IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
`MARSHALL DIVISION
`
`VOCALIFE LLC,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`
`AMAZON.COM, INC., AMAZON.COM
`LLC,
`
`Defendants.
`
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`
`CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:19-CV-00123-JRG
`
`CLAIM CONSTRUCTION MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
`
`Before the Court is the opening claim construction brief of Vocalife LLC (“Plaintiff”) (Dkt.
`
`No. 68),1 the response of Amazon.com, Inc. and Amazon.com LLC (collectively “Defendants”)
`
`(Dkt. No. 69), and Plaintiff’s reply (Dkt. No. 75). The Court held a hearing on the issues of claim
`
`construction and claim definiteness on March 24, 2020. Having considered the arguments and
`
`evidence presented by the parties at the hearing and in their briefing, the Court issues this Order.
`
`1 Citations to the parties’ filings are to the filing’s number in the docket (Dkt. No.) and pin cites
`are to the page numbers assigned through ECF.
`
`Page 1 of 54
`
`SONOS EXHIBIT 1009
`
`

`

`Table of Contents
`
`I.
`II.
`
`BACKGROUND ............................................................................................................... 3
`LEGAL PRINCIPLES ..................................................................................................... 5
`A.
`Claim Construction ................................................................................................. 5
`B.
`Departing from the Ordinary Meaning of a Claim Term ........................................ 8
`C.
`Functional Claiming and 35 U.S.C. § 112, ¶ 6 (pre-AIA) / § 112(f) (AIA) ........... 9
`D.
`Definiteness Under 35 U.S.C. § 112, ¶ 2 (pre-AIA) / § 112(b) (AIA) ................. 11
`III. CONSTRUCTION OF DISPUTED TERMS ............................................................... 12
`A.
`“determining a delay … wherein said determination of said delay enables
`beamforming” ....................................................................................................... 12
`“digital signal processor” ...................................................................................... 17
`“for said array of sound sensors in a plurality of configurations” ........................ 24
`“origin of said array of said sound sensors” ......................................................... 27
`“steering a directivity pattern” .............................................................................. 30
`“target sound signal” ............................................................................................. 32
`“target sound source” ............................................................................................ 34
`“when said target sound source that emits said target sound signal is in a
`two dimensional plane” and “when said target sound source that emits said
`target sound signal is in a three dimensional plane” ............................................. 35
`Order of Steps – Claim 1 and 20 ........................................................................... 38
`I.
`“sound source localization unit” ........................................................................... 41
`J.
`“an auditory transform based noise reduction algorithm” .................................... 46
`K.
`“adaptive beamforming” ....................................................................................... 48
`L.
`IV. CONCLUSION ............................................................................................................... 51
`
`B.
`C.
`D.
`E.
`F.
`G.
`H.
`
`
`
`2
`
`Page 2 of 54
`
`SONOS EXHIBIT 1009
`
`

`

`I.
`
`BACKGROUND
`
`Plaintiff alleges infringement of U.S. Patent No. RE47,049 (the “’049 Patent”). The ’049
`
`Patent is entitled Microphone Array System. The ’049 Patent is a reissue of U.S. Patent No.
`
`8,861,756 and lists an earliest priority claim to U.S. Patent Application No. 61/403,952, filed on
`
`September 24, 2010.
`
`In general, the ’049 Patent is directed to technology for “enhancing acoustics of a target sound
`
`signal received from a target sound source, while suppressing ambient noise signals.” ’049 Patent
`
`col.2 ll.6–8. The general approach utilizes an array of sound sensors such as microphones. The
`
`array does not require a specific geometric configuration. Id. at col.2 ll.23–26, col.3 ll.45–53. The
`
`array has a directivity pattern, which denotes the array’s response as a function of frequency and
`
`direction of the sound signal. Id. at col.5 l.51 – col.6 l.5. Figures 16D and 16E, reproduced and
`
`annotated below, depict an exemplary directivity pattern for an eight-sensor array steered to 15°.
`
`Id. at col.16 l.55 – col.18 l.43.2 The patent describes forming and steering the directivity pattern
`
`15°
`
`angle
`
`15°
`
`
`2 The ’049 Patent describes Figure 16D as depicting a directivity pattern steered to 60° but the
`peak of the pattern is at 15° in the figure. The pattern depicted in Figure 16C is described as steered
`to 15° but is depicted as peaked at 60°.
`
`
`
`3
`
`Page 3 of 54
`
`SONOS EXHIBIT 1009
`
`

