UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`——————————
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`GOOGLE LLC,
`Petitioner,
`v.
`VOCALIFE LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`_____________________________
`
`Case No. IPR2022-00004
`U.S. Patent No. RE47,049
`_____________________________
`DECLARATION OF JEFFREY S. VIPPERMAN, PH.D.
`IN SUPPORT OF PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW OF
`U.S. PATENT NO. RE47,049
`
`Page 1 of 97
`
`GOOGLE EXHIBIT 1006
`
`

`

`Declaration of Dr. Jeffrey Vipperman
`U.S. Patent No. RE47,049
`
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................. 1
`I.
`II. QUALIFICATIONS AND BACKGROUND ............................................................ 1
`A.
`Education ........................................................................................... 2
`B.
`Experience ......................................................................................... 2
`III. MATERIALS CONSIDERED .............................................................................. 6
`IV. LEGAL STANDARDS ...................................................................................... 7
`A.
`Claim Construction ............................................................................ 7
`B. Anticipation Under 35 U.S.C. § 102 .................................................. 8
`C. Obviousness Under 35 U.S.C. § 103 .................................................. 9
`
`V.
`
`Secondary Considerations of Non-Obviousness ................................11
`D.
`THE ’049 PATENT ........................................................................................13
`A. Overview of the ’049 Patent .............................................................13
`B.
`Summary of the Prosecution History of the ’049 Patent ....................16
`VI. PERSON OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART .....................................................16
`VII. THE PRIOR ART ...........................................................................................17
`A. Overview of Jeong ............................................................................17
`B. Overview of Van Trees .....................................................................18
`C. Overview of Briere ...........................................................................19
`D. Overview of Buck-II .........................................................................21
`E.
`Overview of Kim...............................................................................22
`F.
`Overview of Yen ...............................................................................25
`G. Overview of Andrea ..........................................................................26
`
`i
`
`Page 2 of 97
`
`

`

`Declaration of Dr. Jeffrey Vipperman
`U.S. Patent No. RE47,049
`
`
`VIII. OPINIONS ON UNPATENTABILITY ..................................................................27
`A.
`Jeong and Van Trees (Ground 1A) or Jeong, Van Trees, and
`Briere (Ground 1B) render obvious claims 1, 9, 18-22, 26, 29-
`35 ......................................................................................................28
`1.
`Claim 1 ...................................................................................29
`2.
`Claim 9 ...................................................................................55
`3.
`Claims 20 and 21 ....................................................................57
`4.
`Claims 22, 26, 30, and 31 ........................................................58
`5.
`Claim 32 .................................................................................60
`6.
`Claim 33 .................................................................................62
`
`B.
`
`Claim 34 .................................................................................62
`7.
`Claim 35 .................................................................................63
`8.
`Claims 18 and 29 ....................................................................64
`9.
`10. Claim 19 .................................................................................65
`Jeong, Van Trees, and Buck-II (Ground 2A) or Jeong, Van
`Trees, Buck-II, and Briere (Ground 2B) render obvious claims
`1, 3-5, 7-9, 11-13, 15, 17-23, 25, 26, 28-35. ......................................66
`1.
`Overview of Grounds 2A/2B ..................................................66
`2.
`Claim 1 ...................................................................................68
`3.
`Claims 20, 22, and 30 .............................................................75
`4.
`Claims 9, 21, 26, and 31-35 ....................................................76
`5.
`Claims 3, 11, and 23 ...............................................................76
`6.
`Claims 4 and 12 ......................................................................80
`
`7.
`
`Claims 5 and 13 ......................................................................81
`
`ii
`
`Page 3 of 97
`
`

`

`
`
`Declaration of Dr. Jeffrey Vipperman
`U.S. Patent No. RE47,049
`
`Claims 7 and 15 ......................................................................85
`8.
`Claims 8, 17, 25, and 28..........................................................85
`9.
`10. Claims 18, 19, and 29 .............................................................86
`Jeong, Van Trees, and Kim (Ground 3A) or Jeong, Van Trees,
`Kim, and Briere (Ground 3B) render obvious claims 2 and 10 ..........86
`1.
`Claims 2 and 10 ......................................................................86
`Jeong, Van Trees, and Yen (Ground 4A) or Jeong, Van Trees,
`Yen, and Briere (Ground 4B) render obvious claims 6, 14, 24,
`and 27 ...............................................................................................87
`1.
`Claims 6, 14, 24, and 27..........................................................87
`
`C.
`
`D.
`
`E.
`
`Jeong, Van Trees, and Andrea (Ground 5A) or Jeong, Van
`Trees, Anrea, and Briere (Ground 5B) render obvious claim 16 .......91
`1.
`Claim 16 .................................................................................91
`IX. CONCLUSION ...............................................................................................93
`
`
`
`
`
`
`iii
`
`Page 4 of 97
`
`

