Trials@uspto.gov
`571-272-7822
`
`Paper 22
`Entered: October 28, 2020
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`AMAZON.COM, INC.,
`Petitioner,
`v.
`VOCALIFE LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`
`IPR2020-00864
`Patent RE47,049 E
`
`Before AMANDA F. WIEKER, MONICA S. ULLAGADDI, and
`JASON M. REPKO, Administrative Patent Judges.
`REPKO, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`DECISION
`Denying Institution of Inter Partes Review
`35 U.S.C. § 314
`
`IPR PETITION
`US RE48,371
`Sonos Ex. 1038
`
`

`

`IPR2020-00864
`Patent RE47,049 E
`
`INTRODUCTION
`I.
`Amazon.com, Inc. (“Petitioner”) filed a petition to institute inter
`partes review of claims 1–8, 19, 20, 22–25, and 30 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 8 (“Prelim. Resp.”).
`We authorized additional briefing to address Patent Owner’s argument that
`we should deny institution of the Petition under § 314(a). Paper 9. Petitioner
`filed a Reply. Paper 10 (“Reply”). Patent Owner filed a Sur-reply. Paper 12
`(“Sur-reply”). After the conclusion of the parallel trial in district court, we
`authorized the parties to file another set of briefs. Paper 19 (“Pet. Post-Trial
`Brief”), Paper 21 (“PO Post-Trial Brief”).
`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). But the
`Board has discretion to deny a petition even when a petitioner meets that
`threshold. Id.; see, e.g., Cuozzo Speed Techs., LLC v. Lee, 136 S. Ct. 2131,
`2140 (2016) (“[T]he agency’s decision to deny a petition is a matter
`committed to the Patent Office’s discretion.”); NHK Spring Co. v. Intri-Plex
`Techs., Inc., IPR2018-00752, Paper 8 (PTAB Sept. 12, 2018) (precedential);
`Patent Trial and Appeal Board Consolidated Trial Practice Guide 64 (Nov.
`20, 2019), http://www.uspto.gov/TrialPracticeGuideConsolidated
`(identifying considerations that may warrant exercise of this discretion).
`For the reasons discussed below, we exercise our discretion under
`§ 314(a) to deny institution.
`
`
`2
`
`

`

`IPR2020-00864
`Patent RE47,049 E
`
`A. Related Matters
`According to the parties, the ’049 patent is involved in Vocalife LLC
`v. Amazon.com, Inc., No. 2:19-cv-00123-JRG (E.D. Tex. filed Apr. 16,
`2019). Pet. 90; Paper 4, 2.
`
`B. The ’049 Patent
`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 those 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
`
`

`

`IPR2020-00864
`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.
`Claims 1, 20, 22, and 30 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,
`
`4
`
`

`

`IPR2020-00864
`Patent RE47,049 E
`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
`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
`
`5
`
`

`

`C. Evidence
`Reference
`WO 2008/041878 A2, published April 10,
`2008
`Dmochowski Jacek Dmochowski et al., Direction of
`Arrival Estimation Using the Parameterized
`Spatial Correlation Matrix, 15 IEEE
`Transactions on Audio, Speech, and
`Language Processing 4, 1327–39 (2007)
`Qi (Peter) Li et al., A Portable USB-Based
`Microphone Array Device for Robust Speech
`Recognition, 2009 IEEE International
`Conference on Acoustics, Speech, and
`Signal Processing (ICASSP 2009), 1301–04
`(2009)
`Brandstein Michael Brandstein & Darren Ward (Eds.),
`Microphone Arrays: Signal Processing
`Techniques And Applications (Springer-
`Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2001)
`US 2004/0071284 A1, published Apr. 15,
`2004
`Julie E. Greenberg et al., Evaluation of an
`Adaptive Beamforming Method for Hearing
`Aids, Journal of the Acoustical Society of
`America 91 (3), 1662–76 (1992)
`Hoshuyama Osamu Hoshuyama et al., A Realtime Robust
`Adaptive Microphone Array Controlled by
`an SNR Estimate, Proceedings of the 1998
`IEEE International Conference on
`Acoustics, Speech and Signal Processing
`(ICASSP ’98), 3605–08 (1998)
`
`Li
`
`Abutalebi
`
`Greenberg
`
`IPR2020-00864
`Patent RE47,049 E
`
`Name
`Saric
`
`Exhibit No.
`1005
`
`1006
`
`1007
`
`1010
`
`1011
`
`1012
`
`1013
`
`6
`
`