`

`by determining the relative timing of receipt of the target signal at each sensor in the array and
`
`applying filter-weights to each sensor that are based on this relative timing. Id. at col.7 l.33 – col.11
`
`l.21. Different filter-weights yield different directivity patterns. Id. For example, Figures 16E
`
`through 16L depict different directivity patterns for the microphone array depicted in Figures 16A
`
`and 16B. The patterns are steered toward different angular positions by applying different
`
`filter-weights to the microphones of the array. Id. at col.16 l.55 – col.18 l.43.
`
`The abstract of the ’049 Patent provides:
`
`A method and system for enhancing a target sound signal from multiple sound
`signals is provided. An array of an arbitrary number of sound sensors positioned in
`an arbitrary configuration receives the sound signals from multiple disparate
`sources. The sound signals comprise the target sound signal from a target sound
`source, and ambient noise signals. A sound source localization unit, an adaptive
`beamforming unit, and a noise reduction unit are in operative communication with
`the array of sound sensors. The sound source localization unit estimates a spatial
`location of the target sound signal from the received sound signals. The adaptive
`beamforming unit performs adaptive beamforming by steering a directivity pattern
`of the array of sound sensors in a direction of the spatial location of the target sound
`signal, thereby enhancing the target sound signal and partially suppressing the
`ambient noise signals, which are further suppressed by the noise reduction unit.
`
`Claim 1 of the ’049 Patent, an exemplary method claim, recites as follows (with deletions
`
`from U.S. Patent No. 8,861,756 denoted with strikethrough and additions denoted with underline):
`
`1. A method for enhancing a target sound signal from a plurality of sound
`signals, comprising:
`providing a microphone array system comprising an array of sound sensors
`positioned in an arbitrary a linear, circular, or other configuration, a sound
`source localization unit, an adaptive beamforming unit, and a noise reduction
`unit, wherein said sound source localization unit, said adaptive beamforming
`unit, and said noise reduction unit are integrated in a digital signal processor,
`and wherein said sound source localization unit, said adaptive beamforming
`unit, and said noise reduction unit are in operative communication with said
`array of said sound sensors;
`receiving said sound signals from a plurality of disparate sound sources by said
`sound sensors, wherein said received sound signals comprise said target
`sound signal from a target sound source among said disparate sound sources,
`and ambient noise signals;
`determining a delay between each of said sound sensors and an origin of said
`array of said sound sensors as a function of distance between each of said
`4
`
`
`
`Page 4 of 54
`
`SONOS EXHIBIT 1009
`
`

