Trials@uspto.gov
`571-272-7822
`
`Paper 10
`Entered: April 15, 2022
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`GOOGLE LLC,
`Petitioner,
`v.
`VOCALIFE LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`
`IPR2022-00004
`Patent RE47,049 E
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Before MONICA S. ULLAGADDI, AMBER L. HAGY, and
`JASON M. REPKO, Administrative Patent Judges.
`REPKO, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`DECISION
`Granting Institution of Inter Partes Review
`35 U.S.C. § 314
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`571-272-7822
`
`Paper 10
`Entered: April 15, 2022
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`GOOGLE LLC,
`Petitioner,
`v.
`VOCALIFE LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`
`IPR2022-00004
`Patent RE47,049 E
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Before MONICA S. ULLAGADDI, AMBER L. HAGY, and
`JASON M. REPKO, Administrative Patent Judges.
`REPKO, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`DECISION
`Granting Institution of Inter Partes Review
`35 U.S.C. § 314
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2022-00004
`Patent RE47,049 E
`
`INTRODUCTION
`I.
`Google LLC (“Petitioner”) filed a petition requesting inter partes
`review of claims 1–35 of U.S. Patent No. RE47,049 E (Ex. 1001, “the ’049
`patent”). Paper 1 (“Pet.”). Vocalife LLC (“Patent Owner”) filed a
`Preliminary Response. Paper 6 (“Prelim. Resp.”). With our authorization
`(Paper 7), Petitioner filed a Reply. Paper 8 (“Prelim. Reply”). We also
`authorized Patent Owner to file a Sur-Reply of equal length, but no reply
`was filed. Paper 7, 5.
`To institute an inter partes review, we must determine “that there is a
`reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least
`1 of the claims challenged in the petition.” 35 U.S.C. § 314(a). For the
`reasons discussed below, Petitioner has shown a reasonable likelihood that it
`would prevail with respect to all claims challenged in the Petition. And we
`have not been provided a sufficient reason to exercise our discretion to deny
`institution. Thus, we institute an inter partes review.
`Related Matters
`A.
`According to the parties, the ’049 patent is, or has been, involved in
`the following proceedings: Vocalife LLC v. Bose Corp., No. 2:21-cv-00128-
`JRG (E.D. Tex.); Vocalife LLC v. Sonos, Inc., No. 2:21-cv-00129-JRG (E.D.
`Tex.); Vocalife LLC v. Harman Int’l Indus., Inc., No. 2:21-cv-00123-JRG
`(E.D. Tex.); Vocalife LLC v. Google LLC, No. 2:21-cv-00124-JRG (E.D.
`Tex.); Vocalife LLC v. Amazon.com, Inc., No. 2:20-cv-00401-JRG-RSP
`(E.D. Tex.); Amazon.com, Inc. v. Vocalife LLC, IPR2020-00864 (PTAB);
`and Vocalife LLC v. Amazon.com, Inc., No. 2:19-cv-00123-JRG (E.D. Tex.).
`Pet. 85; Paper 5, 1–2 (“Mandatory Notices”).
`Patent Owner also identified the following cases as related:
`Amazon.com, Inc. v. Vocalife LLC, IPR2021-01331 (PTAB); Google LLC v.
`
`2
`
`
`
`IPR2022-00004
`Patent RE47,049 E
`Vocalife LLC, IPR2022-00005 (PTAB); and Vocalife LLC v. Amazon.com,
`Inc., Nos. 2021-1937, 2021-1984 (CAFC). Paper 5, 1–2.
`The ’049 Patent
`B.
`The ’049 patent generally relates to enhancing a target sound signal,
`such as a speech signal, while suppressing ambient noise. See Ex. 1001, 2:5–
`11. This enhancement can be applied to signals from a microphone array,
`like those in mobile phones, for example. See, e.g., id. at 18:49–55.
`According to the patent, conventional microphone arrays are used for radar
`and sonar. Id. at 1:42–46. Narrow-band techniques used by these systems,
`though, are unsuitable for speech signals captured by smaller devices
`because these signals have an extremely wide bandwidth relative to the
`center frequency. Id. at 1:46–50. And conventional arrays for broadband
`speech are too bulky to be used in mobile devices. Id. at 1:50–55.
