`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`GOOGLE LLC,
`
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`JAWBONE INNOVATIONS, LLC,
`
`Patent Owner.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2022-00649
`
`Patent No. 8,019,091
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`DECLARATION OF DAVID V. ANDERSON, PH.D.
`
`Page 1 of 113
`
`GOOGLE EXHIBIT 1003
`
`

`

`U.S. Patent No. 8,019,091
`Declaration of David V. Anderson, Ph.D.
`
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................... 3
`I.
`II. QUALIFICATIONS ........................................................................................ 4
`III. MATERIALS CONSIDERED ........................................................................ 6
`IV. LEGAL STANDARDS ................................................................................... 8
`V.
`LEVEL OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART ........................................... 11
`VI. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION .......................................................................... 12
`VII. BACKGROUND OF THE ’091 PATENT ................................................... 14
`A.
`The ’091 Patent ................................................................................... 14
`B.
`Prosecution History of the ’091 Patent ............................................... 19
`VIII. GROUNDS OF UNPATENTABILITY ........................................................ 22
`IX. CLAIMS 1-20 WOULD HAVE BEEN OBVIOUS TO A PERSON
`OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART BASED ON THE PRIOR
`ART IN GROUNDS 1-3 ............................................................................... 23
`A.
`[Ground 1] Claims 1-2, 4-8, 11-14, 16, and 18-20 Are Rendered
`Obvious by Al-Kindi in view of Bartlett and Alcivar ......................... 23
`1.
`Overview of Al-Kindi ............................................................... 23
`2.
`Overview of Alcivar.................................................................. 27
`3.
`Overview of Bartlett.................................................................. 29
`4.
`Independent Claim 11 ............................................................... 30
`5.
`Dependent Claims 12-14 and 16 ............................................... 65
`6.
`Independent Claim 18 ............................................................... 68
`7.
`Dependent Claims 19 and 20 .................................................... 78
`8.
`Independent Claim 1 ................................................................. 79
`
`
`
`Page 2 of 113
`
`

`

`
`
`X.
`
`
`
`U.S. Patent No. 8,019,091
`Declaration of David V. Anderson, Ph.D.
`
`B.
`
`Dependent Claims 2 and 4-8 ..................................................... 86
`9.
`[Ground 2] Claims 3, 9, and 15 Are Rendered Obvious by
`Al-Kindi in view of Bartlett, Alcivar, and Hussain ............................ 91
`1.
`Overview of Hussain ................................................................. 91
`2.
`Claim 3: “wherein the acoustic signals include at least
`one reflection of at least one associated noise source
`signal and at least one reflection of at least one acoustic
`source signal.” ........................................................................... 94
`Claims 9 and 15 ......................................................................... 98
`3.
`[Ground 3] Claims 10 and 17 Are Rendered Obvious by
`Al-Kindi in view of Bartlett, Alcivar, and Romesburg .....................106
`1.
`Overview of Romesburg .........................................................106
`2.
`Claims 10 and 17: “The [method/system] of claim [1/11],
`wherein the at least two acoustic microphones comprise a
`first directional acoustic microphone and a second
`directional acoustic microphone, wherein the first
`directional acoustic microphone and the second
`directional acoustic microphone selectively attenuate the
`acoustic signals based on the direction of arrival.” ................108
`CONCLUSION ............................................................................................111
`
`C.
`
`
`
`
`
`Page 3 of 113
`
`