`

`
`I.
`
`Declaration of Dr. Jeffrey Vipperman
`U.S. Patent No. RE47,049
`
`INTRODUCTION
`I, Dr. Jeffrey Vipperman, submit this declaration to state my opinions
`1.
`
`on the matters described below.
`
`2.
`
`I have been retained by Petitioner, Google LLC (“Petitioner” or
`
`“Google”), as an independent expert in this proceeding before the United States
`
`Patent and Trademark Office. Although I am being compensated at my usual and
`
`customary rate of $400.00 per hour, no part of my compensation depends on the
`
`outcome of this proceeding, and I have no other interest in this proceeding.
`
`3.
`
`I understand that this proceeding involves U.S. Patent No. RE47,049
`
`(“the ’049 patent”), and I have been asked to provide my opinions as to the
`
`patentability of the claims of the ’049 patent.
`
`4.
`
`I have been asked to consider the validity of certain claims of the ’049
`
`patent based on certain prior art references. I have also been asked to consider the
`
`state of the art and prior art available as of September 24, 2010, which is the
`
`earliest claimed priority date on the face of the ’049 patent. Based on the
`
`combination of prior art references discussed in this declaration, it is my opinion
`
`that claims 1-35 of the ’049 patent are invalid for the reasons provided below.
`
`II. QUALIFICATIONS AND BACKGROUND
`I believe that I am well qualified to serve as a technical expert in this
`5.
`
`matter based upon my educational and work experience, which I summarize below.
`
`1
`
`Page 5 of 97
`
`

`

`
`I understand that my curriculum vitae, which includes a more detailed summary of
`
`Declaration of Dr. Jeffrey Vipperman
`U.S. Patent No. RE47,049
`
`my background, experience, patents, and publications, is attached as Ex. 1007.
`
`A. Education
`I received my Ph.D. in Mechanical Engineering from Duke University
`6.
`
`in 1997. Previously, I obtained Master of Science and Bachelor of Science degrees
`
`in Mechanical Engineering from the Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State
`
`University (“Virginia Tech”) in 1992 and 1990, respectively. My thesis at Duke
`
`was titled “Adaptive Piezoelectric Sensoriactuators for Multivariable Structural
`
`Acoustic Control.” My thesis addressed the development of a hybrid analog/digital
`
`circuit and adaptation method to permit piezoelectric transducers to be used
`
`simultaneously as a sensor and an actuator. Doing so provides an array of truly
`
`“co-located” sensor/actuator pairs with minimum phase such that stability of the
`
`multichannel feedback system is greatly enhanced. These were demonstrated for
`
`active structural acoustic control.
`
`B. Experience
`I am a Professor of Mechanical Engineering, BioEngineering, and
`7.
`
`Communication Science and Disorders, and Vice Chair of the Mechanical
`
`Engineering and Materials Science Department at the University of Pittsburgh. I
`
`am also the Director and the founder of the Sound, Systems, and Structures
`
`Laboratory at the University of Pittsburgh.
`
`2
`
`Page 6 of 97
`
`

`

`Declaration of Dr. Jeffrey Vipperman
`U.S. Patent No. RE47,049
`
`8.
`
`I first began research in acoustics and sound systems in 1989 as an
`
`
`
`undergraduate student. My masters research concerned adaptive feedforward
`
`control of broadband structural vibration, and my Ph.D. research concerned the
`
`development of arrays of self-sensing piezoelectric transducers that could be used
`
`for active structural-acoustic control. I have also developed a number of algorithms
`
`for active control of noise and vibration.
`
`9. My acoustics research has included a mix of theory, analytical and
`
`numerical modeling, and measurement of acoustic and vibration systems, including
`
`transducer and controls development, transducer modeling/fabrication/testing,
`
`analog/digital signal processing, embedded systems, active and passive noise and
`
`vibration control, development of various types of metamaterials (e.g., phononic
`
`crystals, resonant lattices, layered media, and pentamode materials) for acoustical
`
`filtering and cloaking, development of noise classifiers to discern types of military
`
`noise or for incorporation into surgical devices as surgical aids, development of
`
`thermoacoustic engines, refrigerators, and sensors (e.g., a wireless, “in-core”
`
`thermoacoustic sensor that can measure temperature and neutron flux inside an
`
`nuclear reactor). Additional topics of my research include developing structural
`
`acoustic models (i.e., concerned with sound radiation from vibrating structures) of
`
`sound transmission through finite cylinders, various methods of passive and active
`
`control of noise, vibration, and structural-acoustic radiation (i.e., controlling sound
`
`3
`
`Page 7 of 97
`
`