`To enhance the target sound signal in broadband-speech applications,
`the ’049 patent uses sound-source localization, adaptive beamforming, and
`noise reduction. Id. at 2:11–14. Figure 2, below, shows an example system.
`Id. at 3:66–67.
`
`3
`
`
`
`IPR2022-00004
`Patent RE47,049 E
`
`
`
`Figure 2, above, shows system 200 with sound-source localization unit
`202, adaptive-beamforming unit 203, and noise-reduction unit 207.
`Id. at 6:32–38.
`
`In system 200, array 201 receives the sound signal. Id. at 6:48–53.
`Sound source localization unit 202 estimates a target sound signal’s location.
`Id. at 6:54–56. Adaptive beamforming unit 203 steers the array’s directivity
`pattern to the target sound signal. Id. at 6:60–64. This enhances the target
`sound signal and partially suppresses ambient noise signals. Id. Noise
`reduction unit 207 then further suppresses the ambient noise signals. Id. at
`7:9–11.
`
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`IPR2022-00004
`Patent RE47,049 E
`
`Claims
`C.
`Of the challenged claims, claims 1, 9, 20–22, 26, and 30–35 are
`independent. Claim 1 is reproduced below.
`1. A method for enhancing a target sound signal from a plurality
`of sound signals, comprising:
`providing a microphone array system comprising an array of
`sound sensors positioned in [an arbitrary] a linear, circular,
`or other configuration, a sound source localization unit, an
`adaptive beamforming unit, and a noise reduction unit,
`wherein said sound source localization unit, said adaptive
`beamforming unit, and said noise reduction unit are
`integrated in a digital signal processor, and wherein said
`sound source localization unit, said adaptive beamforming
`unit, and said noise reduction unit are in operative
`communication with said array of said sound sensors;
`receiving said sound signals from a plurality of disparate sound
`sources by said sound sensors, wherein said received sound
`signals comprise said target sound signal from a target sound
`source among said disparate sound sources, and ambient
`noise signals;
`determining a delay between each of said sound sensors and an
`origin of said array of said sound sensors as a function of
`distance between each of said sound sensors and said origin,
`a predefined angle between each of said sound sensors and a
`reference axis, and an azimuth angle between said reference
`axis and said target sound signal, when said target sound
`source that emits said target sound signal is in a two
`dimensional plane, wherein said delay is represented in terms
`of number of samples, and wherein said determination of said
`delay enables beamforming for [arbitrary numbers of] said
`array of sound sensors [and] in a plurality of [arbitrary]
`configurations [of said array of said sound sensors];
`estimating a spatial location of said target sound signal from said
`received sound signals by said sound source localization unit;
`performing adaptive beamforming for steering a directivity
`pattern of said array of said sound sensors in a direction of
`
`5
`
`
`
`IPR2022-00004
`Patent RE47,049 E
`said spatial location of said target sound signal by said
`adaptive beamforming unit, wherein
`said adaptive
`beamforming unit enhances said target sound signal and
`partially suppresses said ambient noise signals; and
`suppressing said ambient noise signals by said noise reduction
`unit for further enhancing said target sound signal.
`Ex. 1001, 21:27–22:3.
`
`Name
`
`Evidence
`D.
`Reference
`
`Exhibit
`No.
`1008
`
`1009
`
`1010
`
`Jeong
`
`Brière
`
`Buck-II
`Kim
`Yen
`Andrea
`
`
`
`KR 10-2009-00378455 A, laid-open Apr. 16,
`2009
`Van Trees H. L. Van Trees, Optimum Array Processing:
`Part IV of Detection, Estimation, and
`Modulation Theory (1st ed. 2002)
`S. Brière et al., Embedded and Integrated
`Audition for a Mobile Robot, American
`Association for Artificial Intelligence
`Symposium (2006)1
`US 2009/0067652 A1, published Mar. 12, 2009 1011
`US 2009/0279714 A1, published Nov. 12, 2009 1012
`US 2009/0271187 A1, published Oct. 29, 2009 1013
`US 2009/0268931 A1, published Oct. 29, 2009 1014
`
`
`
`1 Although the parties refer to this paper as “Briere,” we use “Brière,” as
`spelled on the front page of the paper, when referring to this reference and
`when quoting the parties’ briefs.