`

`IPR2020-00864
`Patent RE47,049 E
`
`D. Asserted Grounds
`Petitioner asserts that claims 1–8, 19, 20, 22–25, and 30 are
`unpatentable on the following grounds. Pet. 10–11.
`Pre-AIA1
`35 U.S.C. §
`103
`103
`
`Claims Challenged
`1, 7, 19, 20, 22, 30
`1–4, 7, 19, 20, 22–24,
`30
`6, 24
`
`Reference(s)/Basis
`Saric, Dmochowski
`Saric, Dmochowski,
`Brandstein
`Saric, Dmochowski,
`Brandstein, Greenberg
`Saric, Dmochowski,
`Brandstein, Hoshuyama
`Saric, Dmochowski,
`Brandstein, Abutalebi
`Li, Brandstein
`Li, Brandstein, Dmochowski
`Li, Brandstein, Dmochowski,
`Greenberg
`Li, Brandstein, Dmochowski,
`Hoshuyama
`Li, Brandstein, Dmochowski,
`Abutalebi
`II. ANALYSIS
`A. 35 U.S.C. § 314(a)
`Under § 314(a), the Director has discretion to deny institution. In
`determining whether to exercise that discretion on behalf of the Director, we
`are guided by the Board’s precedential decision in NHK Spring Co. v. Intri-
`Plex Technologies, Inc., IPR2018-00752, Paper 8 (PTAB Sept. 12, 2018).
`
`6, 24
`
`5, 8, 25
`1–4, 6, 7, 19, 22–24
`1–4, 7, 19, 20, 22–24,
`30
`6, 24
`
`6, 24
`
`5, 8, 25
`
`103
`
`103
`
`103
`103
`103
`
`103
`
`103
`
`103
`
`
`1 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
`
`

`

`IPR2020-00864
`Patent RE47,049 E
`In NHK, the Board found that the “advanced state of the district court
`proceeding” was a “factor that weighs in favor of denying” the petition
`under § 314(a). NHK, Paper 8 at 20. The Board determined that “[i]nstitution
`of an inter partes review under these circumstances would not be consistent
`with ‘an objective of the AIA . . . to provide an effective and efficient
`alternative to district court litigation.’” Id. (citing Gen. Plastic Indus. Co. v.
`Canon Kabushiki Kaisha, IPR2016-01357, Paper 19 at 16–17 (PTAB Sept.
`6, 2017) (precedential as to § II.B.4.i).
`“[T]he Board’s cases addressing earlier trial dates as a basis for denial
`under NHK have sought to balance considerations such as system efficiency,
`fairness, and patent quality.” Apple Inc. v. Fintiv, Inc., IPR2020-00019,
`Paper 11 at 5 (PTAB Mar. 20, 2020) (precedential) (collecting cases) (“the
`Fintiv Order”). The Fintiv Order sets forth six non-exclusive factors for
`determining “whether efficiency, fairness, and the merits support the
`exercise of authority to deny institution in view of an earlier trial date in the
`parallel proceeding.” Id. at 6. These factors consider
`1. whether the court granted a stay or evidence exists that one
`may be granted if a proceeding is instituted;
`2. proximity of the court’s trial date to the Board’s projected
`statutory deadline for a final written decision;
`3. investment in the parallel proceeding by the court and the
`parties;
`4. overlap between issues raised in the petition and in the
`parallel proceeding;
`5. whether the petitioner and the defendant in the parallel
`proceeding are the same party; and
`6. other circumstances that impact the Board’s exercise of
`discretion, including the merits.
`
`8
`
`

