Trials@uspto.gov
`571-272-7822
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Paper 10
`Date: April 15, 2022
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`_______________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`_______________
`
`GOOGLE LLC,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`VOCALIFE LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`_______________
`
`IPR2022-00005
`Patent RE48,371 E
`_______________
`
`
`
`
`Before MONICA S. ULLAGADDI, AMBER L. HAGY, and
`JASON M. REPKO, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`
`HAGY, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`
`DECISION
`Granting Institution of Inter Partes Review
`35 U.S.C. § 314
`
`
`
`
`571-272-7822
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Paper 10
`Date: April 15, 2022
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`_______________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`_______________
`
`GOOGLE LLC,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`VOCALIFE LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`_______________
`
`IPR2022-00005
`Patent RE48,371 E
`_______________
`
`
`
`
`Before MONICA S. ULLAGADDI, AMBER L. HAGY, and
`JASON M. REPKO, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`
`HAGY, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`
`DECISION
`Granting Institution of Inter Partes Review
`35 U.S.C. § 314
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2022-00005
`Patent RE48,371 E
`
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`A. Background and Summary
`
`Google LLC (“Petitioner”) filed a petition for inter partes review
`
`(Paper 1, “Pet.”) challenging claims 22–41 (“the challenged claims”) of U.S.
`
`Patent No. RE48,371 E (Ex. 1001, the “’371 patent”). See 35 U.S.C. § 311.
`
`Vocalife LLC (“Patent Owner”) timely filed a Preliminary Response.
`
`Paper 6, “Prelim. Resp.” With authorization from the Board, Petitioner filed
`
`a Reply to Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response. Paper 8, “Reply.” Patent
`
`Owner was also afforded the opportunity to file a sur-reply (see Paper 7), but
`
`did not do so.
`
`Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.4(a), we have authority to determine whether to
`
`institute review. The standard for instituting an inter partes review is set
`
`forth in 35 U.S.C. § 314(a), which provides that an inter partes review may
`
`not be instituted unless the information presented in the Petition and the
`
`Preliminary Response shows “there is a reasonable likelihood that the
`
`petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in
`
`the petition.”
`
`Applying those standards, we determine that Petitioner has
`
`demonstrated a reasonable likelihood that it would prevail in showing
`
`unpatentability of at least one challenged claim of the ’371 patent. We
`
`institute review on all challenged claims and on all grounds raised in the
`
`Petition.
`
`Our findings of fact and conclusions discussed below are based on the
`
`evidentiary record developed thus far. This Decision to institute trial is not a
`
`final decision as to the patentability of any challenged claim. Any final
`
`decision will be based on the full record developed during trial.
`
`2
`
`
`
`IPR2022-00005
`Patent RE48,371 E
`
`
`B. Real Parties in Interest
`
`Petitioner identifies the real party-in-interest as itself. Pet. 89.
`
`Patent Owner identifies the real party-in-interest as itself. Paper 5, 1.
`
`C. Related Matters
`
`Petitioner identifies as related matters the following district court
`
`proceedings, in which Patent Owner has asserted the ’371 patent (Pet. 89–
`
`90):
`
`Vocalife LLC v. Bose Corporation, Case No. 2:21-cv-00128
`
`(E.D. Tex.), filed April 8, 2021;
`
`Vocalife LLC v. Sonos, Inc., Case No. 2:21-cv-00129 (E.D. Tex.),
`
`filed April 8, 2021;
`
`Vocalife LLC v. Harman International Industries Inc., Case No. 2:21-
`
`cv-00123 (E.D. Tex.), filed April 2, 2021;
`
`Vocalife LLC v. Google LLC, Case No. 2:21-cv-00124 (E.D. Tex.),
`
`filed April 2, 2021;
`
`Vocalife LLC v. Amazon.com, Inc., No. 2:20-cv-00401 (E.D. Tex.),
`
`filed December 29, 2020; and
`
`Vocalife LLC v. Amazon.com, Inc., No. 2:19-cv-00123 (E.D. Tex.),
`
`April 19, 2019 (“Amazon I”).