`

`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.
`
`II.
`
`LEGAL PRINCIPLES
`
`A.
`
`Claim Construction
`
`“It is a ‘bedrock principle’ of patent law that ‘the claims of a patent define the invention to
`
`which the patentee is entitled the right to exclude.’” Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1312
`
`(Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc) (quoting Innova/Pure Water Inc. v. Safari Water Filtration Sys., Inc.,
`
`381 F.3d 1111, 1115 (Fed. Cir. 2004)). To determine the meaning of the claims, courts start by
`
`considering the intrinsic evidence. Id. at 1313; C.R. Bard, Inc. v. U.S. Surgical Corp., 388 F.3d
`
`858, 861 (Fed. Cir. 2004); Bell Atl. Network Servs., Inc. v. Covad Commc’ns Group, Inc., 262 F.3d
`
`1258, 1267 (Fed. Cir. 2001). The intrinsic evidence includes the claims themselves, the
`
`specification, and the prosecution history. Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1314; C.R. Bard, Inc., 388 F.3d at
`
`861. The general rule—subject to certain specific exceptions discussed infra—is that each claim
`
`term is construed according to its ordinary and accustomed meaning as understood by one of
`
`ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention in the context of the patent. Phillips, 415 F.3d
`
`at 1312–13; Alloc, Inc. v. Int’l Trade Comm’n, 342 F.3d 1361, 1368 (Fed. Cir. 2003); Azure
`
`Networks, LLC v. CSR PLC, 771 F.3d 1336, 1347 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (“There is a heavy presumption
`
`
`
`5
`
`Page 5 of 54
`
`SONOS EXHIBIT 1009
`
`

`

`that claim terms carry their accustomed meaning in the relevant community at the relevant time.”)
`
`(vacated on other grounds).
`
` “The claim construction inquiry … begins and ends in all cases with the actual words of the
`
`claim.” Renishaw PLC v. Marposs Societa’ per Azioni, 158 F.3d 1243, 1248 (Fed. Cir. 1998). “[I]n
`
`all aspects of claim construction, ‘the name of the game is the claim.’” Apple Inc. v. Motorola,
`
`Inc., 757 F.3d 1286, 1298 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (quoting In re Hiniker Co., 150 F.3d 1362, 1369 (Fed.
`
`Cir. 1998)). First, a term’s context in the asserted claim can be instructive. Phillips, 415 F.3d at
`
`1314. Other asserted or unasserted claims can also aid in determining the claim’s meaning, because
`
`claim terms are typically used consistently throughout the patent. Id. Differences among the claim
`
`terms can also assist in understanding a term’s meaning. Id. For example, when a dependent claim
`
`adds a limitation to an independent claim, it is presumed that the independent claim does not
`
`include the limitation. Id. at 1314–15.
`
`“[C]laims ‘must be read in view of the specification, of which they are a part.’” Id. (quoting
`
`Markman v. Westview Instruments, Inc., 52 F.3d 967, 979 (Fed. Cir. 1995) (en banc)). “[T]he
`
`specification ‘is always highly relevant to the claim construction analysis. Usually, it is dispositive;
`
`it is the single best guide to the meaning of a disputed term.’” Id. (quoting Vitronics Corp. v.
`
`Conceptronic, Inc., 90 F.3d 1576, 1582 (Fed. Cir. 1996)); Teleflex, Inc. v. Ficosa N. Am. Corp.,
`
`299 F.3d 1313, 1325 (Fed. Cir. 2002). But, “‘[a]lthough the specification may aid the court in
`
`interpreting the meaning of disputed claim language, particular embodiments and examples
`
`appearing in the specification will not generally be read into the claims.’” Comark Commc’ns, Inc.
`
`v. Harris Corp., 156 F.3d 1182, 1187 (Fed. Cir. 1998) (quoting Constant v. Advanced Micro-
`
`Devices, Inc., 848 F.2d 1560, 1571 (Fed. Cir. 1988)); see also Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1323. “[I]t is
`
`improper to read limitations from a preferred embodiment described in the specification—even if
`
`
`
`6
`
`Page 6 of 54
`
`SONOS EXHIBIT 1009
`
`