`
`6
`
`
`
`IPR2022-00004
`Patent RE47,049 E
`
`Reference(s)/Basis
`Jeong, Van Trees
`Jeong, Van Trees, Brière
`
`103(a)
`
`Jeong, Van Trees, Buck-II
`
`Asserted Grounds
`E.
`Petitioner asserts that claims 1–35 would have been unpatentable on
`the following grounds. Pet. 4.
`Pre-AIA2
`Claim(s) Challenged
`35 U.S.C. §
`1, 9, 18–22, 26, 29–35 103(a)
`1, 9, 18–22, 26, 29–35 103(a)
`1, 3–5, 7–9, 11–13,
`15, 17–23, 25, 26, 28–
`35
`1, 3–5, 7–9, 11–13,
`15, 17–23, 25, 26, 28–
`35
`2, 10
`2, 10
`6, 14, 24, 27
`6, 14, 24, 27
`16
`16
`
`103(a)
`
`103(a)
`103(a)
`103(a)
`103(a)
`103(a)
`103(a)
`
`Jeong, Van Trees, Buck-II,
`Brière
`Jeong, Van Trees, Kim
`Jeong, Van Trees, Kim, Brière
`Jeong, Van Trees, Yen
`Jeong, Van Trees, Yen, Brière
`Jeong, Van Trees, Andrea
`Jeong, Van Trees, Andrea,
`Brière
`
`
`
`
`
`
`2 Congress amended § 103 when it passed the Leahy-Smith America Invents
`Act (AIA). Pub. L. No. 112–29, § 3(c), 125 Stat. 284, 287 (2011). Here, the
`previous version of § 103 applies.
`
`
`7
`
`
`
`IPR2022-00004
`Patent RE47,049 E
`
`II. ANALYSIS
`Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art
`A.
`According to Petitioner,
`A [person of ordinary skill in the art] 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.
`Pet. 7–8 (citing Vipperman Decl.3 ¶¶ 42–43).
`At this stage, Patent Owner does not rebut Petitioner’s proposed level
`of ordinary skill in the art. See Prelim. Resp.
`For the purpose of this decision, we apply Petitioner’s proposed
`definition, which appears to be consistent with the level of skill reflected in
`the asserted references. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355
`(Fed. Cir. 2001) (explaining that the prior art itself can reflect an appropriate
`level of skill in the art). If Patent Owner proposes a different level of
`ordinary skill in the art in its Response, the parties are encouraged to explain
`how the differences affect the obviousness analysis.
`Claim Construction
`B.
`We need only construe terms that are in controversy. Nidec Motor
`Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed.
`Cir. 2017) (citing Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795,
`803 (Fed. Cir. 1999)).
`Petitioner asserts that, in litigation between Petitioner and Patent
`Owner, the district court has construed several of the ’049 patent’s terms.
`Pet. 8–9 (citing Ex. 1017, Claim Construction Order). Likewise, in a district-
`
`
`3 The declaration of Dr. Jeffrey S. Vipperman (“Vipperman Decl.”) is
`Exhibit 1006.
`
`8
`
`
`
`IPR2022-00004
`Patent RE47,049 E
`court case between Patent Owner and Amazon.com, Inc., the parties have
`agreed to various constructions relevant to that dispute. Id. at 8–10. But here,
`Petitioner contends the terms should be construed in accordance with their
`plain meaning. See id.
`Patent Owner argues that the recited “digital signal processor” (DSP)
`should be construed to mean a “microprocessor that is specialized for
`mathematical processing of digital signals.” Prelim. Resp. 6. In Patent
`Owner’s view, the recited DSP is “not a collection of various types of
`devices . . . or spread out over multiple types of hardware circuits or
`processors,” as it believes Petitioner has asserted. Id.
`At this stage and on this record, we disagree with Patent Owner that
`Petitioner implicitly or explicitly construes a DSP as a collection of devices.
`Rather, the Petition asserts that Brière integrates the units in the Texas
`Instruments TMS3206C713 DSP. Pet. 23. According to the Petition, a
`person of ordinary skill in the art “would have understood Jeong as teaching
`integrating the sound source localization unit, the adaptive beamforming
`unit, and the noise reduction unit in a DSP.” Id. at 21 (emphasis added).