`
`Petitioner also identifies co-pending inter partes review proceeding
`
`Amazon.com, Inc. v. Vocalife LLC, IPR2021-01331, which was filed on July
`
`30, 2021, in which the Board instituted review on January 31, 2022.
`
`See Pet. 90.
`
`Patent Owner identifies the same district court cases as related cases,
`
`and notes that the Amazon I case reached a final jury verdict in which the
`
`3
`
`
`
`IPR2022-00005
`Patent RE48,371 E
`
`
`jury found the asserted claims of U.S. Patent RE47,049 (“the ’049 patent”) 1
`
`to be “valid and infringed,” and also notes that case is currently on appeal to
`
`the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (Case No. 2021-
`
`1937, -1984). Paper 5, 1–2 (emphasis omitted). Patent Owner additionally
`
`identifies as related cases the following inter partes proceedings, which
`
`involve the ’049 patent (id. at 1):
`
`Amazon.com, Inc. v. Vocalife LLC, IPR2020-00864 (institution
`
`denied); and
`
`Google LLC v. Vocalife LLC, IPR2022-00004 (decision on institution
`
`pending).
`
`D. The ’371 Patent (Ex. 1001)
`
`The ’371 patent, titled “Microphone Array System,” issued December
`
`29, 2020. Ex. 1001, codes (10), (45), (54). The ’371 patent is a reissue of
`
`U.S. Patent No. 8,861,756, which issued on October 14, 2014. Id. at code
`
`(64).
`
`The ’371 patent generally relates to enhancing a target sound signal,
`
`such as a speech signal, while suppressing ambient noise. See Ex. 1001,
`
`2:12–18. 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 1:49–53. Narrow-band techniques used by these systems,
`
`however, are characterized by the ’371 patent as unsuitable for speech
`
`signals captured by smaller devices because those signals have an extremely
`
`
`1 The ’049 patent is a reissue of U.S. Patent No. 8,861,756 (Exhibit 1003),
`from which the ’371 patent is also a reissue. See Ex. 1001, code (64).
`
`4
`
`
`
`IPR2022-00005
`Patent RE48,371 E
`
`
`wide bandwidth relative to the center frequency, and conventional arrays for
`
`broadband speech are too bulky to be used in mobile devices. Id. at 1:53–
`
`62.
`
`To enhance the target sound signal in broadband-speech applications,
`
`the ’371 patent uses sound-source localization, adaptive beamforming, and
`
`noise reduction. Ex. 1001, 2:18–21. Figure 2, below, shows an example
`
`system. Id. at 4:6–7.
`
`
`
`Figure 2, above, shows system 200 with sound-source
`localization unit 202, adaptive-beamforming unit 203,
`and noise-reduction unit 207. Ex. 1001, 6:40–46.
`
`In system 200, array 201 receives the sound signal. Ex. 1001, 6:48–
`
`53. Sound source localization unit 202 estimates a target sound signal’s
`
`location. Id. at 6:63–64. Adaptive beamforming unit 203 steers the array’s
`
`directivity pattern to the target sound signal. Id. at 7:1–3. This enhances the
`
`target sound signal and partially suppresses ambient noise signals. Id.
`
`5
`
`
`
`IPR2022-00005
`Patent RE48,371 E
`
`
`Noise reduction unit 207 then further suppresses the ambient noise signals.
`
`Id. at 7:17–19. Figure 14, reproduced below, further illustrates the system of
`
`the ’371 patent.
`
`
`
`Figure 14 “illustrates a hardware implementation
`of the microphone array system.” Ex. 1001, 4:57–58.