`

`it is the only embodiment—into the claims absent a clear indication in the intrinsic record that the
`
`patentee intended the claims to be so limited.” Liebel-Flarsheim Co. v. Medrad, Inc., 358 F.3d
`
`898, 913 (Fed. Cir. 2004).
`
`The prosecution history is another tool to supply the proper context for claim construction
`
`because, like the specification, the prosecution history provides evidence of how the U.S. Patent
`
`and Trademark Office (“PTO”) and the inventor understood the patent. Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1317.
`
`However, “because the prosecution history represents an ongoing negotiation between the PTO
`
`and the applicant, rather than the final product of that negotiation, it often lacks the clarity of the
`
`specification and thus is less useful for claim construction purposes.” Id. at 1318; see also Athletic
`
`Alternatives, Inc. v. Prince Mfg., 73 F.3d 1573, 1580 (Fed. Cir. 1996) (ambiguous prosecution
`
`history may be “unhelpful as an interpretive resource”).
`
`Although extrinsic evidence can also be useful, it is “‘less significant than the intrinsic record
`
`in determining the legally operative meaning of claim language.’” Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1317
`
`(quoting C.R. Bard, Inc., 388 F.3d at 862). Technical dictionaries and treatises may help a court
`
`understand the underlying technology and the manner in which one skilled in the art might use
`
`claim terms, but technical dictionaries and treatises may provide definitions that are too broad or
`
`may not be indicative of how the term is used in the patent. Id. at 1318. Similarly, expert testimony
`
`may aid a court in understanding the underlying technology and determining the particular
`
`meaning of a term in the pertinent field, but an expert’s conclusory, unsupported assertions as to a
`
`term’s definition are not helpful to a court. Id. Extrinsic evidence is “less reliable than the patent
`
`and its prosecution history in determining how to read claim terms.” Id. The Supreme Court has
`
`explained the role of extrinsic evidence in claim construction:
`
`In some cases, however, the district court will need to look beyond the patent’s
`intrinsic evidence and to consult extrinsic evidence in order to understand, for
`
`
`
`7
`
`Page 7 of 54
`
`SONOS EXHIBIT 1009
`
`

`

`example, the background science or the meaning of a term in the relevant art during
`the relevant time period. See, e.g., Seymour v. Osborne, 11 Wall. 516, 546 (1871)
`(a patent may be “so interspersed with technical terms and terms of art that the
`testimony of scientific witnesses is indispensable to a correct understanding of its
`meaning”). In cases where those subsidiary facts are in dispute, courts will need to
`make subsidiary factual findings about that extrinsic evidence. These are the
`“evidentiary underpinnings” of claim construction that we discussed in Markman,
`and this subsidiary factfinding must be reviewed for clear error on appeal.
`
`Teva Pharm. USA, Inc. v. Sandoz, Inc., 574 U.S. 318, 331–32 (2015).
`
`B.
`
`Departing from the Ordinary Meaning of a Claim Term
`
`There are “only two exceptions to [the] general rule” that claim terms are construed according
`
`to their plain and ordinary meaning: “1) when a patentee sets out a definition and acts as his own
`
`lexicographer, or 2) when the patentee disavows the full scope of the claim term either in the
`
`specification or during prosecution.”3 Golden Bridge Tech., Inc. v. Apple Inc., 758 F.3d 1362, 1365
`
`(Fed. Cir. 2014) (quoting Thorner v. Sony Computer Entm’t Am. LLC, 669 F.3d 1362, 1365 (Fed.
`
`Cir. 2012)); see also GE Lighting Solutions, LLC v. AgiLight, Inc., 750 F.3d 1304, 1309 (Fed. Cir.
`
`2014) (“[T]he specification and prosecution history only compel departure from the plain meaning
`
`in two instances: lexicography and disavowal.”). The standards for finding lexicography or
`
`disavowal are “exacting.” GE Lighting Solutions, 750 F.3d at 1309.
`
`To act as his own lexicographer, the patentee must “clearly set forth a definition of the
`
`disputed claim term,” and “clearly express an intent to define the term.” Id. (quoting Thorner, 669
`
`F.3d at 1365); see also Renishaw, 158 F.3d at 1249. The patentee’s lexicography must appear
`
`“with reasonable clarity, deliberateness, and precision.” Renishaw, 158 F.3d at 1249.
`
`
`3 Some cases have characterized other principles of claim construction as “exceptions” to the
`general rule, such as the statutory requirement that a means-plus-function term is construed to
`cover the corresponding structure disclosed in the specification. See, e.g., CCS Fitness, Inc. v.
`Brunswick Corp., 288 F.3d 1359, 1367 (Fed. Cir. 2002).
`8
`
`
`
`Page 8 of 54
`
`SONOS EXHIBIT 1009
`
`