`Thus, at least for this reason, Petitioner’s analysis relies on a single DSP, not
`a collection. See id.
`To determine whether to institute a trial, we preliminarily adopt the
`construction that “digital signal processor” means a “microprocessor that is
`specialized for mathematical processing of digital signals,” which neither
`party disputes at this stage. See e.g., Pet.; Prelim. Resp. 5–6. Apart from
`adopting this construction, no terms need to be expressly construed in this
`decision.
`
`9
`
`
`
`IPR2022-00004
`Patent RE47,049 E
`Status of Brière as a Printed Publication
`C.
`Petitioner bears the burden at the institution stage “to identify with
`particularity evidence sufficient to establish a reasonable likelihood that the
`reference was publicly accessible before the critical date of the challenged
`patent, and therefore that there is a reasonable likelihood that it qualifies as a
`printed publication.” Hulu, LLC v. Sound View Innovations, LLC, IPR2018-
`01039, Paper 29 at 16 (PTAB Dec. 20, 2019) (precedential). With the
`Petition, Petitioner submitted the Declaration of Shauna L. Wiest. Ex. 1010
`(“Wiest Decl.”). According to the Wiest Declaration, the publisher and
`series information from the Online Computer Library Center (OCLC)
`record4 shows that Brière is from the American Association for Artificial
`Intelligence (AAAI) 2006 Fall Symposium, and users can access Brière from
`AAAI digital library’s webpage. Wiest Decl. ¶¶ 11–13. The Wiest
`Declaration also points out that Brière has a copyright date of 2006. Id. ¶ 13.
`In the Preliminary Response, Patent Owner argues that Petitioner has
`not met its burden to show that Brière qualifies as a printed publication
`under section 102. Prelim. Resp. 11–13. Patent Owner argues that a
`copyright year alone is insufficient to establish the reference is a printed
`publication under the statute. Id. at 11–12.
`Patent Owner argues that Petitioner has not shown Brière was
`disseminated or otherwise made available or publicly accessible by the
`critical date. Id. at 12–13. In Patent Owner’s view, the Wiest Declaration
`
`
`4 According to the Wiest Declaration, WorldCat is a network of library
`content and services, and an OCLC number is a unique control number
`given to all bibliographic records in WorldCat’s catalog. Wiest Decl. ¶ 8.
`Shauna L. Wiest testifies that a copy of the OCLC record for Brière is
`Appendix B of the Wiest Declaration. Wiest Decl., 15.
`
`10
`
`
`
`IPR2022-00004
`Patent RE47,049 E
`attaches documents from two sources for locating the Brière paper today, not
`in 2006. Id. at 12 (citing Ex. 1020). According to Patent Owner,
`There is no evidence about the conference itself. There is no
`evidence that anyone attended the conference. There is no
`evidence as to whether the contents of the paper were presented
`in writing or orally, if at all. There is no evidence that the Brière
`reference was checked into, indexed, or made available at any of
`the sources before the critical date.
`Id. at 13.
`We authorized Petitioner to file a Reply to address the issue of
`whether the Brière paper is a printed publication and file a Declaration5 from
`the co-author of the paper: Simon Brière. Paper 7. We also authorized Patent
`Owner to file a Sur-Reply. Id.
`According to the Declaration, Simon Brière presented the paper at the
`AAAI 2006 Fall Symposium held in Arlington, Virginia in October 2006.
`Brière Decl. ¶ 3. Simon Brière testifies that the 20 to 30 attendees received a
`copy. Id. ¶ 8. Simon Brière testifies that the symposium was advertised on
`the AAAI website, open to the public, and attended by “technical people
`who were skilled in the art of artificial auditory and acoustic technology.”
`Id. ¶¶ 5, 7–8. Simon Brière testifies that AAAI conferences and symposia
`were well-known events for practitioners in fields related to artificial
`intelligence, including “aural/acoustic performance and machine listening.”
`Id. ¶¶ 5–6.
`According to Petitioner, the Brière Declaration is corroborated by
`other evidence of record. Prelim. Reply 2–3. For example, Petitioner asserts
`that the documents appended to the Brière Declaration confirm that the
`paper was presented at the AAAI 2006 Fall Symposium, and publicly
`
`5 The Declaration of Simon Brière (“Brière Decl.”) is Exhibit 1021.