`

`U.S. Patent No. 8,019,091
`Declaration of David V. Anderson, Ph.D.
`
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`1.
`
`I have been retained Google LLC (“Google” or “Petitioner”) as an
`
`independent expert consultant in this proceeding before the United States Patent
`
`and Trademark Office.
`
`2.
`
`I am over 21 years of age and, if I am called upon to do so, I would be
`
`competent to testify as to the matters set forth herein.
`
`3. My compensation is in no way contingent on the nature of my
`
`findings, the presentation of my findings in testimony, or the outcome of any
`
`proceeding.
`
`4.
`
`I understand that this proceeding involves U.S. Patent No. 8,019,091
`
`(“the ’091 patent,” Ex. 1001). The application for the ’091 patent was filed on
`
`September 18, 2003, as U.S. Patent Application No. 10/667,207 (“the ’207
`
`application”). The ’207 application issued as the ’091 patent on September 13,
`
`2011.
`
`5.
`
`The ’091 patent claims priority to U.S. Patent Application
`
`No. 09/905,361 and U.S. Provisional Patent Application No. 60/219,297. The
`
`provisional application has the earliest filing date and was filed on July 19, 2000.
`
`6.
`
`I have been asked by Petitioner to provide my opinion whether the
`
`claims of the ’091 patent would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in
`
`the art at the time of the earliest claimed priority date of the ’091 patent. In
`
`
`
`Page 4 of 113
`
`

`

`U.S. Patent No. 8,019,091
`Declaration of David V. Anderson, Ph.D.
`
`
`performing my analysis, I have been asked to assume that the priority date is July
`
`19, 2000. My opinions are set forth below.
`
`7.
`
`Throughout this declaration, I refer to specific pages, figures, and/or
`
`line numbers of various exhibits. These citations are illustrative and are not
`
`intended to suggest that they are the only support for the propositions for which
`
`they are cited.
`
`II. QUALIFICATIONS
`
`8.
`
`I am a professor in the School of Electrical and Computer Engineering
`
`at the Georgia Institute of Technology (“Georgia Tech”) in Atlanta, Georgia. I
`
`received my Ph.D. in Electrical and Computer Engineering from Georgia Tech in
`
`1999, and I received my B.S. and M.S. in Electrical Engineering from Brigham
`
`Young University in 1993 and 1994, respectively.
`
`9.
`
`Before becoming a professor at Georgia Tech, I worked, performed
`
`research, and consulted in audio signal processing since 1991. In 1993, I designed
`
`and taught a graduate lab course in signal processing, in which students estimated
`
`transfer functions (such as the H1(z) disclosed in the ’091 patent). In 1993-1994, I
`
`worked in the field of speech and audio signal processing designing and
`
`implementing signal processing methods for hearing aids at Sonic Innovations. In
`
`1996-1997, I developed algorithms for general speech enhancement algorithms for
`
`wireless telephone systems as a consultant to a high-tech start-up company. In
`
`
`
`Page 5 of 113
`
`

`

`U.S. Patent No. 8,019,091
`Declaration of David V. Anderson, Ph.D.
`
`
`1997-1999, I developed and patented adaptive filters and speech activity detectors
`
`for use in noise reduction for Atlanta Signal Processors, Inc. My patents include
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,351,731, titled “Adaptive filter featuring spectral gain smoothing
`
`and variable noise multiplier for noise reduction, and methods therefor,” and U.S.
`
`Patent No. 6,453,285, titled “Speech activity detector for use in noise reduction
`
`system, and methods therefore.”
`
`10.
`
`In my employment prior to Georgia Tech, as well as in my subsequent
`
`studies and research, I have worked extensively in areas related to research, design,
`
`and implementation of noise reduction technologies. I have also taught graduate
`
`and undergraduate level courses at Georgia Tech on the implementation of signal
`
`processing theory, algorithms, implementation, and software. For example, I have
`
`taught courses on multimedia processing and systems, machine learning for
`
`speech, pattern recognition, software design, and signal processing applications
`
`(covering topics in audio processing, speech detection, speech processing, and
`
`speech recognition). I have designed and taught a course on signal processing in
`
`the context of human perception which covered methods of enhancing speech in
`
`background noise. I have also designed and taught a course on adaptive signal
`
`processing which includes the topics of estimating transfer functions (such as the
`
`H1(z) disclosed in the ’091 patent), correlation, and extracting signals of interest
`
`
`
`Page 6 of 113
`
`