`

`To disavow or disclaim the full scope of a claim term, the patentee’s statements in the
`
`specification or prosecution history must amount to a “clear and unmistakable” surrender. Cordis
`
`Corp. v. Boston Sci. Corp., 561 F.3d 1319, 1329 (Fed. Cir. 2009); see also Thorner, 669 F.3d at
`
`1366 (“The patentee may demonstrate intent to deviate from the ordinary and accustomed meaning
`
`of a claim term by including in the specification expressions of manifest exclusion or restriction,
`
`representing a clear disavowal of claim scope.”). “Where an applicant’s statements are amenable
`
`to multiple reasonable interpretations, they cannot be deemed clear and unmistakable.” 3M
`
`Innovative Props. Co. v. Tredegar Corp., 725 F.3d 1315, 1326 (Fed. Cir. 2013).
`
`C.
`
`Functional Claiming and 35 U.S.C. § 112, ¶ 6 (pre-AIA) / § 112(f) (AIA)
`
`A patent claim may be expressed using functional language. See 35 U.S.C. § 112, ¶ 6;
`
`Williamson v. Citrix Online, LLC, 792 F.3d 1339, 1347–49 & n.3 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (en banc in
`
`relevant portion). Section 112, Paragraph 6, provides that a structure may be claimed as a “means
`
`… for performing a specified function” and that an act may be claimed as a “step for performing
`
`a specified function.” Masco Corp. v. United States, 303 F.3d 1316, 1326 (Fed. Cir. 2002).
`
`But § 112, ¶ 6 does not apply to all functional claim language. There is a rebuttable
`
`presumption that § 112, ¶ 6 applies when the claim language includes “means” or “step for” terms,
`
`and that it does not apply in the absence of those terms. Masco Corp., 303 F.3d at 1326;
`
`Williamson, 792 F.3d at 1348. The presumption stands or falls according to whether one of
`
`ordinary skill in the art would understand the claim with the functional language, in the context of
`
`the entire specification, to denote sufficiently definite structure or acts for performing the function.
`
`See Media Rights Techs., Inc. v. Capital One Fin. Corp., 800 F.3d 1366, 1372 (Fed. Cir. 2015)
`
`(§ 112, ¶ 6 does not apply when “the claim language, read in light of the specification, recites
`
`sufficiently definite structure” (quotation marks omitted) (citing Williamson, 792 F.3d at 1349;
`
`Robert Bosch, LLC v. Snap-On Inc., 769 F.3d 1094, 1099 (Fed. Cir. 2014))); Williamson, 792 F.3d
`9
`
`
`
`Page 9 of 54
`
`SONOS EXHIBIT 1009
`
`