`
`11
`
`
`
`IPR2022-00004
`Patent RE47,049 E
`available as part of the AAAI Technical Report from AAAI Press. Id. (citing
`Brière Decl., App’x A–D).
`At this stage and for purposes of institution, we determine that
`Petitioner has submitted sufficient evidence to establish a reasonable
`likelihood that Brière qualifies as a printed publication based on the totality
`of the evidence to date. In particular, Brière shows a copyright date of 2006
`on behalf of AAAI. Ex. 1010, 1. Also, Petitioner has provided sufficient
`corroborating evidence tending to establish that (1) the Brière paper was
`presented at a symposium held in October 2006, which was attended by
`persons skilled in the relevant art, (2) the attendees received a copy at the
`symposium, and (3) the paper was available to interested persons as part of
`the AAAI Technical Report published in 2007. Prelim. Reply 2–3; Brière
`Decl., App’x A–D. Because Petitioner has submitted sufficient evidence at
`this stage to establish the paper was available in October 2006, Petitioner has
`shown—for the purpose of institution—that Brière was publicly accessible
`before the ’049 patent’s critical date.
`D. Obviousness over Jeong, Van Trees, and Brière
`Petitioner asserts that claims 1, 9, 18–22, 26, and 29–35 are
`unpatentable as obvious over Jeong, Van Trees, and Brière. Pet. 10–51.
`Jeong
`1.
`Jeong’s device extracts a target sound source signal from a collection
`of signals from multiple sources. Ex. 1008, (57). Figure 2B, below, shows an
`example of this device. Id. ¶ 20.
`
`12
`
`
`
`IPR2022-00004
`Patent RE47,049 E
`
`
`
`Figure 2B, above, shows microphone array 210, beam formers 220, and
`signal-extracting unit 230. Id. ¶ 21. Microphone array 210 acquires sound
`emitted from a plurality of sound sources located in its vicinity—i.e., the
`“mixed signal.” Id. ¶ 22. Within beam formers 220, emphasized signal beam
`former 221 increases directional sensitivity toward the target sound source,
`and suppressed-signal beam former 222 generates a signal suppressed in the
`direction of the target sound source. Id. ¶¶ 23, 26.
`Van Trees
`2.
`Van Trees is a textbook on processing data from sensor arrays.
`Ex. 1009, 17, 25. Van Trees describes various array configurations,
`including circular arrays. See id. at 274, Fig. 4.32.
`Brière
`3.
`Brière relates to auditory scene analysis on a mobile robot. Ex. 1010,
`1. Brière’s system uses an array of eight microphones to localize, track, and
`separate sound sources, in real-time and in noisy and reverberant
`
`13
`
`
`
`IPR2022-00004
`Patent RE47,049 E
`environments. Id. Figure 1, below, shows a sound source localization,
`tracking, and separation (“SSLTS”) system. Id.
`
`
`
`Figure 1, above, represents an SSLTS system. Id.
`Brière positions the microphone array on the front and back of a
`robot’s torso. Id. The system has three main modules: the localization
`module, the tracking module, and the sound-separation module. Id. The
`localization module localizes multiple environmental sources surrounding
`the robot. Id. After the source positions are found, the tracking module
`follows the sources as they move. Id. The sound separation module separates
`the detected sources. Id. at 1–2.
`
`14
`
`
`
`IPR2022-00004
`Patent RE47,049 E
`
`Claim 1
`4.
`The DSP
`a)
`Claim 1 recites, in part, “a sound source localization unit, an adaptive
`beamforming unit, and a noise reduction unit, wherein said sound source
`localization unit, said adaptive beamforming unit, and said noise reduction
`unit are integrated in a digital signal processor.” Ex. 1001, 21:31–35.
`In the ’049 patent, “the DSP 1403 implements the sound source
`localization unit 202, the adaptive beamforming unit 203, and the noise
`reduction unit 207.” Id. at 15:27–29. Figure 14, below, shows a “hardware
`implementation” of the system. Id. at 14:62–63.
