`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`__________________________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`__________________________________
`
`SONOS, INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`VOCALIFE LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case No. TBD
`U.S. Patent No. RE47,049
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`DECLARATION OF DR. RICHARD M. STERN, JR., PH.D.
`IN SUPPORT OF PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW
`OF U.S. PATENT NO. RE47,049
`
`
`
`
`Page 1 of 231
`
`SONOS EXHIBIT 1002
`
`

`

`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
` BACKGOUND AND QUALIFICATIONS -------------------------------------- 1
`
` MATERIALS CONSIDERED ---------------------------------------------------- 3
`
` LEGAL STANDARDS ------------------------------------------------------------- 6
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Patent Invalidity ------------------------------------------------------------ 7
`
`Obviousness ---------------------------------------------------------------- 7
`
`Claim Construction ------------------------------------------------------ 11
`
`1.
`
`General Standards ------------------------------------------------ 11
`
` PERSON OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART -------------------------- 11
`
` CLAIM CONSTRUCTION ------------------------------------------------------ 13
`
` District Court Claim Construction Order ----------------------------- 13
`
` TECHNOLOGY BACKGROUND -------------------------------------------- 14
`
` Microphone Array Systems Were Well-Known --------------------- 14
`
`
`
`
`
`Determining Microphone Delays Was Well-Known ---------------- 15
`
`Sound Source Localization Algorithms Were Well-
`Known --------------------------------------------------------------------- 26
`
` Adaptive Beamforming Algorithms Were Well-
`Known --------------------------------------------------------------------- 28
`
`
`
`
`
`Noise Reduction Algorithms Were Well-Known -------------------- 29
`
`Using DSPs for Signal Processing Was Well-Known -------------- 30
`
` THE ’049 PATENT -------------------------------------------------------------- 33
`
` OVERVIEW OF THE GROUNDS ----------------------------------------- 42
`
`-i-
`
`Page 2 of 231
`
`SONOS EXHIBIT 1002
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`Explanation of Sato+Gareta Grounds --------------------------------- 43
`
`Explanation of Sato+Gareta+Li Grounds ----------------------------- 43
`
`Listing of the Grounds -------------------------------------------------- 44
`
` CLAIMS 1-35 WOULD HAVE BEEN OBVIOUS ------------------------- 45
`
` Ground 1A: Sato & Gareta Render Obvious Claims 1-
`4, 6-12, 14-15, & 17-35 ------------------------------------------------- 45
`
`1.
`
`Sato ----------------------------------------------------------------- 45
`
`
`
`
`
`Sato Qualifies As Prior Art ------------------------------ 45
`
`Overview of Sato ----------------------------------------- 47
`
`2.
`
`Gareta -------------------------------------------------------------- 49
`
`
`
`
`
`Gareta Qualifies As Prior Art --------------------------- 49
`
`Overview of Gareta -------------------------------------- 54
`
`3. Motivation to Combine Gareta with Sato --------------------- 60
`
`4.
`
`Independent Claim 1 --------------------------------------------- 64
`
`
`
`
`
`Preamble --------------------------------------------------- 65
`
`Providing a Microphone Array System ---------------- 66
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`“providing a microphone array
`system … in a linear, circular, or
`other configuration” ------------------------------ 66
`
`“a sound source localization unit” -------------- 69
`
`“an adaptive beamforming unit” ---------------- 73
`
`“a noise reduction unit” -------------------------- 76
`
`-ii-
`
`Page 3 of 231
`
`SONOS EXHIBIT 1002
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`“wherein said sound source
`localization unit, said adaptive
`beamforming unit, and said noise
`reduction unit are integrated in a
`digital signal processor” ------------------------- 78
`
`“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” ------------------------------- 81
`
`Receiving Sound Signals -------------------------------- 84
`
`Determining a Delay ------------------------------------- 87
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`“determining a delay. . .when said
`target sound source that emits said
`target sound signal is in a two
`dimensional plane” ------------------------------- 87
`
`“wherein said delay is represented
`in terms of number of samples” ----------------- 90
`
`“wherein said delay enables
`beamforming for said array of
`sound sensors in a plurality of
`configurations” ------------------------------------ 97
`
` Motivation to Combine Gareta’s
`SSL Teachings with Sato ------------------------ 99
`
`Estimating a Spatial Location of Target
`Sound Signal … by Said Sound Source
`Localization Unit ---------------------------------------- 101
`
`Adaptive Beamforming --------------------------------- 103
`
`Suppressing Ambient Noise ---------------------------- 105
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`-iii-
`
`Page 4 of 231
`
`SONOS EXHIBIT 1002
`
`