`
`Figure 14 shows that the hardware implementation of microphone
`
`array system 200 disclosed in the detailed description of Figure 2 comprises
`
`microphone array 201 “having an arbitrary number of sound sensors 301
`
`positioned in an arbitrary configuration,” multiple microphone amplifiers
`
`1401, one or more audio codecs 1402, digital signal processor (“DSP”)
`
`1403, flash memory 1404, one or more power regulators 1405 and 1406,
`
`battery 1407, loudspeaker or a headphone 1408, and communication
`
`interface 1409. Ex. 1001, 14:62–15:9. “[M]icrophone array 201 comprises,
`
`for example, four or eight sound sensors 301 arranged in a linear or a
`
`circular microphone array configuration.” Id. at 15:5–8. DSP 1403 “is
`
`6
`
`
`
`IPR2022-00005
`Patent RE48,371 E
`
`
`programmed for beamforming, noise reduction, echo cancellation, and USB
`
`interfacing according to the method disclosed herein, and fine tuned for
`
`optimal performance.” Id. at 16:35–38.
`
`E. Illustrative Claim
`
`Of the challenged claims, claims 22, 30, and 38 are independent.
`
`Challenged claims 23–29 and 40 depend from claim 22, claims 31–37 and
`
`41 depend from claim 30, and claim 39 depends from claim 38. Claim 22,
`
`reproduced below, illustrates the claimed subject matter:
`
`22. 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 a linear, circular, or other
`configuration, a sound source localization unit, an adaptive
`beamforming unit, a noise reduction unit, and an echo
`cancellation unit, wherein said sound source localization
`unit, said adaptive beamforming unit, said noise reduction
`unit, and said echo cancellation unit are implemented in a
`digital signal processor, and wherein said digital signal
`processor is 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
`
`7
`
`
`
`IPR2022-00005
`Patent RE48,371 E
`
`
`terms of number of samples, and wherein said determination
`of said delay enables beamforming for said array of said
`sound sensors in a plurality of configurations;
`
`estimating a 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 sound sensors in a direction of said
`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;
`
`performing echo cancellation by said echo cancellation unit for
`further enhancing said target sound signal; and
`
`suppressing said ambient noise signals by said noise reduction
`unit for further enhancing said target sound signal.
`
`Ex. 1001, 25:38–26:15.
`
`F. Prior Art and Asserted Grounds
`
`Petitioner asserts that claims 22–41 are unpatentable on the following
`
`grounds:
`
`Claim(s) Challenged 35 U.S.C. §
`
`Reference(s)/Basis
`
`22, 23, 30, 31, 38–41
`
`103(a)
`
`Mao,2 Brière3
`
`
`2 Mao, U.S. Patent App. 2005/0047611 A1, published March 3, 2005
`(Ex. 1008, “Mao”).
`
`3 S. Brière, D. Létourneau, M. Fréchette, J.M. Valin, and F. Michaud,
`“Embedded and Integrated Audition for a Mobile Robot,” presented at
`American Assoc. for Artificial Intelligence (Fall 2006) (Ex. 1009, “Brière”).
`Although the parties refer to this paper as “Briere,” we use the original
`spelling Brière throughout, including in quoted material.
`
`8
`
`
`
`IPR2022-00005
`Patent RE48,371 E
`
`
`Claim(s) Challenged 35 U.S.C. §
`
`Reference(s)/Basis
`
`22, 23, 30, 31, 38–41
`
`103(a)
`
`Mao, Brière, Van Trees4
`
`22, 30, 38–41
`
`103(a)
`
`Jeong,5 Van Trees, Mao
`
`22, 30, 38–41
`
`103(a)
`
`Jeong, Van Trees, Mao, Brière
`
`22, 24–26, 28–30,
`32–34, 36, 38
`
`103(a)
`
`Jeong, Van Trees, Mao, Buck6
`
`22, 24–26, 28–30,
`32–34, 36, 38
`
`103(a)
`
`Jeong, Van Trees, Mao, Buck,
`Brière
`
`27, 35
`
`27, 35
`
`37
`
`103(a)
`
`Jeong, Van Trees, Mao, Yen7
`
`103(a)
`
`Jeong, Van Trees, Mao, Yen,
`Brière
`
`103(a)
`
`Jeong, Van Trees, Mao, Andrea8
`
`
`4 H. Van Trees, OPTIMUM ARRAY PROCESSING: PART IV OF DETECTION,
`ESTIMATION, AND MODULATION THEORY (Wiley-Interscience 2002)
`(Ex. 1010, “Van Trees”).