`
`Figure 14, above, shows flash memory 1404 and DSP 1403, among other
`units in the system. Id., Fig. 14. DSP 1403 is programmed for beamforming,
`noise reduction, and other functions. Id. at 16:35–38. Flash memory 1404
`stores the code for DSP 1403. Id. at 15:45–46. When microphone-array
`system 200 boots, DSP 1403 reads the code from flash memory 1404 into
`
`
`
`15
`
`
`
`IPR2022-00004
`Patent RE47,049 E
`the DSP’s internal memory, and then DSP 1403 executes the code.
`Id. at 15:46–49.
`Petitioner asserts that Jeong teaches the recited sound source
`localization unit, an adaptive beamforming unit, and a noise reduction unit,
`and Brière teaches that it would have been obvious to incorporate these units
`in a DSP. Pet. 16–20, 22–23. According to the Petition, Brière integrates the
`units “in the Texas Instruments TMS3206C713 DSP.” Id. at 23 (citing
`Ex. 1010, 2, Fig. 2).
`Patent Owner argues that Brière teaches away from using a DSP
`because Brière said it was “impossible to build the original system on the
`DSP.” Prelim. Resp. 10 (citing Ex. 1010, 3). In Patent Owner’s view,
`Brière’s system did not work. Id.
`Yet the part of Brière quoted by Patent Owner states, “It appears
`evident now that it will be impossible to build the original system on the
`DSP with the exact same parameters.” Ex. 1010, 3 (emphasis added). That
`is, Brière does not state that building the system on a DSP is impossible. Id.
`Rather, certain parameters render the building the original system
`impossible—at least according to Brière, at that time. Id.
`As for those parameters, Brière explains,
`To meet the original specifications of the system, the processing
`needs to be done under 21.33 ms for a frame size of 1024 samples
`frames with no overlap, and 10.66 ms for a frame size of 1024
`samples with 50% overlap which is the case in the original
`system. We are trying to build the system using similar
`parameters as the original system: four simultaneous sources at
`48 kHz and the same localization resolution. Currently, without
`optimization, the localization and tracking modules on the DSP
`require between 13 ms and 106 ms of processing cycle time,
`depending on the number of sound sources being tracked.
`
`16
`
`
`
`IPR2022-00004
`Patent RE47,049 E
`Id. According to Brière, the implementation uses a 280-kilobyte array for
`accurate localization, but the processor has only 256 kilobytes of internal
`memory. Id. at 3. To solve this issue, Brière must store the array in external
`memory, which slows performance. Id. Brière explains that one would need
`to reduce sampling rate, the localization system’s resolution, and the
`maximum simultaneous sources to meet the time requirements. Id.
`Patent Owner’s argument, though, does not explain whether
`combining Jeong and Brière would cause this issue or require using the
`“same parameters” as Brière’s original system. See Prelim. Resp. 9–10. We
`note that Brière teaches a sound-source localization, tracking, and separation
`(SSLTS) system “on a TMS3206C713 Texas Instruments DSP.” Ex. 1010,
`2. This teaching leads us to doubt Patent Owner’s assertion that Brière’s
`system did not work, considering the preliminary record that we have before
`us at this stage. Id. During trial, Patent Owner may present additional
`analysis and evidence to support its arguments that Brière’s system did not
`work or was impossible to build. See Prelim. Resp. 9–10. But, at this stage,
`we are not persuaded by those arguments. Id.
`Rather, Petitioner’s assertions about the units and DSP based on Jeong
`and Brière are sufficiently supported to institute a trial. See Pet. 16–20, 22–
`23.
`
`As for the units, Petitioner asserts that both Jeong and Brière have a
`sound source localization unit, an adaptive beamforming unit, and a noise
`reduction unit. Id. at 16–20. Patent Owner does not present arguments
`specifically directed to these assertions. See Prelim. Resp. Based on a review
`of the preliminary record, we determine that Petitioner’s assertions about the
`units are sufficient to institute a trial. See Pet. 16–20.
`
`17
`
`
`
`IPR2022-00004
`Patent RE47,049 E
`As for whether it would have been obvious to integrate the recited
`units in a DSP, Petitioner relies on Brière’s statement about the Texas
`Instruments DSP. Id. at 22–23 (citing Ex. 1010, 2; Vipperman Decl. ¶ 73).