`

`
`radiation of a vibrating structure by introducing additional vibrations to make it an
`
`Declaration of Dr. Jeffrey Vipperman
`U.S. Patent No. RE47,049
`
`inefficient radiator), hearing loss prevention, and modeling of ear response and
`
`damage to the inner ear for impulsive and ultrasound sources. During the early
`
`stages of the microelectromechanical systems (MEMS) revolution, I worked on
`
`producing some of earliest silicon-on-insulator (MEMS) microphones through
`
`semiconductor fabrication methods.
`
`10. As a professor, I have developed and taught undergraduate and
`
`graduate courses on Acoustics, Vibrations, Dynamic Systems, Mechanical
`
`Measurements, Signal Analysis, and Controls. These courses include significant
`
`amounts of material on electronics, transducers (including loudspeakers),
`
`acoustics, and vibrations. In addition, I have taught short courses on acoustic
`
`theory and measurement, and active control of sound and vibration.
`
`11.
`
`I also have a consulting business (Blue Ridge Consulting) and am
`
`Vice President of Atlas Medtech, LLC, a University of Pittsburgh licensed startup
`
`company.
`
`12.
`
`I have worked as a Principal Investigator and Co-Principal
`
`Investigator on Department of Defense (“DoD”) projects that involve acoustic
`
`arrays. In one project, a microphone array and cross-correlation methods (time
`
`difference of arrival or TDOA methods) were used to determine the bearing angle
`
`for acoustic plane waves associated with various forms of military and natural
`
`4
`
`Page 8 of 97
`
`

`

`
`noise. Multiple arrays were used to triangulate the location of the noise sources. In
`
`Declaration of Dr. Jeffrey Vipperman
`U.S. Patent No. RE47,049
`
`conjunction, we developed machine learning algorithms to classify the noise
`
`source, which provided additional help for noise management programs around
`
`U.S. military bases. A corporate partner commercialized the array and machine
`
`learning algorithms into a product. In another project, I helped co-develop a
`
`method for localizing sound using small arrays of unidirectional (e.g., “shot-gun”)
`
`microphones. The methods worked in both the time and frequency domains.
`
`Another military project funded by DoD involved the development of 2-D and 3-D
`
`parametric arrays for steering ultrasound.
`
`13. Some of my extracurricular activities include chairing an American
`
`National Standards Institute (ANSI) Committee to revise the ANSI S1.1 Acoustical
`
`Terminology Standard. I am also a Fellow in the American Society of Mechanical
`
`Engineers (ASME) and a former Chair of the Noise Control and Acoustics
`
`Division of ASME. I also chaired the Per Bruel Gold Medal in Acoustics Award
`
`selection committee for ASME. I have organized nine conference sessions on
`
`acoustics and was a Track Organizer (over multiple conference sessions) for nine
`
`ASME conferences, as well as Technical Program Chair over all acoustics-related
`
`conference sessions at the ASME International Mechanical Engineering Congress
`
`and Exposition (IMECE) in 2009. I also participated on a National Research
`
`Council (National Academies) panel to evaluate the hearing loss prevention
`
`5
`
`Page 9 of 97
`
`