`

`5.
`
`6.
`
`7.
`
`8.
`
`9.
`
`10.
`
`11.
`
`Independent Claim 9 -------------------------------------------- 107
`
`Independent Claim 22 ------------------------------------------ 108
`
`Independent Claim 26 ------------------------------------------ 111
`
`Independent Claim 32 ------------------------------------------ 112
`
`Independent Claim 33 ------------------------------------------ 114
`
`Independent Claim 35 ------------------------------------------ 117
`
`Independent Claims 20, 21, 30, 31, & 34 -------------------- 120
`
`
`
`
`
` -------------------------------------------- 120
`
` ----------------- 123
`
`12.
`
`Summary of Independent Claims ----------------------------- 125
`
`13. Dependent Claims 2 & 10 -------------------------------------- 126
`
`
`
`Gareta Discloses SRP-PHAT Localization ---------- 126
`
` Motivation to Combine Gareta’s SRP-
`PHAT Technique with Sato ---------------------------- 129
`
`14. Dependent Claims 3, 11, & 23 -------------------------------- 132
`
`
`
`Gareta Discloses GSC Adaptive
`Beamforming --------------------------------------------- 133
`
`
`
`
`
`Beamformer Comprising a Fixed
`Beamformer, Blocking Matrix, &
`Adaptive Filter ----------------------------------- 134
`
`Steering Directivity Pattern of
`Fixed Beamformer ------------------------------- 135
`
`-iv-
`
`Page 5 of 231
`
`SONOS EXHIBIT 1002
`
`

`

` Using Blocking Matrix to Feed
`Ambient Noise Signals to Adaptive
`Filter ----------------------------------------------- 137
`
` Adaptively Filtering Ambient
`Noise in Response to Detecting
`One of Presence and Absence of
`Target Sound Signal ----------------------------- 137
`
` Motivation to Combine Gareta’s GSC
`with Sato -------------------------------------------------- 139
`
`15. Dependent Claims 4 & 12 -------------------------------------- 141
`
`16. Dependent Claims 6, 14, 24, & 27 ---------------------------- 143
`
`
`
`
`
`Gareta Discloses Detecting Presence or
`Absence of Target Sound Signal ---------------------- 144
`
`Gareta Discloses Adjusting a Step Size -------------- 145
`
`17. Dependent Claims 7 & 15 -------------------------------------- 146
`
`
`
`Gareta Discloses a Wiener-Filter Based
`Noise Reduction Algorithm ---------------------------- 146
`
` Motivation to Combine Gareta’s Wiener
`Filter with Sato ------------------------------------------- 148
`
`18. Dependent Claims 8, 17, 25, & 28 ---------------------------- 148
`
`
`
`
`
`Gareta Discloses Sub-Band Adaptive
`Beamforming --------------------------------------------- 149
`
`Gareta Discloses Sub-Band Noise
`Reduction ------------------------------------------------- 152
`
` Motivation to Combine Gareta’s
`Teachings with Sato ------------------------------------- 154
`
`19. Dependent Claims 18 & 29 ------------------------------------ 157
`
`-v-
`
`Page 6 of 231
`
`SONOS EXHIBIT 1002
`
`