`According to Petitioner, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been
`motivated to apply Brière’s teaching in Jeong’s system “because of the
`advantages provided by DSPs, e.g., execution of signal processing
`algorithms continuously, in real-time, and enhanced power efficiency which
`is important for portable device applications.” Id. (citing Vipperman
`Decl. ¶ 75). Petitioner also asserts that both Brière and Jeong use “similar
`components for sound source localization, beamforming, and noise
`reduction,” and “both systems are designed to be used in mobile devices.”
`Id. at 23 (citing Vipperman Decl. ¶ 74).
`We preliminarily determine that Petitioner’s rationale for combining
`Brière and Jeong is sufficiently supported in the record by rational
`underpinnings to institute a trial. See id. at 22–24. For example, the cited
`part of Brière explains that the system “uses an array of eight microphones
`to localize, track and separate sound sources, in real-time and in noisy and
`reverberant environments.” Id. at 24 (quoting Ex. 1010, 1). According to
`Brière, a mobile robot uses this system for auditory-scene analysis.
`Ex. 1010, 1. At this stage, we preliminarily determine that Brière’s
`discussion about using a DSP in a real-time, mobile system is consistent
`with Petitioner’s obviousness rationale, which is based on the advantages of
`using DSPs in those systems. Pet. 23. We preliminarily determine that
`Brière’s discussion (Ex. 1010, 1) also supports the part of the Vipperman
`Declaration that discusses the advantages of DSPs. See Vipperman
`Decl. ¶ 75.
`
`18
`
`
`
`IPR2022-00004
`Patent RE47,049 E
`
`The Remaining Limitations
`b)
`Apart from those discussed in the previous section, Patent Owner does
`not present arguments specifically directed to Petitioner’s assertions about
`the remaining limitations. Our analysis of these limitations follows.
`(1) Preamble
`Claim 1 recites, “A method for enhancing a target sound signal from a
`plurality of sound signals, comprising . . . .” Ex. 1001, 21:27–28. Petitioner
`argues that Jeong discloses the preamble, to the extent that it is limiting.6
`Pet. 14 (citing Jeong ¶ 57).
`Patent Owner does not present evidence or arguments specifically
`directed to Petitioner’s assertions about the preamble. See Prelim. Resp.
`Based on the current record, for the purposes of this Decision, we are
`persuaded that Petitioner has demonstrated sufficiently that the proposed
`combination teaches or suggests claim 1’s preamble. For example, Jeong’s
`Abstract states that the method extracts “a target sound source signal from a
`mixed signal.” Ex. 1008, Abstract, cited in Pet. 14. According to Jeong, a
`“mixed signal” includes “sound source signals emitted from a plurality of
`sound sources located in its vicinity.” Id. ¶ 22. Thus, at this stage and for the
`purposes of institution, we preliminarily determine that Petitioner has
`sufficiently shown that Jeong’s method enhances “a target sound signal from
`a plurality of sound signals,” as recited in claim 1.
`
`
`6 Neither party takes a position at this stage on whether the preamble is
`limiting. Because Petitioner sufficiently shows that both Jeong teaches the
`subject matter of the preamble, we need not determine whether the preamble
`is limiting.
`
`19
`
`
`
`IPR2022-00004
`Patent RE47,049 E
`
`(2) An Array of Sound Sensors
`Claim 1 recites, “providing a microphone array system comprising an
`array of sound sensors positioned in [an arbitrary] a linear, circular, or other
`configuration.” Ex. 1001, 21:29–31.
`Petitioner asserts that Jeong provides a microphone array in a linear
`configuration. Pet. 15–16 (citing Ex. 1008 ¶¶ 2, Figs. 1, 2A–3A, 4A).
`Petitioner asserts that Brière’s SSLTS system has an array of eight
`microphones in a linear configuration. Id. at 16 (citing Ex. 1010, 1, Fig. 1;
`Vipperman Decl. ¶¶ 58–60). Petitioner asserts that Van Trees discloses
`linear, circular, and other configurations. Id. According to Petitioner, “It was
`well known in the art to provide microphone arrays in the various
`configurations shown in the prior art.” Id.
`Patent Owner does not present evidence or arguments specifically
`directed to these assertions. See Prelim. Resp.