`

`at 1349 (§ 112, ¶ 6 does not apply when “the words of the claim are understood by persons of
`
`ordinary skill in the art to have sufficiently definite meaning as the name for structure”); Masco
`
`Corp., 303 F.3d at 1326 (§ 112, ¶ 6 does not apply when the claim includes an “act” corresponding
`
`to “how the function is performed”); Personalized Media Communications, L.L.C. v. International
`
`Trade Commission, 161 F.3d 696, 704 (Fed. Cir. 1998) (§ 112, ¶ 6 does not apply when the claim
`
`includes “sufficient structure, material, or acts within the claim itself to perform entirely the recited
`
`function … even if the claim uses the term ‘means.’” (quotation marks and citation omitted)).
`
`When it applies, § 112, ¶ 6 limits the scope of the functional term “to only the structure,
`
`materials, or acts described in the specification as corresponding to the claimed function and
`
`equivalents thereof.” Williamson, 792 F.3d at 1347. Construing a means-plus-function limitation
`
`involves multiple steps. “The first step … is a determination of the function of the means-plus-
`
`function limitation.” Medtronic, Inc. v. Advanced Cardiovascular Sys., Inc., 248 F.3d 1303, 1311
`
`(Fed. Cir. 2001). “[T]he next step is to determine the corresponding structure disclosed in the
`
`specification and equivalents thereof.” Id. A “structure disclosed in the specification is
`
`‘corresponding’ structure only if the specification or prosecution history clearly links or associates
`
`that structure to the function recited in the claim.” Id. The focus of the “corresponding structure”
`
`inquiry is not merely whether a structure is capable of performing the recited function, but rather
`
`whether the corresponding structure is “clearly linked or associated with the [recited] function.”
`
`Id. The corresponding structure “must include all structure that actually performs the recited
`
`function.” Default Proof Credit Card Sys. v. Home Depot U.S.A., Inc., 412 F.3d 1291, 1298 (Fed.
`
`Cir. 2005). However, § 112 does not permit “incorporation of structure from the written
`
`description beyond that necessary to perform the claimed function.” Micro Chem., Inc. v. Great
`
`Plains Chem. Co., 194 F.3d 1250, 1258 (Fed. Cir. 1999).
`
`
`
`10
`
`Page 10 of 54
`
`SONOS EXHIBIT 1009
`
`

`

`For § 112, ¶ 6 limitations implemented by a programmed general purpose computer or
`
`microprocessor, the corresponding structure described in the patent specification must include an
`
`algorithm for performing the function. WMS Gaming Inc. v. Int’l Game Tech., 184 F.3d 1339,
`
`1349 (Fed. Cir. 1999). The corresponding structure is not a general purpose computer but rather
`
`the special purpose computer programmed to perform the disclosed algorithm. Aristocrat Techs.
`
`Austl. Pty Ltd. v. Int’l Game Tech., 521 F.3d 1328, 1333 (Fed. Cir. 2008).
`
`D.
`
`Definiteness Under 35 U.S.C. § 112, ¶ 2 (pre-AIA) / § 112(b) (AIA)
`
`Patent claims must particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter regarded as
`
`the invention. 35 U.S.C. § 112, ¶ 2. A claim, when viewed in light of the intrinsic evidence, must
`
`“inform those skilled in the art about the scope of the invention with reasonable certainty.” Nautilus
`
`Inc. v. Biosig Instruments, Inc., 572 U.S. 898, 910 (2014). If it does not, the claim fails § 112, ¶ 2
`
`and is therefore invalid as indefinite. Id. at 901. Whether a claim is indefinite is determined from
`
`the perspective of one of ordinary skill in the art as of the time the application for the patent was
`
`filed. Id. at 911. As it is a challenge to the validity of a patent, the failure of any claim in suit to
`
`comply with § 112 must be shown by clear and convincing evidence. BASF Corp. v. Johnson
`
`Matthey Inc., 875 F.3d 1360, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2017). “[I]ndefiniteness is a question of law and in
`
`effect part of claim construction.” ePlus, Inc. v. Lawson Software, Inc., 700 F.3d 509, 517 (Fed.
`
`Cir. 2012).
`
`When a term of degree is used in a claim, “the court must determine whether the patent
`
`provides some standard for measuring that degree.” Biosig Instruments, Inc. v. Nautilus, Inc., 783
`
`F.3d 1374, 1378 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (quotation marks omitted). Likewise, when a subjective term is
`
`used in a claim, “the court must determine whether the patent’s specification supplies some
`
`standard for measuring the scope of the [term].” Datamize, LLC v. Plumtree Software, Inc., 417
`
`
`
`11
`
`Page 11 of 54
`
`SONOS EXHIBIT 1009
`
`