`

`IPR2020-00864
`Patent RE47,049 E
`Id. In the sections that follow, we discuss each factor and perform a holistic
`analysis of the facts and evidence underlying these factors.
`Factor 1: Whether the court granted a stay or evidence exists that one
`may be granted if a proceeding is instituted
`“A district court stay of the litigation pending resolution of the PTAB
`trial allays concerns about inefficiency and duplication of efforts. This fact
`has strongly weighed against exercising the authority to deny institution
`under NHK.” Id.
`According to the parties, the parallel district-court proceeding has not
`been stayed. See, e.g., Prelim. Resp. 25. Nor has Petitioner sought a stay.
`Id. at 11; Sur-reply 2. Patent Owner argues that there is no evidence that a
`stay would be granted. Prelim. Resp. 11. In fact, the trial in district court
`concluded on October 8, 2020—several weeks before this institution
`deadline. Ex. 1042, 1 (Fifth Amended Docket Control Order); Ex. 3001
`(Verdict Form).
`Absent specific evidence, we decline to speculate how the district
`court would rule on a stay request. See Sand Revolution II LLC v. Cont’l
`Intermodal Grp., IPR2019-01393, Paper 24, 7 (PTAB June 16, 2020)
`(informative, designated July 13, 2020) (declining to predict how the district
`court in the related litigation will proceed). No specific evidence in this case
`suggests that the district court will grant a stay. So this factor is neutral.
`
`Factor 2: Proximity of the court’s trial date to the Board’s projected
`statutory deadline for a final written decision
`“If the court’s trial date is earlier than the projected statutory deadline,
`the Board generally has weighed this fact in favor of exercising authority to
`deny institution under NHK.” Fintiv Order at 9.
`
`9
`
`

`

`IPR2020-00864
`Patent RE47,049 E
`Here, the trial date has passed. Ex. 1042, 1 (Fifth Amended Docket
`Control Order); Ex. 3001 (Verdict Form). The projected deadline for the
`Board’s final decision is a year from now. Because the trial date is
`substantially earlier than the projected statutory deadline for the Board’s
`final decision, this factor strongly favors exercising our discretion to deny
`institution.
`
`Factor 3: Investment in the parallel proceeding by the court and the
`parties
`“The Board also has considered the amount and type of work already
`completed in the parallel litigation by the court and the parties at the time of
`the institution decision.” Fintiv Order at 9. “[M]ore work completed by the
`parties and court in the parallel proceeding tends to support the arguments
`that the parallel proceeding is more advanced, a stay may be less likely, and
`instituting would lead to duplicative costs.” Id. at 10.
`Patent Owner asserts that the parties and the court will have invested a
`substantial amount in the parallel litigation by the time this decision issues.
`See Prelim. Resp. 20–25. We agree. The parties have litigated the
`proceeding through trial with only the potential for post-trial briefing
`remaining. For example, a Markman hearing has been held, and a claim
`construction order has been issued. Id. at 21. The parties and the court
`invested in, and completed, expert and fact discovery. Id. at 20–22. The trial
`began October 1, 2020 and concluded with a jury verdict on October 8,
`2020. Ex. 1042 (Fifth Amended Docket Control Order); Ex. 3001 (Verdict
`Form).
`
`10
`
`