`
`5 Jeong et al., Korean Laid-Open Patent No. 10-2009-0037845, April 16,
`2009 (Ex. 1011, “Jeong”).
`
`6 Buck et al., U.S. Patent App. 2008/0144848 A1, published June 19, 2008
`(Ex. 1012, “Buck”).
`
`7 Yen et al., U.S. Patent App. 2009/0271187 A1, published October 29, 2009
`(Ex. 1013, “Yen”).
`
`8 Andrea et al., U.S. Patent App. 2009/0268931 A1, published October 29,
`2009 (Ex. 1014, “Andrea”).
`
`9
`
`
`
`IPR2022-00005
`Patent RE48,371 E
`
`
`Claim(s) Challenged 35 U.S.C. §
`
`Reference(s)/Basis
`
`37
`
`103(a)
`
`Jeong, Van Trees, Mao, Andrea,
`Brière
`
`As further support, Petitioner offers the Declaration of Jeffrey S.
`
`Vipperman, Ph.D. Ex. 1006.
`
`II. ANALYSIS
`
`A. Principles of Law
`
`A patent claim is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) if the
`
`differences between the claimed subject matter and the prior art are such that
`
`the subject matter, as a whole, “would have been obvious at the time the
`
`invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said
`
`subject matter pertains.” KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 406
`
`(2007). The question of obviousness is resolved on the basis of underlying
`
`factual determinations including: (1) the scope and content of the prior art;
`
`(2) any differences between the claimed subject matter and the prior art;
`
`(3) the level of ordinary skill in the art; and (4) when in evidence, objective
`
`evidence of nonobviousness.9 Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1,
`
`17–18 (1966).
`
`“In an [inter partes review], the petitioner has the burden from the
`
`onset to show with particularity why the patent it challenges is
`
`unpatentable.” Harmonic Inc. v. Avid Tech, Inc., 815 F.3d 1356, 1363 (Fed.
`
`Cir. 2016) (citing 35 U.S.C. § 312(a)(3) (requiring inter partes review
`
`
`9 Neither party presents arguments or evidence of secondary considerations
`at this stage. Therefore, secondary considerations do not constitute part of
`our analysis herein.
`
`10
`
`
`
`IPR2022-00005
`Patent RE48,371 E
`
`
`petitions to identify “with particularity . . . the evidence that supports the
`
`grounds for the challenge to each claim”)). This burden of persuasion never
`
`shifts to Patent Owner. See Dynamic Drinkware, LLC v. Nat’l Graphics,
`
`Inc., 800 F.3d 1375, 1378 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (discussing the burden of proof in
`
`inter partes review).
`
`B. Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art
`
`The level of skill in the art is a factual determination that provides a
`
`primary guarantee of objectivity in an obviousness analysis. Al-Site Corp. v.
`
`VSI Int’l Inc., 174 F.3d 1308, 1324 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (citing Graham, 383
`
`U.S. at 17–18; Ryko Mfg. Co. v. Nu-Star, Inc., 950 F.2d 714, 718 (Fed. Cir.
`
`1991)).
`
`Relying on the declaration testimony of Dr. Vipperman, Petitioner
`
`asserts that 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. 8 (citing
`
`Ex. 1006 ¶¶ 40–41).
`
`At this stage, Patent Owner does not propose an alternative
`
`assessment.
`
`To the extent necessary, and for purposes of this Decision, we accept
`
`the assessment offered by Petitioner as it is consistent with the ’371 patent
`
`and the asserted prior art.
`
`C. Claim Construction
`
`In interpreting the claims of the ’371 patent, we “us[e] the same claim
`
`construction standard that would be used to construe the claim[s] in a civil
`
`action under 35 U.S.C. [§] 282(b).” See 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b) (2021). The
`
`11
`
`
`
`IPR2022-00005
`Patent RE48,371 E
`
`
`claim construction standard includes construing claims in accordance with
`
`the ordinary and customary meaning of such claims as would have been
`
`understood by one of ordinary skill in the art in light of the written
`
`description and the prosecution history pertaining to the patent. See id.;
`
`Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1312–14 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc).