`

`F.3d 1342, 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2005). The standard “must provide objective boundaries for those of
`
`skill in the art.” Interval Licensing LLC v. AOL, Inc., 766 F.3d 1364, 1371 (Fed. Cir. 2014).
`
`In the context of a claim governed by 35 U.S.C. § 112, ¶ 6, the claim is invalid as indefinite
`
`if the claim fails to disclose adequate corresponding structure to perform the claimed function.
`
`Williamson, 792 F.3d at 1351–52. The disclosure is inadequate when one of ordinary skill in the
`
`art “would be unable to recognize the structure in the specification and associate it with the
`
`corresponding function in the claim.” Id. at 1352.
`
`III. CONSTRUCTION OF DISPUTED TERMS
`
`A.
`
`“determining a delay … wherein said determination of said delay enables
`beamforming”
`
`Plaintiff’s Proposed
`Construction
`plain and ordinary
`meaning
`
`Defendants’ Proposed
`Construction
`excludes identifying the
`direction exhibiting
`maximum energy
`among beams pointing
`in each of a prescribed
`number of directions
`
`Disputed Term4
`
`“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”
`
`• Claim 1
`
`
`4 For all term charts in this order, the claims in which the term is found are listed with the term
`but: (1) only the highest-level claim in each dependency chain is listed, and (2) only asserted claims
`identified in the parties’ Joint Claim Construction Chart Pursuant to P.R. 4-5(d) (Dkt. No. 76) are
`listed.
`
`
`
`12
`
`Page 12 of 54
`
`SONOS EXHIBIT 1009
`
`

`

`Plaintiff’s Proposed
`Construction
`
`Defendants’ Proposed
`Construction
`
`Disputed Term4
`
`“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 first
`reference axis, an elevation angle between
`a second reference axis and said target
`sound signal, and an azimuth angle
`between said first reference axis and said
`target sound signal, when said target sound
`source that emits said target sound signal is
`in a three dimensional plane, wherein said
`delay is represented in terms of number of
`samples, and wherein said determination of
`said delay enables beamforming”
`
`• Claim 20
`
`Because the parties’ arguments and proposed constructions with respect to these terms are
`
`related, the Court addresses the terms together.
`
`The Parties’ Positions
`
`Plaintiff submits: These terms do not need to be construed and there is nothing in the intrinsic
`
`record to justify Defendants’ negative limitation. Rather than disclaiming the maximum-energy
`
`approach that Defendants seek to exclude from the scope of the claims, the patentee explained
`
`during prosecution of the ’049 Patent that a prior-art reference (“Tashev”) “did not teach any
`
`delay.” Further, the ’049 Patent includes embodiments that use power in calculations. Dkt. No. 68
`
`at 7–9.
`
`In addition to the claims themselves, Plaintiff cites the following intrinsic evidence to support
`
`its position: ’049 Patent col.2 ll.30–33, col.6 ll.6–12, col.6 ll.54–59, col.11 l.25 – col.12 l.17; ’049
`
`Patent File Wrapper January 29, 2018 Response at 26 (Plaintiff’s Ex. C, Dkt. No. 68-4 at 27).
`
`
`
`13
`
`Page 13 of 54
`
`SONOS EXHIBIT 1009
`
`