`

`IPR2020-00864
`Patent RE47,049 E
`Considering the investment in the parallel proceeding by the court and
`the parties, we determine that this factor strongly favors exercising our
`discretion to deny institution.
`
`
`Factor 4: Overlap between issues raised in the petition and in the
`parallel proceeding
`“[I]f the petition includes the same or substantially the same claims,
`grounds, arguments, and evidence as presented in the parallel proceeding,
`this fact has favored denial.” Fintiv Order at 12.
`Petitioner argues that the trial involved claims 1 and 8, but thirteen
`additional claims are challenged in the Petition. Pet. Post-Trial Brief 1. Yet
`the other independent claims that are challenged here are similar to claim 1.
`As noted in the Petition, “Claim 22 differs slightly from claim 1.” Pet. 79. In
`fact, claim 22 lacks some limitations found in claim 1: Claim 22 recites
`“providing a microphone array system comprising an array of sound
`sensors,” without claim 1’s limitations about how to position the sensors. Id.
`Claim 22 recites “a beamforming unit” instead of “an adaptive” one, as
`recited in claim 1. Id. Also, claim 22 recites a delay with respect to a
`reference point, which enables two or more sensors instead of the “plurality
`of configurations” in claim 1. Id. As for claim 30, Petitioner asserts that this
`claim “is the same as claim 20,” except for limitations that “would have
`been obvious for the same reasons as claim 22.” Id. at 36. Thus, the
`similarities between claim 1 and the other independent claims will likely
`lead to substantially the same arguments and evidence here as presented in
`the parallel proceeding.
`The prior-art combinations considered in the district-court proceeding
`cover nearly all the claims challenged in the Petition. In particular, Patent
`
`11
`
`

`

`IPR2020-00864
`Patent RE47,049 E
`Owner argues that Petitioner’s invalidity case through pretrial and trial were
`based on various combinations of Saric, Dmochowski, Brandstein,
`Abutalebi, and Li, which are the basis for most challenges in this Petition.
`PO Post-Trial Brief 1; Pet. 10–11. Petitioner argues that the jury did not
`consider Grounds 1a–1e of the Petition, which are based on Saric. Pet. Post-
`Trial Brief 1.
`Even though Petitioner did not present Saric to the jury at trial, the
`grounds based on Li and Brandstein (Grounds 2a–2e) cover the same claims
`as the grounds based on Saric (Grounds 1a–1e). See Pet. 10–11. And the
`grounds based on Li and Brandstein, which were presented at trial, account
`for half the prior-art combinations in this proceeding. See id.; Ex. 1043
`(Excerpts of Trial Transcript).
`To be sure, Hoshuyama and Greenberg, which are relied upon in the
`Petition, were not before the district court. Reply 3 (citing Ex. 2002, 1).
`Petitioner, though, uses Hoshuyama and Greenberg only in the challenges to
`dependent claims 6 and 24. Pet. 10–11.
`As noted above, Petitioner argues that fifteen claims are challenged
`here, but only two were tried in district court. Pet. Post-Trial Brief 2.
`According to Petitioner, Patent Owner has not granted it a covenant not to
`sue on the other claims, and invalidating those claims would require another
`proceeding. Pet. 88; Reply 2–3. This argument, though, is speculative and
`does not outweigh our concerns about inefficiency and the possibility of
`conflicting decisions. Petitioner has not persuasively explained any benefit
`to resolving the patentability of the additionally challenged claims when
`they are not asserted against Petitioner.
`Concerns over inefficiency and the possibility of the Board and the
`district court issuing conflicting decisions underlie this factor. Fintiv Order
`
`12
`
`

