the result or
`
`characteristic is necessarily present based upon the explicit disclosure in the prior
`
`art, it is inherent in the prior art and is therefore disclosed.
`
`29.
`
`It is my understanding that the law recognizes several rationales for
`
`combining references or modifying a reference to show obviousness of claimed
`
`subject matter. Some of these rationales include:
`
`• combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield pre-
`
`dictable results;
`
`• simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predict-
`
`able results;
`
`• a predictable use of prior art elements according to their established
`
`functions;
`
`• using known techniques to improve similar devices (methods, or prod-
`
`ucts) in the same way;
`
`• applying a known technique to a known device (method, or product)
`
`ready for improvement to yield predictable results;
`
`-13-
`
`
`
`Amazon.com v. Vocalife LLC
`Declaration of John M. Strawn, Ph.D. – U.S. Patent RE48,371
`
`
`• choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with
`
`a reasonable expectation of success (in which case a claim would have
`
`been obvious to try);
`
`• known work in one field of endeavor may prompt variations of it for
`
`use in either the same field or a different one based on design incentives
`
`or other market forces if the variations would have been predictable to
`
`one of ordinary skill in the art; and
`
`• some teaching, suggestion, or motivation in the prior art that would
`
`have led one of ordinary skill to modify the prior art reference or to
`
`combine prior art reference teachings to arrive at the claimed invention.
`
`30.
`
`I understand that “secondary considerations” must be considered as part
`
`of the obviousness analysis when present. I further understand that the secondary
`
`considerations may include: (1) a long-felt but unmet need in the prior art that was
`
`satisfied by the claimed invention; (2) the failure of others; (3) skepticism by experts;
`
`(4) commercial success of a product covered by the patent; (5) unexpected results
`
`achieved by the claimed invention; (6) industry praise of the claimed invention; (7)
`
`deliberate copying of the invention; and (8) teaching away by others. I also
`
`understand that evidence of the independent and nearly simultaneous “invention” of
`
`the claimed subject matter by others is a secondary consideration supporting an
`
`-14-
`
`
`
`Amazon.com v. Vocalife LLC
`Declaration of John M. Strawn, Ph.D. – U.S. Patent RE48,371
`
`
`obviousness determination and may support a conclusion that a claimed invention
`
`was within the knowledge of a person of ordinary skill in the art as of September
`
`2010. I am not aware of any evidence of secondary considerations that would sug-
`
`gest that the claims of the ’371 patent would have been nonobvious in September
`
`2010.
`
`31.
`
`I understand that when assessing obviousness, using hindsight is
`
`impermissible; that is, what is known today or what was learned from the teachings
`
`of the patent should not be considered. The patent should not be used as a road map
`
`for selecting and combining items of prior art. Rather, obviousness must be
`
`considered from the perspective of a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time the
`
`invention was made – September 2010 in this case.
`
`32.
`
`I also understand that an obviousness analysis must consider the
`
`invention as a whole, as opposed to just a part or element of the invention.
`
` PERSON OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART
`It is my understanding that when interpreting the claims of the ’371
`33.
`
`patent and evaluating whether a claim would have been obvious, I must do so based
`
`on the perspective of a person of ordinary skill in the art at the relevant priority date.
`
`I understand that the earliest claimed priority date of the ’371 patent is September
`
`24, 2010. I have been instructed to assume for the purposes of my opinions that the
`
`-15-
`
`
`
`Amazon.com v. Vocalife LLC
`Declaration of John M. Strawn, Ph.D. – U.S. Patent RE48,371
`
`
`relevant priority date of the ’371 patent is September 24, 2010. However, my opin-
`
`ions would not change even if the ’371 patent were entitled to a priority date in 2008
`
`or 2009.
`
`34.
`
`I understand that in determining the level of ordinary skill in the art,
`
`several factors are considered. Those factors may include: (i) the type of problems
`
`encountered in the art; (ii) prior art solutions to those problems; (iii) the rapidity with
`
`which innovations are made; (iv) the sophistication of the technology; and (v) the
`
`educational level of active workers in the field. A person of ordinary skill in the art
`
`must have the capability of understanding the scientific and engineering principles
`
`applicable to the pertinent art.
`
`35. Based on my review of the specification and claims of the ’371 patent,
`
`it is my opinion that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had a graduate
`
`degree in electrical engineering, computer science, or a similar field, with course
`
`work in digital signal processing. Alternatively, the person of ordinary skill would
`
`have had a bachelor’s degree in such a field with 3 to 4 years of industry experience
`
`in digital signal processing.
`
`36. My conclusions below that the claims of the ’371 patent would have
`
`been obvious would remain the same even if the priority date, field of endeavor, or
`
`level of ordinary skill were slightly different.
`
`-16-
`
`
`
`Amazon.com v. Vocalife LLC
`Declaration of John M. Strawn, Ph.D. – U.S. Patent RE48,371
`
`
`37.
`
`I meet the above definition of a person of ordinary skill in the art, and
`
`did so as of September 2010. Also, I have worked with persons of ordinary skill in
`
`the art through my professional and academic experiences, and I have an understand-
`
`ing of their skill level around September 2010.
`
` TECHNOLOGY BACKGROUND
`38. The ’371 patent claims a microphone array system comprised of four
`
`units: a sound source localization unit, an adaptive beamforming unit, a noise
`
`reduction unit, and an echo cancellation unit. The claims state that each unit is im-
`
`plemented by a digital signal processor (“DSP”). Microphone arrays and the four
`
`units, as well as implementing the units into a DSP, were well known in the art long
`
`before September 24, 2010.
`
` Microph
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