`

`Defendants respond: During prosecution of the ’049 Patent, the patentee distinguished Tashev
`
`by characterizing the reference as teaching “identifying ‘the direction exhibiting maximum energy’
`
`among beams pointing in ‘each of a prescribed number of directions’” rather than teaching the
`
`determining limitation. Thus, the patentee disclaimed “identifying the direction exhibiting
`
`maximum energy among beams pointing in each of a prescribed number of directions” from the
`
`scope of the determining limitations, even if the claims otherwise allow for use of power. Dkt. No.
`
`69 at 18–20.
`
`In addition to the claims themselves, Defendants cite the following intrinsic and extrinsic
`
`evidence to support their position: Intrinsic evidence: ’049 Patent January 29, 2018 Response at
`
`24–25, 28 (Defendants’ Ex. R, Dkt. No. 69-19 at 25–26, 29). Extrinsic evidence: Stern Decl.5 ¶
`
`55 (Defendants’ Ex. X, Dkt. No. 69-25).
`
`Plaintiff replies: The patentee distinguished Tashev on the ground that Tashev did not teach
`
`using a delay rather than disclaiming “identifying the direction exhibiting maximum energy among
`
`beams pointing in each of a prescribed number of directions” from the scope of the claimed
`
`invention. Dkt. No. 75 at 5.
`
`Plaintiff cites further intrinsic evidence to support its position: ’049 Patent File Wrapper
`
`January 29, 2018 Response at 25–27 (Plaintiff’s Ex. C, Dkt. No. 68-4 at 26–28).
`
`Analysis
`
`The issue in dispute is whether “identifying the direction exhibiting maximum energy among
`
`beams pointing in each of a prescribed number of directions” was disclaimed from the scope of
`
`
`5 Declaration of Richard M. Stern in Support of Defendants’ Responsive Claim Construction Brief.
`Plaintiff submitted the unsworn version of Dr. Stern’s report as its Exhibit D, Dkt. No. 68-5. The
`Court cites both the sworn declaration and the unsworn report, but does not perceive a substantial
`difference in the content of these two documents.
`14
`
`
`
`Page 14 of 54
`
`SONOS EXHIBIT 1009
`
`

`

`the “determining a delay … wherein said determination of said delay enables beamforming”
`
`limitations. While “identifying the direction exhibiting maximum energy among beams pointing
`
`in each of a prescribed number of directions” cannot alone satisfy the “determining a delay …”
`
`limitations, the patentee did not disclaim “identifying the direction exhibiting maximum energy
`
`among beams pointing in each of a prescribed number of directions” from playing any role in the
`
`“determining a delay …” limitations, or in the claimed invention.
`
`During prosecution of the ’049 Patent, the patentee noted the claim language at issue here,
`
`and stated as follows:
`
`In paragraph [0062] of applicant’s original application, applicant teaches that the
`delay (x) between each of the sound sensors 301 and the origin of the microphone
`array 201 is determined as a function of distance (d) between each of the sound
`sensors 301 and the origin, a predefined angle (<D) between each of the sound
`sensors 301 and a reference axis (Y) as exemplarily illustrated in FIG. 5, and an
`azimuth angle (9) between the reference axis (Y) and the target sound signal. The
`distance between each of the sound sensors in the microphone array and the origin
`can he same (see FIGS. 16A, 16B and 18 B), or different (see FIGS. 19A and 19B).
`The claimed method is applicable for both cases. The determined delay (x) is
`represented in terms of number of samples; see paragraph [0063], which discloses:
`“the delay (T) can be represented as the product of the sampling frequency (fs) and
`the time delay (t). That is, T=fs*t. Therefore, the distance between the sound
`sensors in the microphone array and the origin corresponds to the time used for
`the target sound signal to travel the distance and is measured by the number of
`samples within that time period.” Once the delay is determined, the microphone
`array can be aligned to enhance the target sound signal from a specific direction.
`
`In contrast, Tashev discloses, inter alia, a system and process for sound source
`localization, by calculating the energy of each frame set of the microphone signal
`in the sequence they were captured. This energy value is used for both noise floor
`tracking and frame classification. Thus, the frame set passing the minimum energy
`threshold test is subjected to the beamsteering procedure. This involves computing
`the full spectrum energy for each of a prescribed number of directions. After finding
`the energy as a function of the direction angle, the direction exhibiting the
`maximum energy and a prescribed number of its neighboring (i.e., adjacent) search
`directions are interpolated. The result of the interpolation process is then designated
`as the direction identifying the location of the sound source; see Tashev paragraphs
`[0072]-[0074].
`
`Tashev does not teach or sugg