`

`IPR2020-00864
`Patent RE47,049 E
`at 12. Should the Board institute, there would be some overlap between the
`proceedings, which would implicate these concerns for at least half the prior
`art combinations and claims 1 and 8. On balance, this factor favors
`exercising our discretion to deny institution.
`
`
`Factor 5: Whether the petitioner and the defendant in the parallel
`proceeding are the same party
`If the petitioner and the defendant in the parallel proceeding are the
`same and the validity issues are scheduled to be determined in the parallel
`proceeding first, this factor weighs in favor of denial. Fintiv, Paper 15 at 15
`(informative) (applying Fintiv Factor 5); Sand Revolution, Paper 24 at 12–13
`(informative) (“Although it is far from an unusual circumstance that a
`petitioner in inter partes review and a defendant in a parallel district court
`proceeding are the same, or where a district court is scheduled to go to trial
`before the Board’s final decision would be due in a related inter partes
`review, this factor weighs in favor of discretionary denial.”).
`Here, the parties do not dispute that Petitioner is the defendant in the
`parallel proceeding. See, e.g., Pet. 90, Prelim. Resp. 11. Also, the validity of
`claims 1 and 8 have already been determined in the parallel proceeding. So
`this factor, when considered in light of the circumstances of this case,
`strongly favors exercising our discretion to deny institution.
`
`
`Factor 6: Other circumstances that impact the Board’s exercise of
`discretion, including the merits
`When considering whether to exercise discretion to deny a petition,
`we assess “all the relevant circumstances in the case, including the merits.”
`Fintiv Order at 14. Under Fintiv Factor 6, we consider the strengths and
`
`13
`
`

`

`IPR2020-00864
`Patent RE47,049 E
`weaknesses of the Petition’s merits: stronger merits typically favor
`institution, and weaker merits favor denial. Id. at 15–16.
`In the parallel proceeding, the jury found that claims 1 and 8 were not
`invalid. Pet. Post-Trial Brief 1; Ex. 3001 (Verdict Form). Li and the other
`references used in Grounds 2a–2e of the Petition were presented at trial. See,
`e.g., Ex. 1043 (Excerpts from Trial Transcripts). According to the parties,
`the expert did not present Saric as part of his testimony. PO Post-Trial Brief
`1–2; Pet. Post-Trial Brief 1–2. Petitioner uses Saric in Grounds 1a–1e of the
`Petition. Pet. 10–11.
`A full merits evaluation is not necessary in the analysis under Fintiv
`Factor 6. Fintiv Order at 15. Here, it is sufficient to look only at the grounds
`based on Saric (Grounds 1a–1e). Every claim challenged under Grounds 1a–
`1e of the Petition was also challenged under Grounds 2a–2e. See Pet. 10–11.
`And according to the parties, the jury reached its verdict based on a
`presentation of prior art used in Grounds 2a–2e. See Pet. Post-Trial Brief;
`PO Post-Trial Brief. As discussed in detail below, the merits of the grounds
`based on Saric are weak.
`In particular, Petitioner challenges independent claims 1, 20, and 22
`using prior-art combinations involving Saric. Pet. 10–11. Claim 1 recites, in
`part:
`
`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.
`Ex. 1001, 21:29–36. Claims 20 and 22 recite similar limitations.
`Id. at 24:40–46 (claim 20), 25:56–61 (claim 22).
`
`14
`
`

`

`IPR2020-00864
`Patent RE47,049 E
`The patent explains that a digital signal processor receives digital
`sound signals and “implements the sound source localization unit 202, the
`adaptive beamforming unit 203, and the noise reduction unit 207.”
`Id. at 15:25–29. Petitioner asserts that the recited “source localization unit”
`should be limited to a digital signal processor executing the SRP-PHAT2
`algorithm. Pet. 18. Petitioner applies this construction when discussing the
`prior art. See id. at 23–26. Although Petitioner does not provide an explicit
`construction for the other units (id. at 15–18), Petitioner interprets them in a
`similar way—i.e., as an algorithm on a digital signal processor—when
`discussing the prior art (see id. at 23–26).
`Specifically, Petitioner asserts that the combination of Saric and
`Dmochowski teaches the recited digital signal processor and the three units:
`(1) it would have been obvious to incorporate Dmochowski’s SRP (steered-
`response power) algorithm for sound source localization in Saric to obtain
`the sound source localization unit; (2) Saric teaches the adaptive
`beamforming unit by using “a microphone array processing signal algorithm
`for adaptive beam forming (ABF)”; and (3) Saric teaches the noise reduction
`unit because Saric describes an algorithm for reducing stationary noise, non-
`steady noise, and residual echo. Pet. 23–25 (citing Ex. 1005, 4:24–33, 6:31–
`36, 8:2–5, 8:24–26, 16:3–29, Figs. 3 and 5; Ex. 1006, 1330; Ex. 1015
`¶¶ 107, 112–115). Petitioner asserts that Saric integrates the three recited
`units in a digital signal processor. Id. at 25–26 (citing Ex. 1005, 4:29–35,
`Fig. 1; Ex. 1015 ¶¶ 116–118).
`
`
`2 SRP-PHAT means steered response power-phase transform. Ex. 1001,
`11:28.
`
`15
`
`