`
`Petitioner does not propose any terms for construction, but notes that
`
`the district court in the Amazon I litigation (between Patent Owner and
`
`Amazon.com (“Amazon”) regarding the ’049 patent) 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.” Pet. 9 (citing Ex. 1018). Petitioner does not propose that the
`
`Board adopt this construction, but states that “the prior art discloses adaptive
`
`beamforming even under this construction.” Id. Petitioner further notes
`
`that, also in pending litigation between Patent Owner and Amazon, the
`
`parties have “agreed to various constructions and disputed others.” Id.
`
`(citing Ex. 1019). In particular, Petitioner states that Patent Owner
`
`“contends that all disputed limitations be given their ‘plain and ordinary
`
`meaning,’ while Amazon advances other constructions, including that the
`
`‘noise reduction unit,’ ‘beamforming unit,’ and ‘echo cancellation unit’ be
`
`construed in accordance with § 112, ¶ 6.” Id. Petitioner asserts that “the
`
`[P]etition analyzes these terms under their ‘plain and ordinary meaning,’” as
`
`proposed by Patent Owner. Id.
`
`Patent Owner does not, at this stage, challenge Petitioner’s statement
`
`regarding affording certain terms their “plain and ordinary meaning.” Patent
`
`Owner does, however, note that the district court in Amazon I construed
`
`12
`
`
`
`IPR2022-00005
`Patent RE48,371 E
`
`
`“digital signal processor” to mean a “microprocessor that is specialized for
`
`mathematical processing of digital signals.” Prelim. Resp. 2, 6 (citing
`
`Ex. 2002). Patent Owner asserts that this construction should be applied
`
`here. Id. at 7 (noting that “DSP” should be “construed to mean a
`
`‘microprocessor that is specialized for mathematical processing of digital
`
`signals,’” which Patent Owner asserts would exclude “a collection of various
`
`types of devices or circuits for executing their own specialized [sic] for
`
`individual processor or spread out over multiple types of hardware circuits
`
`or processors”). Id.
`
`At this stage and on this record, for the reasons discussed below, we
`
`disagree with Patent Owner that Petitioner implicitly or explicitly construes
`
`a DSP as a collection of devices. See Prelim. Resp. 7. Rather, the Petition
`
`asserts that “Mao discloses integrating the signal processing units in one
`
`module” (Pet. 21) (underlined emphasis added), and further asserts that
`
`“Brière discloses incorporating these units in a DSP, and it would have been
`
`obvious to combine Brière’s single-DSP design in Mao” (id. at 23). Thus, at
`
`least here, Petitioner’s analysis relies on a single DSP, not a collection.
`
`See id.
`
`In any event, to determine whether to institute a trial here, 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. 6–7.
`
`We determine that no explicit construction of any other terms is
`
`needed at this stage to resolve the issues presented by the arguments and
`
`evidence of record. See Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean
`
`13
`
`
`
`IPR2022-00005
`Patent RE48,371 E
`
`
`Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (per curiam) (claim terms
`
`need to be construed “only to the extent necessary to resolve the
`
`controversy” (quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d
`
`795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999))).
`
`We note, however, that our claim construction analysis in this
`
`Decision is preliminary, and does not preclude the parties from arguing
`
`proposed constructions of the claims during trial. Indeed, the parties are
`
`hereby given notice that claim construction, in general, is an issue to be
`
`addressed at trial. Claim construction will be determined at the close of all
`
`the evidence and after any hearing. The parties are expected to assert all
`
`their claim construction arguments and evidence in the Petition, Patent
`
`Owner’s Response, Petitioner’s Reply, or otherwise during trial, as
`
`permitted by our rules.