`

`
`component of the mining program for the National Institute for Occupational
`
`Declaration of Dr. Jeffrey Vipperman
`U.S. Patent No. RE47,049
`
`Safety and Health (NIOSH) research programs.
`
`14.
`
`I have published numerous technical papers, book chapters, reports,
`
`and the like related to acoustic sensors and acoustic signal processing.
`
`III. MATERIALS CONSIDERED
`In forming my opinions, I have reviewed the following documents:
`15.
`
`Description
`Exhibit
`Ex. 1001 U.S. Patent No. RE47,049 (“the ’049 patent”)
`Ex. 1002 Prosecution History of the ’049 patent
`Ex. 1003 U.S. Patent No. 8,861,756 (“the ’756 patent”)
`Ex. 1004 Prosecution History of the ’756 patent
`Ex. 1005 Provisional Application No. 61/403,952 (“the ’952 provisional”)
`Ex. 1008 Korean Patent Publication No. 10-2009-0037845 to Jeong (“Jeong”)
`Ex. 1009 Excerpts from “Optimum Array Processing”, Harry L. Van Trees,
`Wiley-Interscience, 1st Edition (“Van Trees”)
`S. Brière, et al., “Embedded and Integrated Audition for a Mobile
`Robot”, American Association for Artificial Intelligence
`Symposium, 2006 (“Briere”)
`Ex. 1011 U.S. Patent Publication No. 2009/0067642 to Buck-II et al. (“Buck-
`II”)
`Ex. 1012 U.S. Patent Publication No. 2009/0279714 to Kim et al. (“Kim”)
`Ex. 1013 U.S. Patent Publication No. 2009/0271187 to Yen et al. (“Yen”)
`Ex. 1014 U.S. Patent Publication No. 2009/0268931 to Andrea et al.
`(“Andrea”)
`G. Lathoud, et al., “Segmenting Multiple Concurrent Speakers
`Using Microphone Arrays”, 8th European Conference on Speech
`Communication and Technology, Geneva, Switzerland, September
`1-4, 2003 (“Lathoud”)
`
`Ex. 1010
`
`Ex. 1015
`
`6
`
`Page 10 of 97
`
`

`

`
`
`Declaration of Dr. Jeffrey Vipperman
`U.S. Patent No. RE47,049
`
`Ex. 1016
`
`Barry D. Van Veen and Kevin M. Buckley, “Beamforming: A
`Versatile Approach to Spatial Filtering”, IEEE ASSP Magazine,
`April 1988 (“Van Veen”).
`
`IV. LEGAL STANDARDS
`In forming my opinions and considering the subject matter of the ’049
`16.
`
`patent and its claims in light of the prior art, I am relying on certain legal principles
`
`that counsel in this case explained to me. My understanding of these concepts is
`
`summarized below.
`
`17.
`
`I understand that the claims define the invention. I also understand
`
`that an unpatentability analysis is a two-step process. First, the claims of the patent
`
`are construed to determine their meaning and scope. Second, after the claims are
`
`construed, the content of the prior art is compared to the construed claims.
`
`18.
`
`I understand that a claimed invention is only patentable when it is
`
`new, useful, and non-obvious in light of the “prior art.” That is, the invention, as
`
`defined by the claims of the patent, must not be anticipated by or rendered obvious
`
`by the prior art.
`
`A. Claim Construction
`I understand that the United States Patent and Trademark Office
`19.
`
`interprets claim terms in an inter partes review proceeding under the same claim
`
`construction standard that is used in a United States federal court. I understand that
`
`7
`
`Page 11 of 97
`
`

`

`
`under this standard, the meaning of claim terms is considered from the viewpoint
`
`Declaration of Dr. Jeffrey Vipperman
`U.S. Patent No. RE47,049
`
`of one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the alleged invention.
`
`20.
`
`I have been informed that claim terms are generally given their
`
`ordinary and customary meaning as understood by one of ordinary skill in the art
`
`in light of the specification and the prosecution history pertaining to the patent. I
`
`understand, however, that claim terms are generally not limited by the
`
`embodiments described in the specification.
`
`21.
`
`I understand that in addition to the claims, specification, and
`
`prosecution history, other evidence may be considered to ascertain the meaning of
`
`claim terms, including textbooks, encyclopedias, articles, and dictionaries. I have
`
`been informed that this other evidence is often less significant and less reliable
`
`than the claims, specification, and prosecution history.
`
`B. Anticipation Under 35 U.S.C. § 102
`I understand that a patent claim is invalid as anticipated if a single
`22.
`
`piece of prior art teaches every element of the claims, viewed from the perspective
`
`of a person of ordinary skill in the art. I also understand that an anticipatory
`
`reference does not have to recite word for word what is in the anticipated claims.
`
`Anticipation can also occur when a claimed limitation is inherent in the relevant
`
`reference. I have been advised that if the prior art necessarily functions in
`
`8
`
`Page 12 of 97
`
`