`

`IPR2020-00864
`Patent RE47,049 E
`Patent Owner argues that Petitioner has not sufficiently shown that the
`three recited units “are integrated in a digital signal processor,” as recited.
`Prelim. Resp. 27. We agree.
`For the recited integration, the Petition relies on one sentence and a
`figure from Saric. Pet. 25 (citing Ex. 1005, 4:29-35; Ex. 1015 ¶¶ 116-118).
`The cited sentence is,
`DSP run a few complex algorithms: acoustic echo
`canceling algorithm (AEC), microphone array processing signal
`algorithm for adaptive beam forming (ABF) and its directivity
`characteristics, estimation algorithm for direction of arrival
`(DOA) of useful signal for indoor localization of speaker, in
`other words speaker room localization, algorithm for reduction
`of stationary noise, non-steady noise and residual echo (NR-
`Noise Reduction) and algorithm for system automatic gain
`control (AGC), because of compensation between different
`speaker distance from the microphone array.
`Ex. 1005, 4:29–35 (emphasis added). Thus, the issue of whether Saric
`teaches a digital signal processor running all the recited algorithms turns on
`the meaning of the phrase “DSP run.” “[H]ardware engineers use ‘DSP’ to
`mean Digital Signal Processor,” but “algorithm developers use ‘DSP’ to
`mean Digital Signal Processing.” Ex. 1033, 5 (“The Scientist’s and
`Engineer’s Guide to Digital Signal Processing”) (emphasis added). In
`describing the invention, Saric defines DSP as “digital signal processing.”
`Ex. 1005, 15:26 (emphasis added). Thus, we are not persuaded that Saric’s
`phrase “DSP run” refers to a digital signal processor executing the
`algorithms, as the claims require. See id.
`Petitioner also cites Saric’s Figure 1. Pet. 25. That figure, below,
`shows a single box labeled with the word “DSP.” Ex. 1005, Fig. 1.
`
`16
`
`

`

`IPR2020-00864
`Patent RE47,049 E
`
`
`Saric describes Figure 1, above, as having “elements.” Id. at 6. Saric divides
`those elements into the boxes shown Figure 3, reproduced below with
`annotations. Pet. 25.
`
`Saric’s Figure 3 is shown above with Petitioner’s annotations on noise
`suppressor 305 (blue), DOA azimuth 304 (purple), and SD-BF super
`directive beamformer 303 (pink). Id. Petitioner maps these three units to the
`recited noise reduction unit, sound source localization unit, and adaptive
`beamforming unit, which “are integrated in a digital signal processor.” See
`
`
`
`17
`
`