`

`
`
`Sato & Gareta Each Discloses Linear &
`Other Types of Arrays ---------------------------------- 157
`
`20. Dependent Claim 19 -------------------------------------------- 160
`
`
`
`Gareta Discloses the Delay Calculation -------------- 160
`
`
`
`Ground 2A: Sato, Gareta, & Liu Render Obvious
`Claims 5 & 13 ----------------------------------------------------------- 163
`
`1.
`
`Liu ----------------------------------------------------------------- 163
`
`
`
`
`
`Liu Qualifies As Prior Art ------------------------------ 163
`
`Overview of Liu ----------------------------------------- 165
`
`2. Motivations to Combine Liu with Sato & Gareta ----------- 165
`
`3.
`
`Dependent Claims 5 & 13 -------------------------------------- 168
`
`
`
`Liu Discloses Sub-Band Adaptive
`Filtering --------------------------------------------------- 168
`
`
`
`
`
`Sub-Band Adaptive Filtering ------------------- 170
`
`Splitting Enhanced Target Sound
`Signal and Ambient Noise Signals
`by Analysis Filter Bank ------------------------- 172
`
` Adaptively Filtering Ambient
`Noise Signals in Each Frequency
`Sub-Band in Response to Detecting
`One of Presence and Absence of
`Target Sound Signal ----------------------------- 173
`
`
`
`Synthesizing a Full-Band Sound
`Signal ---------------------------------------------- 175
`
`
`
`Ground 3A: Sato, Gareta, & Baumhauer Render
`Obvious Claim 16 Obvious -------------------------------------------- 175
`
`-vi-
`
`Page 7 of 231
`
`SONOS EXHIBIT 1002
`
`

`

`1.
`
`Overview of Baumhauer --------------------------------------- 175
`
`2. Motivations to Combine Baumhauer with Sato
`& Gareta ---------------------------------------------------------- 177
`
`3.
`
`Dependent Claim 16 -------------------------------------------- 180
`
`
`
`Baumhauer Discloses Audio Codecs ----------------- 180
`
` Grounds 1B, 2B, & 3B: Sato, Gareta, & Li ------------------------- 182
`
`1.
`
`Li ------------------------------------------------------------------ 184
`
`
`
`
`
`Li Qualifies As Prior Art ------------------------------- 184
`
`Overview of Li ------------------------------------------- 185
`
`2. Motivations to Combine Sato, Gareta, & Li ----------------- 187
`
`3.
`
`Li Discloses “Delay … In Terms of Number of
`Samples” ---------------------------------------------------------- 190
`
` CONCLUSION -------------------------------------------------------------------- 192
`
`
`
`
`
`-vii-
`
`Page 8 of 231
`
`SONOS EXHIBIT 1002
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`I, Dr. Richard M. Stern, Jr., Ph.D., do hereby declare:
`
`I have been retained by Petitioner Sonos, Inc. (“Petitioner” or “Sonos”)
`
`as an expert in this matter to provide technical expert opinions in connection with
`
`this Petition, including an opinion concerning the patentability of claims 1-35 (“the
`
`Challenged Claims”) of U.S. Patent No. RE47,049 (“the ’049 patent”), purportedly
`
`owned by Vocalife LLC (“Patent Owner” or “Vocalife”).
`
` BACKGOUND AND QUALIFICATIONS
`
`
`
`I am a Professor at Carnegie Mellon University in the Department of
`
`Electrical and Computer Engineering, the Department of Computer Science, and the
`
`Language Technologies Institute. I have been on the faculty of Carnegie Mellon
`
`since 1977.
`
`
`
`I received the S.B. degree from the Massachusetts Institute of
`
`Technology (MIT) in 1970, the M.S. from the University of California, Berkeley, in
`
`1972, and the Ph.D. from MIT in 1977, all in electrical engineering.
`
`
`
`I am a fellow of the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers
`
`(IEEE), the Acoustical Society of America, and the International Speech
`
`Communication Association (ISCA). I was the ISCA 2008-2009 Distinguished
`
`Lecturer, a recipient of the Allen Newell Award for Research Excellence in 1992,
`
`and I served as the General Chair of Interspeech 2006. Interspeech is the world’s
`
`largest technical conference focused on speech processing and application.
`
`-1-
`
`Page 9 of 231
`
`SONOS EXHIBIT 1002
`
`