`

`
`accordance with, or includes, the claimed limitations, it can anticipate even though
`
`Declaration of Dr. Jeffrey Vipperman
`U.S. Patent No. RE47,049
`
`the limitation is not expressly disclosed.
`
`C. Obviousness Under 35 U.S.C. § 103
`I understand that a patent claim is invalid as obvious if the claimed
`23.
`
`invention would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the
`
`time the claimed invention was made. This means that even if all of the elements
`
`of the claim cannot be found in a single prior art reference that would anticipate the
`
`claim, a person of ordinary skill in the field who knew about all the prior art would
`
`have come up with the claimed invention. I understand that in an obviousness
`
`determination, the person of ordinary skill in the art is presumed to have
`
`knowledge of all material prior art. I understand that whether a claim is obvious is
`
`based upon the determination of several factual issues.
`
`24.
`
`In considering obviousness, I understand that one must determine the
`
`scope and content of the prior art. I understand that, in order to be considered as
`
`prior art to a patent being considered, a prior art reference must be reasonably
`
`related to the claimed invention of that patent. A reference is reasonably related if
`
`it is in the same field as the claimed invention or is from another field to which a
`
`person of ordinary skill in the art would look to solve a known problem.
`
`25.
`
`I understand that one must determine what differences, if any, existed
`
`between the claimed invention and the prior art.
`
`9
`
`Page 13 of 97
`
`

`

`Declaration of Dr. Jeffrey Vipperman
`U.S. Patent No. RE47,049
`
`26.
`
`I understand that a patent claim composed of several elements is not
`
`
`
`proved obvious merely by demonstrating that each of its elements was
`
`independently known in the prior art. In evaluating whether such a claim would
`
`have been obvious, one may consider whether a reason has been identified that
`
`would have prompted a person of ordinary skill in the art to combine the elements
`
`or concepts from the prior art in the same way as in the claimed invention. There is
`
`no single way to define the line between true inventiveness on the one hand (which
`
`is patentable) and the application of common sense and ordinary skill to solve a
`
`problem on the other hand (which is not patentable). For example, market forces or
`
`other design incentives may be what produced a change, rather than true
`
`inventiveness.
`
`27.
`
`I understand that one may consider whether (1) the change was
`
`merely the predictable result of using prior art elements according to their known
`
`functions, or whether it was the result of true inventiveness; (2) there is some
`
`teaching or suggestion in the prior art to make the modification or combination of
`
`elements claimed in the patent; (3) the innovation applies a known technique that
`
`had been used to improve a similar device or method in a similar way; (4) the
`
`claimed invention would have been obvious to try, meaning that the claimed
`
`innovation was one of a relatively small number of possible approaches to the
`
`problem with a reasonable expectation of success by those skilled in the art; (5) the
`
`10
`
`Page 14 of 97
`
`

`

`
`invention merely substituted one known element for another known element in
`
`Declaration of Dr. Jeffrey Vipperman
`U.S. Patent No. RE47,049
`
`order to obtain predictable results; (6) the invention merely applies a known
`
`technique to a known device, method, or product to yield predictable results, or (7)
`
`known work in the field may have prompted variations of use of the same
`
`inventions in the same or different fields due to market forces or design incentives
`
`that would have been predictable to a person of ordinary skill in the art.
`
`28.
`
`I understand that one must be careful not to determine obviousness
`
`using the benefit of hindsight; many true inventions might seem obvious after the
`
`fact. I understand that the determination should be based on the position of a
`
`person of ordinary skill in the field at the time the claimed invention was made and
`
`should not consider what is known today or what is learned from the teaching of
`
`the patent.
`
`D. Secondary Considerations of Non-Obviousness
`I understand that certain secondary considerations may be considered
`29.
`
`in evaluating obviousness in order to prevent hindsight bias. These secondary
`
`considerations include commercial success of products that practice the patent,
`
`long-felt need for the patented technology, failure by others to solve the problem
`
`addressed by the patent, initial skepticism by others in the industry, industry
`
`recognition and praise of the patented products, and efforts by others to copy the
`
`patented technology.
`
`11
`
`Page 15 of 97
`
`