`
`D. Asserted Obviousness
`
`1. Grounds 1A, 1B: Obviousness of Claims 22, 23, 30, 31, and 38–41
`over Mao and Brière (and Van Trees)
`
`Petitioner contends claims 22, 23, 30, 31, and 38–41 are unpatentable
`
`under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Mao (alone or, alternatively, combined with
`
`Brière) (and, in Ground 1B, also combined with Van Trees). Pet. 10–44.
`
`For the reasons explained herein, we are persuaded that Petitioner has
`
`established a reasonable likelihood of establishing unpatentability of at least
`
`one of these claims on this basis.
`
`Patent Owner does not address Petitioner’s arguments on a claim-by-
`
`claim basis, but presents two main arguments against institution as to all
`
`claims and all grounds. First, Patent Owner contends that the Petition fails
`
`to show that the primary references for each ground (Mao for Grounds 1A
`
`14
`
`
`
`IPR2022-00005
`Patent RE48,371 E
`
`
`and 1B, and Jeong for the remaining grounds 2A–5B) taught or suggested
`
`that all four claimed “units” (a “sound source localization unit,” a
`
`“beamforming unit,” an “echo cancellation unit,” and a “noise reduction
`
`unit”) are implemented in a single DSP. Prelim. Resp. 1–2; 4–10. Patent
`
`Owner next contends that Brière “fails to cure Mao’s and Jeong’s
`
`deficiencies” because (1) it is not prior art (id. at 13–14); and (2) Brière also
`
`does not disclose all four recited units implemented in a digital signal
`
`processor, but instead teaches away from the claimed invention because
`
`“Brière found it ‘impossible to build the original system on the DSP’” (id. at
`
`11–12).
`
`We address below (Section II.D.1.a.(2)) Patent Owner’s contention
`
`that Petitioner has not sufficiently established that Brière is a printed
`
`publication, and we find Petitioner’s showing on that issue sufficient for
`
`purposes of institution. We address the remainder of Patent Owner’s
`
`arguments herein in the context of evaluating the sufficiency of Petitioner’s
`
`showing as to each claim element.
`
`a. Overview of Cited References
`
`(1) Mao (Ex. 1008)
`
`Mao is a United States patent application titled “Audio Input System”
`
`and published on March 3, 2005. Ex. 1008, codes (43), (54). Mao is prior
`
`art under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b), as it was published more than a year before the
`
`earliest priority date for the ’371 patent. See Ex. 1001, code (60). Patent
`
`Owner does not dispute the prior-art status of Mao.
`
`Mao discloses a method “for reducing noise associated with an audio
`
`signal received through a microphone sensor array.” Ex. 1008, Abstract.
`
`Figure 6 of Mao is reproduced below.
`
`15
`
`
`
`IPR2022-00005
`Patent RE48,371 E
`
`
`
`
`Figure 6 of Mao is a “schematic diagram illustrating
`a micro phone array framework that incorporates
`adaptive noise cancellation.” Ex. 1008 ¶ 24.
`
`As illustrated in Figure 6, Mao discloses a microphone array
`
`framework in which audio signal 166 including noise and a source signal “is
`
`received through a microphone sensor array” (id. ¶ 48), and then pre-
`
`processed “through AEC module 168” for echo cancellation (id.). Signals
`
`Z1–Zn corresponding to the number of microphone sensors are then
`
`“delivered to filter-and-sum module 162” to “perform the adaptive
`
`beam[]forming” (id.), and are “delivered to blocking filter 164” to “perform
`
`reverse beam-forming where the target signal is viewed as noise” (id. ¶ 49).
`
`Adaptive noise cancellation block 180 further “enhances the desired source
`
`signal.” Id.
`
`16
`
`
`
`IPR2022-00005
`Patent RE48,371 E
`
`
`Mao discloses that its “adaptive beam-forming” is a “two-part
`
`process.” Id. ¶ 45. In the first part, the system determines time-delay of
`
`arrival (TDOA) for the microphone sensor array. Id. In the second part, the
`
`determined time-delay is used “in tracking [the] source signal.” Id. ¶¶ 47,
`
`57. Figure 4 of Mao is reproduced below.