`

`
`
` Much of my current research is in spoken language systems, where I
`
`am particularly concerned with the development of techniques with which automatic
`
`speech recognition can be made more robust with respect to changes in environment
`
`and acoustical ambience.
`
`
`
`I have actively worked on the theory and application of systems using
`
`microphone arrays over a period of decades (e.g., Stern et al. 2008; Stern and Menon,
`
`2020), and my research group has developed several array-based algorithms to
`
`improve speech recognition accuracy in difficult acoustical environments (e.g.,
`
`Seltzer et al. 2004; Stern et al, 2007; Kim et al. 2009; Moghimi and Stern, 2019).
`
`My relevant publications, including those cited above, are available on Carnegie
`
`Mellon’s web site at http://www.cs.cmu.edu/afs/cs/user/robust/www/papers.html.
`
`
`
`During my 45 years at Carnegie Mellon University, I have developed
`
`and taught sixteen courses, mostly in electrical and biomedical engineering. These
`courses include Signals and Systems, Digital Signal Processing, Advanced Digital
`Signal Processing, and Acoustics, all of which are directly relevant to the subject
`matter of the patent in suit. The Advanced Digital Signal Processing course in
`particular includes the topics of adaptive filtering, microphone arrays, and adaptive
`microphone arrays as part of the subject material. I was awarded the IEEE Student
`Branch Award for Teacher of the Year in 1979, and the Joel and Ruth Spira
`
`-2-
`
`Page 10 of 231
`
`SONOS EXHIBIT 1002
`
`

`

`
`
`Excellence in Teaching Award (with three colleagues) in 2018 for my teaching
`activities.
`
`
`
`A copy of my current curriculum vitae, which lists my publications for
`
`the last ten years, is attached as Appendix A. A list of cases in which I have testified
`
`as an expert at trial or by deposition in the past four years is attached as Appendix
`
`B.
`
`
`
`I am being compensated at my standard hourly rate of $550 for my work
`
`on this case. My compensation does not depend on the content of this declaration
`
`or the outcome of these proceedings.
`
` MATERIALS CONSIDERED
`
`
`
`I reviewed the following documents in forming my opinions set forth
`
`herein:
`
`EXHIBIT
`1001
`1003
`
`1004
`
`1005
`
`1006
`
`DESCRIPTION
`U.S. Patent No. RE47,049 (the “’049 patent”)
`Miki Sato et al., A Single-Chip Speech Dialogue Module and
`Its Evaluation on a Personal Robot, PaPeRo-Mini, IEEE In-
`ternational Conference on Acoustics, Speech, and Signal Pro-
`cessing (“ICASSP”) (April 2009)
`Alberto Abad Gareta, A Multi-Microphone Approach to
`Speech Processing in a Smart-Room Environment (2007)
`(“Gareta”)
`Brandstein et al., Microphone Arrays: Signal Processing
`Techniques and Applications (Springer 2001) (“Brandstein”)
`Wei Liu et al., Subband Adaptive Generalized Sidelobe Can-
`celler for Broadband Beamforming, Proceedings of the 11th
`IEEE Signal Processing Workshop on Statistical Signal Pro-
`cessing (Aug. 2001)
`
`-3-
`
`Page 11 of 231
`
`SONOS EXHIBIT 1002
`
`

`

`
`
`EXHIBIT
`1007
`1008
`1009
`
`1013
`
`1014
`1015
`
`1016
`1017
`1018
`1019
`1020
`
`1021
`
`1022
`1023
`1024
`
`1025
`
`1026
`
`1027
`
`1028
`
`DESCRIPTION
`US Patent 5,506,908 to John Baumhauer et al. (“Baumhauer”)
`US Patent 4,654,667 to John Apostolos et al. (“Apostolos”)
`Claim Construction Memorandum Opinion and Order, Vocal-
`ife LLC v. Amazon.com, Inc., Case No. 2:19-cv-123-JRG
`(E.D. Tex. April 6, 2020)
`Qi Li et al., A Portable USB-Based Microphone Array Device
`for Robust Speech Recognition, IEEE International Confer-
`ence on Acoustics, Speech, and Signal Processing (April
`2009)
`Declaration of Gerard P. Grenier (April 2, 2020)
`Pasi Pertila, Acoustic Source Localization in a Room Environ-
`ment and at Moderate Distances, Publication 794 (2009)
`(“Pertila”)
`’049 Patent Prosecution History
`US Patent 8,861,756 (the “’756 patent”)
`’756 Patent Prosecution History
`Provisional Application 61/403,952
`Panayiotis Ioannides et al., Uniform Circular Arrays for
`Smart Antennas, IEEE Antennas and Propagation Magazine,
`Vol. 47, No. 4 (August 2005) (“Ioannides”)
`Joseph DiBiase, A High-Accuracy, Low-Latency Technique
`for Talker Localization in Reverberant Environments Using
`Microphone Arrays (2000) (“DiBiase”)
`RS20060551A by Saric Zoran et al.
`Translation of RS20060551A (“Saric”)
`Excerpts of Dictionary of Computer Vision and Image Pro-
`cessing (2005) (“Computer Vision”)
`Excerpts of Steven Smith, The Scientist and Engineer’s Guide
`to Digital Signal Processing, 2nd Ed. (1999) (“Smith”)
`Tom Thompson, Digital Signal Processor, ComputerWorld
`(March 12, 2001) (“Thompson”)
`Istvan Papp et al., Hands-Free Voice Communication Plat-
`form Integrated With TV, IEEE Digest of Technical Papers In-
`ternational Conference on Consumer Electronics (January
`2009) (“Papp”)
`Capture of IEEE Explore webpage for A Single-Chip Speech
`Dialogue Module and Its Evaluation on a Personal Robot,
`
`-4-
`
`Page 12 of 231
`
`SONOS EXHIBIT 1002
`
`