`

`IPR2020-00864
`Patent RE47,049 E
`id. at 25–26. Yet Saric shows them as three distinct boxes in Figure 3. This
`suggests that Saric’s diagrams are merely illustrating various levels of
`abstraction for the process, instead of signifying a specific hardware
`processor executing those algorithms.
`To the extent that Saric’s boxes can be interpreted as hardware
`components, the description of the invention suggests that there are multiple
`processors that execute the digital signal processing:
`For example, these techniques can be implemented into
`the hardware, software, or in the combination two of them. In the
`hardware implementation we can use specific integrated circuits
`(ASIC), processors of the digital signal processing (DSP),
`programmable logical devices (PDL or FPGA) and others
`electronic circuits, designed in that way, to be able to accomplish
`a given invention functions.
`Ex. 1005, 15:23–28 (emphasis added). That is, this passage states that
`Saric’s digital signal processing is accomplished by multiple processors—
`not all three units integrated in a digital signal processor as required by the
`claims.
`Petitioner’s obviousness rationale is based on the premise that Saric
`uses a specialized processor. Pet. 21–22. For example, the district court
`determined that “digital signal processor” means “microprocessor that is
`specialized for mathematical processing of digital signals.” Ex. 1028, 24
`(Claim Construction Memorandum Opinion and Order). In its analysis, the
`district court expressly rejected the construction that a digital signal
`processor is simply “a device that processes digital signals.” Id. at 21–22.
`Although Petitioner argues that this term need not be construed here
`(Pet. 15), Petitioner’s obviousness rationale refers to a digital signal
`processor’s ability handle “computation load” (see, e.g., id. at 22;
`Ex. 1015 ¶ 109). Yet Petitioner has not sufficiently shown on this record that
`
`18
`
`

`

`IPR2020-00864
`Patent RE47,049 E
`Saric’s processors confer the advantages of a digital signal processor. See
`Pet. 21–22, 23–26. Rather, Saric simply refers to “processors” generally.3
`Ex. 1005, 15:23–28.
`In sum, Petitioner has not shown a reasonable likelihood of prevailing
`in showing that Saric, in combination with the other references, teaches or
`suggests that the “sound source localization unit, said adaptive beamforming
`unit, and said noise reduction unit are integrated in a digital signal
`processor.” At best, Saric’s disclosure is ambiguous.
`In Grounds 1a–1e, Petitioner relies on Saric in combination with other
`references to teach or suggest the units integrated in a digital signal
`processor recited in all challenged independent claims. See Pet. 25 (claim 1),
`34–36 (claim 22), 36–38 (claim 20). So none of the challenges based on
`Saric meet the Board’s institution standard. Thus, Fintiv Factor 6 favors
`denial.
`
`B. Summary
`We consider the Fintiv factors as part of a holistic analysis. Fintiv
`Order at 6. Under that analysis, the factors favor exercising our discretion to
`deny institution of inter partes review: the parallel district-court proceeding
`has concluded trial, the parties have invested a substantial amount in to the
`parallel proceeding, the Petition and the issues resolved in the parallel
`proceeding partly overlap, and for the grounds that arguably do not overlap,
`the merits are weak. Thus, efficiency and integrity of the system are best
`served by denying review. See NHK, Paper 8 at 20; Consolidated TPG at 58
`(quoting 35 U.S.C. § 316(b)).
`
`3 Saric mentions a “commercial platform of digital signal processor (DSP)”
`in the Background Art section. Ex. 1005, 2:30–32. But this is only in
`reference to problems found in the prior art. See id. at 1:11–2:32.
`
`19
`
`

`

`IPR2020-00864
`Patent RE47,049 E
`
`III. CONCLUSION
`We exercise our discretion under § 314(a) to deny institution.
`
`
`IV. ORDER
`
`It is
`ORDERED that the Petition is denied.
`
`20
`
`

`

`IPR2020-00864
`Patent RE47,049 E
`
`
`PETITIONER:
`
`Colin B. Heideman
`Joseph R. Re
`Joshua J. Stowell
`Jeremy A. Anapol
`KNOBBE, MARTENS, OLSON & BEAR, LLP
`2cbh@knobbe.com
`2JRR@knobbe.com
`2jys@knobbe.com
`2jaa@knobbe.com
`BoxSEAZNL1608LP@knobbe.com
`
`PATENT OWNER:
`
`Vincent J. Rubino, III
`Peter Lambrianakos
`Enrique W. Iturralde
`Jialin Zhong
`FABRICANT LLP
`vrubino@fabricantllp.com
`plambrianakos@fabricantllp.com
`eiturralde@fabricantllp.com
`zhong@fabricantllp.com
`
`
`21
`
`