`
`
`
`Figure 4 of Mao is a “simplified schematic diagram illustrating an
`array beam-forming module configured to suppress a
`signal not coming from a listening direction.” Ex. 1008 ¶ 22.
`
`In Figure 4, Mao discloses that “the time-delay for the wave to travel
`
`a distance of d between two adjacent sensors is given by dmcos θ.” Id. ¶ 45.
`
`(2) Brière (Ex. 1009)
`
`Brière is a paper titled “Embedded and Integrated Audition for a
`
`Mobile Robot” that, according to Petitioner, was “disseminated in 2006 at a
`
`public symposium in Arlington, Virginia” and was “published by the
`
`American Association for Artificial Intelligence (‘AAAI’) Press in a
`
`Technical Report after the symposium.” Pet. Reply 1.
`
`Petitioner bears the burden at the institution stage “to identify with
`
`particularity evidence sufficient to establish a reasonable likelihood that the
`
`17
`
`
`
`IPR2022-00005
`Patent RE48,371 E
`
`
`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. 1021),
`
`wherein Ms. Wiest testified that Brière was included within the list of papers
`
`presented at the AAAI Fall Symposium in 2006. Id. ¶ 11. Also according to
`
`the Wiest Declaration, the publisher and series information from the Online
`
`Computer Library Center (OCLC) record 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. Id. ¶¶ 11–13.
`
`In the Preliminary Response, Patent Owner argues that Petitioner has
`
`not established that Brière was prior art. Prelim. Resp. 13–14. In particular,
`
`Patent Owner contends that Petitioner has merely shown a copyright year for
`
`Brière, but presented no evidence that Brière was actually disseminated or
`
`otherwise made available by the critical date. Id. Rather, Patent Owner
`
`asserts, Petitioner has merely provided sources “for locating the Brière paper
`
`today.” Id. at 14 (citing Ex. 1021).
`
`Petitioner then submitted, with leave from the Board, a Reply brief as
`
`well as a declaration from one of the authors of Brière, Simon Brière.
`
`Pet. Reply at 1–3; Ex. 1022. In his declaration, Mr. Brière testifies that he
`
`presented the Brière paper at the AAAI 2006 Fall Symposium, and states
`
`that the 20–30 attendees of the symposium received a copy of that paper.
`
`Ex. 1022 ¶¶ 3, 8. Mr. Brière further testifies that the symposium was
`
`advertised on the AAAI website, open to the public, and attended by
`
`18
`
`
`
`IPR2022-00005
`Patent RE48,371 E
`
`
`“technical people who were skilled in the art of artificial auditory and
`
`acoustic technology.” Id. ¶¶ 5, 7, 8. Mr. Brière further testifies that the
`
`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.
`
`Petitioner contends that other record evidence corroborates
`
`Mr. Brière’s testimony, including documents appended to Mr. Brière’s
`
`declaration, which confirm that the Brière paper was presented at the AAAI
`
`2006 Fall Symposium, which was held in Arlington, Virginia in October
`
`2006, and was also made available to the public as part of an AAAI
`
`Technical Report from AAAI Press. Pet. Reply 2–3 (citing Appendices A–
`
`D to the Brière Declaration).
`
`We determine that, at this point in the case and for purposes of
`
`institution, and based on the totality of the evidence to date, Petitioner has
`
`submitted sufficient evidence to establish a reasonable likelihood that Brière
`
`was publicly accessible before the critical date of the challenged patent, and,
`
`thus, Petitioner has established a reasonable likelihood that the reference
`
`qualifies as a printed publication. In particular, the face of Brière bears a
`
`copyright date of 2006 on behalf of the American Association for Artificial
`
`Intelligence. Ex. 1009, 1. Petitioner has also sufficient evidence tending to
`
`establish that the Brière paper was presented at a conference in the fall of
`
`2006, which was attended by persons skilled in the relevant art, that the
`
`attendees received a copy of the paper at the time of the conference, and that
`
`the paper was also available to interested persons as part of the AAAI
`
`Technical Report published in 2007. Pet. Reply 2–3; Ex. 1022, App. A–D.