`

`
`
`EXHIBIT
`
`1029
`1030
`
`1031
`
`1032
`
`1033
`
`1034
`
`1035
`
`1036
`
`1037
`
`1038
`
`1039
`
`1040
`
`DESCRIPTION
`https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/abstract/docu-
`
`PaPeRo-Mini,
`ment/4960429
`Excerpts of 2009 IEEE ICASSP Proceedings (April 2009)
`Capture of TDX webpage for A Multi-Microphone Approach
`to Speech Processing in a Smart-Room Environment,
`https://www.tdx.cat/handle/10803/6906?locale-attrib-
`ute=en#page=1
`Capture of TDX webpage for A Multi-Microphone Approach
`to Speech Processing in a Smart-Room Environment, full item
`record, https://www.tdx.cat/handle/10803/6906?show=full
`Capture
`of
`TDX
`webpage
`for What
`is?,
`https://www.tdx.cat/quees
`Capture of UPC webpage for Doctoral theses/Deposit and as-
`sessment/Thesis deposit, https://doctorat.upc.edu/en/doctoral-
`thesis/deposit-and-assessment/thesis-deposit-and-assessment
`Capture of UPC webpage for Doctoral theses/Deposit and as-
`sessment/Public display of deposited theses, https://doc-
`torat.upc.edu/en/doctoral-thesis/deposit-and-assessment/pub-
`lic-display-of-deposited-theses
`Capture of UPC webpage for Doctoral theses/Deposit and as-
`sessment/Thesis defence, https://doctorat.upc.edu/en/doc-
`toral-thesis/deposit-and-assessment/the-doctoral-thesis-de-
`fence
`Capture of UPC webpage for Doctoral theses/Deposit and as-
`sessment/Theses published, https://doctorat.upc.edu/en/doc-
`toral-thesis/deposit-and-assessment/theses-published
`Date Element Working Draft, Dublin Core Metadata Initiative
`(Jan. 1998) https://www.dublincore.org/specifications/dub-
`lin-core/date-element/
`Capture of Research Portal webpage for Acoustic Source Lo-
`calization in a Room Environment and at Moderate Distances,
`https://researchportal.tuni.fi/en/publications/acoustic-source-
`localization-in-a-room-environment-and-at-moderat
`Excerpts of Alan Oppenheim et al., Discrete-Time Signal Pro-
`cessing, 2nd Ed. (1999) (“Oppenheim”)
`Julie Greenberg, Evaluation of an Adaptive Beamforming
`Method for Hearing Aids, The Journal of the Acoustical Soci-
`ety of America (1992) (“Greenberg”)
`
`-5-
`
`Page 13 of 231
`
`SONOS EXHIBIT 1002
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`EXHIBIT
`1041
`
`1042
`
`1049
`
`1050
`1051
`
`1052
`
`1053
`
`1054
`
`1055
`
`DESCRIPTION
`Capture of IEEE Explore webpage for Subband Adaptive Gen-
`eralized Sidelobe Canceller for Broadband Beamforming,
`https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/955356
`Excerpts of Proceedings of the 11th IEEE Signal Processing
`Workshop on Statistical Signal Processing (Aug. 2001)
`Declaration of Gordon MacPherson regarding Sato (January
`6, 2022)
`Declaration of Alberto Abad Gareta (January 18, 2022)
`Declaration of Gordon MacPherson regarding Liu (January 6,
`2022)
`Capture of UPC webpage for A Multi-Microphone Approach
`to Speech Processing in a Smart-Room Environment,
`https://upcommons.upc.edu/handle/2117/94217?locale-
`attribute=en
`Capture of UPC webpage for A Multi-Microphone Approach
`to Speech Processing in a Smart-Room Environment, full item
`record,
`https://upcommons.upc.edu/handle/2117/94217?show=full
`Capture of UPC webpage for UPCommons as a copyright
`management tool,
`https://bibliotecnica.upc.edu/en/propietat-
`intellectual/upcommons-eina-gestio-drets-autor#fet-
`probatori-addicional-propia-autoria
`Capture of IEEE Explore webpage for A Portable USB-Based
`Microphone Array Device for Robust Speech Recognition,
`https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/4959830
`
` LEGAL STANDARDS
`
`
`
`I have been instructed to follow the appropriate legal standards in
`
`providing my opinions. I am not a lawyer, but I have tried to apply the legal concepts
`
`as they have been explained to me.
`
`-6-
`
`Page 14 of 231
`
`SONOS EXHIBIT 1002
`
`