`At this stage and for the purposes of institution, we preliminarily
`determine that Petitioner has sufficiently shown that the proposed
`combination teaches or suggests the array of sound sensors recited in claim
`1. See Pet. 15–16.
`
`“in operative communication”
`(3)
`Claim 1 recites, “wherein said sound source localization unit, said
`adaptive beamforming unit, and said noise reduction unit are in operative
`communication with said array of said sound sensors.” Ex. 1001, 21:36–39.
`Petitioner asserts that Jeong and Brière each disclose this limitation.
`Pet. 25 (citing Vipperman Decl. ¶¶ 77, 78; Ex. 1008 ¶¶ 22, 114, 115;
`Ex. 1010, 1–2).
`Patent Owner does not present evidence or arguments specifically
`directed to Petitioner’s assertions about this limitation. See Prelim. Resp.
`
`20
`
`
`
`IPR2022-00004
`Patent RE47,049 E
`On this record, Petitioner’s assertions are sufficient to institute trial. In
`particular, Petitioner asserts that Jeong’s microphone array 210 receives N
`sound source signals. Pet. 25 (citing Ex. 1008 ¶ 22). The cited parts of Jeong
`describe how sound-source searching unit 223 determines the location of the
`target sound source:
`If the sound source searching unit (223) specifies the direction of
`the target sound source [], based on the particular result, a mixed
`signal is applied to the emphasized signal beam-former (221) and
`the suppressed signal beam-former (222).
`Ex. 1008 ¶ 115, cited in Pet. 25; see also id. ¶ 114 (discussing how the target
`sound source is determined with respect to the input from a plurality of
`sound sources), cited in Pet. 25.
`Likewise, Petitioner explains that Brière’s modules obtain signals
`from the eight microphones:
`[T]he array of eight microphones obtains the input sound
`signal; the localization module localizes multiples sources in the
`environment using the signals obtained by the array; when the
`source positions are found, the tracking module follows moving
`sources; the separation module separates the detected sources
`using the information provided by the tracking module; and the
`post filter removes interference and noise from the GSS-
`separated audio systems.
`Pet. 25 (citing Ex. 1010, 1–2; Vipperman Decl. ¶ 78).
`At this stage and for the purposes of institution, we preliminarily
`determine that Petitioner has sufficiently shown that the proposed
`combination teaches or suggests “said sound source localization unit, said
`adaptive beamforming unit, and said noise reduction unit are in operative
`communication with said array of said sound sensors,” as recited in claim 1.
`See id.
`
`21
`
`
`
`IPR2022-00004
`Patent RE47,049 E
`
`(4) Receiving Sound Signals
`Claim 1 recites, “receiving said sound signals from a plurality of
`disparate sound sources by said sound sensors, wherein said received sound
`signals comprise said target sound signal from a target sound source among
`said disparate sound sources, and ambient noise signals.” Ex. 1001, 21:40–
`44. Petitioner asserts that Jeong, for example, discloses that microphone
`array 210 acquires a mixed signal emitted from multiple nearby sound
`sources, and a target signal is mixed with background noise. Pet. 26 (quoting
`Ex. 1008 ¶¶ 22, 24). Patent Owner does not present evidence or arguments
`specifically directed to Petitioner’s assertions about this limitation.
`See Prelim. Resp. At this stage and for the purposes of institution, we
`preliminarily determine that Petitioner’s arguments and evidence for this
`limitation are sufficiently supported.
`(5) Determining a Delay
`
`Claim 1 recites,
`determining a delay between each of said sound sensors and an
`origin of said array of said sound sensors as a function of distance
`between each of said sound sensors and said origin, a predefined
`angle between each of said sound sensors and a reference axis,
`and an azimuth angle between said reference axis and said target
`sound signal, when said target sound source that emits said target
`sound signal is in a two dimensional plane.
`Ex. 1001, 21:45–52.
`Petitioner asserts that Jeong in combination with Van Trees teaches
`this limitation. Pet. 26 (citing Vipperman Decl. ¶ 80). According to the
`Petition, Jeong’s sound source searching unit 223 determines the location of
`the target sound source using the time-delay-of-arrival (TDOA) method. Id.
`(citing Ex. 1008 ¶ 114). TDOA is “the time delay between the microphones
`is measured, and the direction of the sound source is estimated based on the
`
`22
`
`
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