`
`19
`
`
`
`IPR2022-00005
`Patent RE48,371 E
`
`
`Brière discloses a sound source localization, tracking, and separation
`
`(SSLTS) system that was implemented in digital signal processor (DSP)—
`
`namely, “a TMS3206C713 Texas Instruments DSP.” Ex. 1009, 2. Brière’s
`
`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 1. Brière describes that its SSLTS-DSP system includes “three main
`
`modules: the localization module, the tracking module and the sound
`
`separation module.” Id. at 1–2 and Fig. 1. Figure 1 of Brière is reproduced
`
`below.
`
`Figure 1 of Brière is a block diagram of a SSLTS system.
`Ex. 1009, 2.
`
`
`
`Brière describes the localization module as “used to localize multiple
`
`sources” using the “SRP-PHAT” algorithm and the tracking module as
`
`“used to follow moving sources,” and states that the information provided by
`
`20
`
`
`
`IPR2022-00005
`Patent RE48,371 E
`
`
`the tracking module is used by the sound separation module to separate the
`
`detected sources, using “the geometric sound source (GSS) separation
`
`algorithm.” Id. at 1–2. Brière also describes its SSLTS system as including
`
`a “post-processing algorithm,” e.g., “[a] post[ ]filter” that removes
`
`interference and noise from the GSS-separated audio streams. Id. at 2.
`
`(3) Van Trees (Ex. 1010)
`
`Van Trees is a textbook titled “Optimum Array Processing: Part IV of
`
`Detection, Estimation, and Modulation Theory,” and bears a copyright date
`
`of 2002. Ex. 1010.10 Van Trees is prior art under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b)
`
`because it was published more than a year before the earliest priority date for
`
`the ’371 patent. Patent Owner does not dispute the prior-art status of Van
`
`Trees.
`
`We determine that, at this point in the case and for purposes of
`
`institution, and based on the totality of the evidence to date, Petitioner has
`
`submitted sufficient evidence to establish a reasonable likelihood that Van
`
`Trees was publicly accessible before the critical date of the challenged
`
`patent, and, thus Petitioner has established a reasonable likelihood that the
`
`reference qualifies as a printed publication. In particular, the face of Van
`
`Trees bears a copyright date of 2002, and catalog information (including
`
`catalog number, ISBN, and ISSN) of an established publisher (John Wiley &
`
`Sons). Ex. 1010; see Hulu at 19.
`
`
`10 Petitioner acknowledges that a portion of Van Trees was submitted by the
`applicant for the ’371 patent during prosecution, but states that “[t]he
`Petition cites portions of Van Trees that [applicant] omitted and thus were
`not before the Office.” Pet. 14, n.1 (emphasis omitted).
`
`21
`
`
`
`IPR2022-00005
`Patent RE48,371 E
`
`
`Van Trees discloses TDOA calculations in sensor arrays having
`
`linear, circular, or other configurations. For example, as shown below in
`
`Figure 4.32, Van Trees discloses calculating TDOA in a 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. 1010,
`
`29–30, 274–275, Fig. 4.32.11
`
`Figure 4.32 of Van Trees depicts geometric parameters
`for circular arrays (ring apertures). Ex. 1010, 274.
`
`
`
`
`11 Cites to pages in Van Trees are to page numbers from the original
`textbook, not to page numbers added to Exhibit 1010 by Petitioner.
`
`22
`
`
`
`IPR2022-00005
`Patent RE48,371 E
`
`
`b. Claim 22
`
`(1) Preamble: “[a] method for enhancing a target sound signal from a
`plurality of sound signals”
`
`Petitioner contends Mao discloses the subject matter of the preamble
`
`by disclosing a voice input system that “isolate[es] a target audio signal from
`
`multiple noise signals.” Pet. 15 (citing Ex. 1008 ¶ 29). Petitioner also
`
`contends Brière discloses the preamble as well by disclosing a
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