`

`
`
` Patent Invalidity
`
`
`
`I understand that an issued patent is presumed valid and that a party
`
`challenging the validity of a patent must prove invalidity by “clear and convincing
`
`evidence.” I understand that clear and convincing evidence is evidence that creates
`
`an abiding conviction that a factual contention is true. I understand that this is a
`
`lower standard than the standard used in criminal law, which is evidence “beyond a
`
`reasonable doubt.” In evaluating the validity of a patent, I understand that the
`
`validity of each asserted claim is to be evaluated independently. I also understand
`
`that an independent claim can be found invalid, even though a dependent claim to
`
`which it refers is valid. I have considered these principles in forming my opinions
`
`contained in this declaration.
`
` Obviousness
`
`
`
`I understand that an obviousness analysis involves a number of
`
`considerations. I understand that the following factors must be evaluated to
`
`determine whether any claims of the ’049 patent would have been obvious: (i) the
`
`scope and content of the prior art; (ii) the differences, if any, between each claim of
`
`the ’049 patent and the prior art; (iii) the level of ordinary skill in the art in September
`
`2010; and (iv) additional considerations, if any, that indicate that the invention was
`
`obvious or not obvious. I understand that these “additional considerations” are often
`
`-7-
`
`Page 15 of 231
`
`SONOS EXHIBIT 1002
`
`