`

`Declaration of Dr. Jeffrey Vipperman
`U.S. Patent No. RE47,049
`
`30.
`
`I have been informed that these secondary considerations of non-
`
`
`
`obviousness must be balanced against the strength of the prima facie case of
`
`obviousness. Where the invention represents no more than the predictable use of
`
`prior art elements according to their established functions, secondary
`
`considerations are inadequate to establish non-obviousness.
`
`31.
`
`I have also been informed that the patentee must establish a nexus
`
`between any secondary consideration factors and the claimed invention. Where a
`
`secondary consideration factor results from something other than what is both
`
`claimed and novel in the patent, there is no nexus to the merits of the claimed
`
`invention.
`
`32.
`
`I have been informed that, for example, the nexus requirement as it
`
`applies to the evidence of commercial success requires that the patentee must show
`
`that the sales of a product that allegedly practices the claimed invention must be a
`
`direct result of the unique characteristics of the claimed invention, as opposed to
`
`other economic and commercial factors that are unrelated to the patented
`
`invention. I understand that this means if the commercial success is due to an
`
`element that existed in the prior art or that is not claimed by the patent, then no
`
`nexus exists.
`
`33.
`
`I have been further informed that, for example, the nexus requirement
`
`as it applies to the long-felt need element must likewise be supported by evidence.
`
`12
`
`Page 16 of 97
`
`

`

`
`Where the differences between the prior art and the claimed invention are minimal,
`
`Declaration of Dr. Jeffrey Vipperman
`U.S. Patent No. RE47,049
`
`it cannot be said that any long-felt need was met by the patented invention or that
`
`the patent solved any technological problems that were unaddressed by others.
`
`34.
`
`I have been informed that evidence of industry praise must also show
`
`a nexus with the claimed invention, and that self-serving statements by the patentee
`
`regarding the merits of the claimed invention are generally not given weight.
`
`V. THE ’049 PATENT
`A. Overview of the ’049 Patent
`35. The ’049 patent discloses methods and systems “for enhancing a
`
`target sound signal,” such as a person’s speech, “from multiple sound signals,”
`
`such as from other sound sources or from ambient noise. Ex. 1001, Abstract, 2:5-
`
`29. As shown below in FIG. 2, the system includes four components: (1) an array
`
`of microphones to receive sound signals; (2) a “sound source localization unit” that
`
`estimates the location of the source of a target sound signal from the received
`
`sound signals; (3) “an adaptive beamforming unit” that steers a directivity pattern
`
`of the microphone array toward the estimated location; and (4) a “noise reduction
`
`unit” that suppresses ambient noise. Id., Abstract.
`
`13
`
`Page 17 of 97
`
`

`

`
`
`Declaration of Dr. Jeffrey Vipperman
`U.S. Patent No. RE47,049
`
`Ex. 1001, FIG. 2 (annotated).
`
`
`
`36. These are basic components of a sound signal processing system and
`
`were well known in the art, as evidenced by the prior art references discussed
`
`below, such as Jeong, Briere, and Buck-II.
`
`37. The independent claims include various implementation details that
`
`were also well known in the art. For example, the claims require that the sound
`
`source localization unit determines the location of a target sound source using
`
`well-known time delay of arrival (TDOA) calculations based on the configuration
`
`of the microphone array. For example, in one embodiment shown FIG. 5, the ’049
`
`patent uses a circular array of microphones and well-known calculations based on
`
`the distances and angles defining such a configuration.
`
`14
`
`Page 18 of 97
`
`

`

`
`
`Declaration of Dr. Jeffrey Vipperman
`U.S. Patent No. RE47,049
`
`Ex. 1001, FIG. 5 (annotated).
`
`
`
`38. These configurations and corresponding calculations were
`
`rudimentary and disclosed in prior art textbooks, like Van Trees, discussed herein.
`
`39. As another example, the claims require that the sound source
`
`localization unit, adaptive beamforming unit, and noise reduction unit are
`
`integrated in a digital signal processor (DSP). But again, this was a well-known
`
`configuration and was known to one skilled in the art, as demonstrated at least by
`
`Briere, also discussed herein. In my opinion, the ’049 patent discloses and claims a
`
`trivial conglomeration of well-known components that were described in the prior
`
`art and known to one skilled in the art.
`
`15
`
`Page 19 of 97
`
`