`

`
`
`referred to as “secondary considerations” or “objective indicia” of non-obviousness
`
`or obviousness.
`
`
`
`I also understand that the frame of reference when evaluating
`
`obviousness is what a hypothetical person of ordinary skill in the pertinent art
`
`(“POSITA”) would have known in September 2010. I understand that the
`
`hypothetical person of ordinary skill is presumed to have knowledge of all pertinent
`
`prior art references.
`
`
`
`I understand that, when assessing the level of ordinary skill in the art,
`
`one is to consider factors such as (i) the type of problems encountered in the art, (ii)
`
`the prior solutions to those problems, (iii) the rapidity at which innovations are made,
`
`(iv) the sophistication of the technology, and (v) the level of education of active
`
`workers in the relevant field.
`
`
`
`I understand that a prior art reference may be a pertinent prior art
`
`reference (or “analogous art”) if it is in the same field of endeavor as the patent or if
`
`it is pertinent to the problem that the inventors were trying to solve. Here, all of the
`
`references I have reviewed in my validity analysis are in the same field of endeavor
`
`as the ’049 patent (e.g., microphone array signal processing). The references are
`
`also pertinent to a particular problem the inventor was focused on (e.g., improving
`
`quality of captured sound in a noisy environment).
`
`-8-
`
`Page 16 of 231
`
`SONOS EXHIBIT 1002
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`I understand that the following conditions may indicate that the subject
`
`matter of the claims of the ’049 patent was obvious at the time of the alleged inven-
`
`tion:
`
`• combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield pre-
`
`dictable results;
`
`• simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predict-
`
`able results;
`
`• use of known techniques to improve similar devices (methods, or prod-
`
`ucts) in the same way;
`
`• applying a known technique to a known device (method, or product)
`
`ready for improvement to yield predictable results;
`
`• “obvious to try”—choosing from a finite number of identified, predict-
`
`able solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success;
`
`• known work in one field of endeavor may prompt variations of it for
`
`use in either the same field or a different one based on design incentives
`
`or other market forces if the variations would have been predictable to
`
`one of ordinary skill in the art; and
`
`• some teaching, suggestion, or motivation in the prior art that would
`
`have led one of ordinary skill to modify the prior art reference or to
`
`combine prior art reference teachings to arrive at the claimed invention.
`
`-9-
`
`Page 17 of 231
`
`SONOS EXHIBIT 1002
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`I understand that “secondary considerations” must be considered as part
`
`of the obviousness analysis when present. I further understand that the secondary
`
`considerations may include: (1) a long-felt but unmet need in the prior art that was
`
`satisfied by the claimed invention; (2) the failure of others; (3) skepticism by experts;
`
`(4) commercial success of a product covered by the patent, including licensing; (5)
`
`unexpected results achieved by the claimed invention; (6) industry praise of the
`
`claimed invention; (7) deliberate copying of the invention; and (8) teaching away by
`
`others. I also understand that evidence of the independent and nearly simultaneous
`
`“invention” of the claimed subject matter by others is a secondary consideration
`
`supporting an obviousness determination and may support a conclusion that a
`
`claimed invention was within the knowledge of a POSITA as of September 2010.
`
`
`
`I understand that when assessing obviousness, using hindsight is
`
`impermissible; that is, what is known today or what was learned from the teachings
`
`of the patent should not be considered. The patent should not be used as a road map
`
`for selecting and combining items of prior art. Rather, obviousness must be
`
`considered from the perspective of a POSITA at the time the invention was allegedly
`
`made.
`
`
`
`I also understand that an obviousness analysis must consider the
`
`invention as a whole, as opposed to just a part or element of the invention.
`
`-10-
`
`Page 18 of 231
`
`SONOS EXHIBIT 1002
`
`

`

`
`
` Claim Construction
`
`
`
`
`
`I understand that claim limitations must be viewed from the perspective
`
`of a POSITA to which the patent pertains, as of the patent’s invention date.
`
`
`
`I understand that a claim limitation is generally given the plain and
`
`ordinary meaning that a person of ordinary skill would ascribe to it when viewed in
`
`the context of the patent’s claims, specification, and prosecution history.
`
`
`
`I understand that a patent and its prosecution history are considered
`
`“intrinsic evidence” and are the most important sources for interpreting claim
`
`language in a patent. The prosecution history of related patents and applications can
`
`also be relevant.
`
`
`
`I understand that sources extrinsic to a patent and its prosecution history
`
`(such as dictionary definitions and technical publications) may also be used to help
`
`interpret the claim language, but that such extrinsic sources cannot be used to
`
`contradict the unambiguous meaning of the claim language that is evident from the
`
`intrinsic evidence.
`
` PERSON OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART
`
`
`
`I understand that the earliest possible priority date of the claims of the
`
`’049 patent is September 24, 2010. For purposes of this declaration only, I have
`
`been asked to assume that the invention date corresponds to September 24, 2010.
`
`-11-
`
`Page 19 of 231
`
`SONOS EXHIBIT 1002
`
`

`

`
`
` To assess the level of ordinary skill in the art for the ’049 patent, I re-
`
`viewed the ’049 patent and its file history, a variety of prior art documents discussed
`
`herein, and considered factors such as (i) the type of problems encountered in the
`
`relevant art, (ii) the prior solutions to those problems, (iii) the rapidity with which
`
`innovations are made, (iv) the sophistication of the technology, and (v) the level of
`
`education of active workers in the relevant field. I also considered my own experi-
`
`ence teaching, consulting, and performing research in the fields of microphone array
`
`signal processing, along with digital signal processing and acoustics in general.
`
` Based on the aforementioned analysis, it is my opinion that a person of
`
`ordinary skill in the art (“POSITA”) for the ’049 patent as of its assumed invention
`
`date (September 24, 2010) would have a graduate degree in electrical engineering,
`
`computer science, or a similar field, with course work in digital signal processing.
`
`Alternatively, the person of ordinary skill would have a bachelor’s degree in such a
`
`field with 3 to 4 years of industry experience in digital signal processing.
`
` Moreover, based on my education and experience, I am very familiar
`
`with the level of knowledge and abilities of those meeting the above definition. In-
`
`deed, I met this definition as of September 24, 2010.
`
`
`
`In forming my opinions set forth herein, I applied the above level of
`
`ordinary skill. However, my opinions would remain the same even if the assumed
`
`invention date, field of invention, or level of ordinary skill were slightly different.
`
`-12-
`
`Page 20 of 231
`
`SONOS EXHIBIT 1002
`
`

`

`
`
` CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
`
` District Court Claim Construction Order
`
`
`
`I am aware that the District Court for the Eastern District of Texas con-
`
`strued several terms of the ’049 patent in Vocalife LLC v. Amazon.com, Inc., Case
`
`No. 2:19-cv-123-JRG. I prepared an expert report in support of Amazon’s proposed
`
`claim constructions in that litigation. I have reviewed the court’s claim construction
`
`order. Ex.1009. Below I have identified the constructions that are relevant to the
`
`opinions that I set forth herein.
`
` The court construed the term “adaptive beamforming” to mean “a
`
`beamforming process where the directivity pattern of the microphone array is capa-
`
`ble of being adaptively steered in the direction of a target sound signal emitted by a
`
`target sound source in motion.” Id. at 51.
`
` The court determined that the term “sound source localization unit”
`
`should be afforded its “plain and ordinary meaning without the need for further con-
`
`struction” and that the term “connotes structure; namely software/hardware in a DSP
`
`that includes functionality for locating a sound source.” Id. at 45-46.
`
` For this proceeding, I have been instructed to apply these constructions
`
`in my analysis, which I have done. As to the other terms that the court construed, I
`
`do not believe that any of those constructions impact my analysis of whether the
`
`Challenged Claims would have been obvious. Relatedly, I have been informed that
`
`-13-
`
`Page 21 of 231
`
`SONOS EXHIBIT 1002
`
`

`

`
`
`Vocalife has taken the position in its litigation against Sonos (as well as its litigations
`
`against Amazon and Google) that terms found in the Challenged Claims, other than
`
`those construed by the district court, should be given their “plain and ordinary mean-
`
`ing.” Thus, unless stated otherwise, I have been asked to apply the plain and
`
`ordinary meaning to the terms of the Challenged Claims, as proposed by Vocalife in
`
`the district court.
`
` TECHNOLOGY BACKGROUND
`
` The ’049 patent claims a microphone array system that includes three
`
`units: a sound source localization unit, an adaptive beamforming unit, and a noise
`
`reduction unit. The claims state that each unit is integrated into a digital signal pro-
`
`cessor (DSP). Microphone arrays and the three claimed units, as well as integrating
`
`the units into a single DSP, were well known in the art before September 2010.1
`
` Microphone Array Systems Were Well-Known
`
` Microphone array systems for enhancing desired sound signals had
`
`been well-known in the art decades before September 2010. Indeed, a seminal text-
`
`book on microphone arrays by Brandstein and Ward from 2001 that is frequently
`
`
`1 All emphasis set forth herein has been added unless noted otherwise.
`
`-14-
`
`Page 22 of 231
`
`SONOS EXHIBIT 1002
`
`

`

`
`
`cited2 in the field of microphone array applications states “[t]he study and imple-
`
`mentation of microphone arrays originated over 20 years ago.” Ex.1005 [Brandstein]
`
`at Preface. A microphone array system has two or more sound sensors (or micro-
`
`phones). The system uses the signals received by each sensor to implement various
`
`applications, such as sound source localization, beamforming, and noise reduction.
`
` Determining Microphone Delays Was Well-Known
`
` Because each microphone is located at a different position in the array,
`
`a sound signal may reach each microphone at a different time. This introduces a
`
`delay between when each microphone receives a specific signal.
`
`
`
`I have provided a simple example to illustrate this natural phenomenon.
`
`In the figure below, we have a linear array consisting of two microphones (denoted
`
`as M1 and M2). A sound signal (represented by the pink arro