`

`
`
`Declaration of Dr. Jeffrey Vipperman
`U.S. Patent No. RE47,049
`
`B. Summary of the Prosecution History of the ’049 Patent
`I have reviewed the prosecution history of the application that led to
`40.
`
`the ’049 patent. I understand that the ’049 patent is a reissue of U.S. Patent No.
`
`8,861,756 (“the ’756 patent”). During prosecution of the ’756 patent, the examiner
`
`rejected the claims, finding that the prior art disclosed the four components: a
`
`microphone array, a sound source localization unit, an adaptive beamforming unit,
`
`and a noise reduction unit. Ex. 1004, 127-131. In response, the applicant added
`
`details regarding the calculation for “determining a time delay” (the well-known
`
`TDOA discussed above), Ex. 1004, 143-159, and the examiner allowed the claims,
`
`Ex. 1004, 174-175.
`
`41.
`
`In the reissue application, in response to another prior art rejection,
`
`the applicant further amended the claims to require that the sound source
`
`localization unit, the adaptive beamforming unit, and the noise reduction unit are
`
`integrated in a DSP. Ex. 1002, 203-236. The examiner subsequently allowed the
`
`reissued claims. Ex. 1002, 312-318.
`
`VI. PERSON OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART
`I am informed that patentability must be analyzed from the
`42.
`
`perspective of “one of ordinary skill in the art” in the same field as the patent-in-
`
`suit at the time of the invention. I am also informed that several factors are
`
`considered in assessing the level of ordinary skill in the art, including (1) the types
`
`16
`
`Page 20 of 97
`
`

`

`
`of problems encountered in the art; (2) the prior art solutions to those problems;
`
`Declaration of Dr. Jeffrey Vipperman
`U.S. Patent No. RE47,049
`
`(3) the rapidity with which innovations are made; (4) the sophistication of the
`
`technology; and (5) the education level of active workers in the field.
`
`43.
`
`In my opinion, a person of ordinary skill in the art pertinent to the
`
`’049 patent as of its earliest priority date would have had a bachelor’s degree in
`
`physics, mechanical engineering, electrical engineering, acoustics, or audio
`
`engineering (or equivalent experience), and three years of experience designing or
`
`implementing acoustic systems. However, in my opinion, lack of professional
`
`experience could be remedied by additional education. Likewise, lack of education
`
`could be remedied by additional professional experience. I meet this definition of
`
`one of ordinary skill in the art now and at the priority date of the ’049 patent.
`
`VII. THE PRIOR ART
`A. Overview of Jeong
`44. Like the ’049 patent, Jeong discloses a method and an apparatus “for
`
`extracting a target sound source signal from a mixed signal.” Ex. 1008, Abstract.
`
`As shown in annotated FIG. 2B below, Jeong’s apparatus includes a microphone
`
`array (210) that “acquires, in the form of a mixed signal, sound source signals
`
`emitted from a plurality of sound sources,” (Ex. 1008, ¶22), a sound source
`
`searching unit (223) that “searches for the location of the target sound source
`
`around the target microphone array (210) using various algorithms,” such as “time
`
`17
`
`Page 21 of 97
`
`

`

`
`delay of arrival (TDOA),” (Ex. 1008, ¶22-23), an emphasized signal beam-former
`
`Declaration of Dr. Jeffrey Vipperman
`U.S. Patent No. RE47,049
`
`(221) that generates an “emphasized signal” in which “the sound pressure with
`
`respect to the target sound source” is increased (Ex. 1008, ¶26), a suppressed
`
`signal beam-former (222) that generates a “suppressed signal,” and a signal
`
`extracting unit (230) that receives the emphasized signal and the suppressed signal
`
`and removes “interference noise” from the emphasized signal. Ex. 1008, ¶45-46.
`
`Ex. 1008, FIG. 2B (annotated).
`
`
`
`45.
`
`Jeong further discloses that its apparatus “is capable of sound signal
`
`processing or sound acquisition” in a “portable digital device” such as “a mobile
`
`phone, camcorder, digital recorder.” Ex. 1008, ¶1.
`
`B. Overview of Van Trees
`46. Van Trees is a textbook that discloses fundamental time delay of
`
`arrival (TDOA) calculations in sensor arrays having linear, circular, or other
`
`18
`
`Page 22 of 97
`
`

`

`
`configurations. As shown below, Van Trees discloses calculating TDOA in a
`
`Declaration of Dr. Jeffrey Vipperman
`U.S. Patent No. RE47,049
`
`circular sensor array using geometric parameters R (the distance between each of
`
`the sensors and the origin), ϕ (azimuth angle between x-axis and the target sound
`
`signal), θ (elevation angle of the target sound signal), and ϕ1 (predefined angle
`
`between each of the sound sensors and x-axis). Ex. 1009, at page