`

`U.S. Patent No. 8,019,091
`Declaration of David V. Anderson, Ph.D.
`
`
`from noisy signals. These courses and my research have covered many topics
`
`relevant to the subject matter of the ’091 patent and the cited prior art.
`
`11.
`
`I also have extensive experience with the practical implementation of
`
`signal processing algorithms, information theory, signal detection, and related
`
`topics through my research and consulting.
`
`12. A copy of my CV, including a list of recent litigations I have testified
`
`in, is attached as Exhibit 1004. My compensation is not contingent upon the
`
`outcome of this inter partes review or any other proceeding.
`
`III. MATERIALS CONSIDERED
`
`13.
`
`In forming my opinions, I have reviewed the following documents,
`
`and any other document cited in this declaration:
`
`Exhibit
`
`Description
`
`Ex. 1001 U.S. Patent No. 8,019,091 (“the ’091 patent”)
`
`Ex. 1002 Prosecution History of the ’091 Patent
`
`Ex. 1005 M.J. Al-Kindi et al., Improved Adaptive Noise Cancellation in the
`Presence of Signal Leakage on the Noise Reference Channel, Signal
`Processing, Vol. 17, Issue 3 (July 1989) (“Al-Kindi”)
`
`Ex. 1006 U.S. Patent No. 5,473,684 to Bartlett et al. (“Bartlett”)
`
`Ex. 1007 U.S. Patent No. 3,746,789 to Alcivar (“Alcivar”)
`
`Ex. 1008 Amir Hussain et al., A New Metric for Selecting Sub-Band Processing
`in Adaptive Speech Enhancement Systems, Proc. 5th European
`
`
`
`Page 7 of 113
`
`

`

`U.S. Patent No. 8,019,091
`Declaration of David V. Anderson, Ph.D.
`
`
`
`Exhibit
`
`Description
`Conference on Speech Communication and Technology (Eurospeech
`’97), 2611-2614 (“Hussain”)
`
`Ex. 1009 U.S. Patent No. 5,796,819 to Romesburg (“Romesburg”)
`
`Ex. 1010 J. Dunlop et al., Application of Adaptive Noise Cancelling to Diver
`Voice Communications (“Dunlop”)
`
`Ex. 1011 U.S. Patent No. 5,978,824 to Ikeda (“Ikeda”)
`
`Ex. 1019 Patent Owner’s Claim Chart for U.S. Patent No. 8,019,091, Jawbone
`Innovations, LLC v. Google LLC, Case No. 6:21-cv-00985 (W.D.
`Tex.)
`
`Ex. 1020 Bernard Widrow & Samuel D. Stearns, Adaptive Signal Processing,
`Prentice-Hall (1985) (“Widrow”)
`
`Ex. 1021 U.S. Patent No. 6,377,919 to Burnett et al. (“Burnett”)
`
`Ex. 1022 U.S. Patent No. 6,006,175 to Holzrichter (“Holzrichter ’175”)
`
`Ex. 1028 U.S. Patent No. 5,208,864 to Kaneda (“Kaneda”)
`
`
`
`14.
`
`I have also relied on my education, experience, research, training, and
`
`knowledge in the relevant art, and my understanding of any applicable legal
`
`principles described in this declaration.
`
`15. All of the opinions contained in this declaration are based on the
`
`documents I reviewed and my knowledge and professional judgment. My opinions
`
`have also been guided by my understanding of how a person of ordinary skill in the
`
`art would have understood the claims of the ’091 patent at the time of the alleged
`
`
`
`Page 8 of 113
`
`

`

`U.S. Patent No. 8,019,091
`Declaration of David V. Anderson, Ph.D.
`
`
`invention. For purposes of this declaration, I have been asked to assume that the
`
`date of the alleged invention is the earliest claimed priority date: July 19, 2000.
`
`16.
`
`I reserve the right to supplement and amend any of my opinions in
`
`this declaration based on documents, testimony, and other information that
`
`becomes available to me after the date of this declaration.
`
`IV. LEGAL STANDARDS
`
`17. For purposes of this declaration, I have been asked to opine only on
`
`issues regarding obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103. I have been informed of the
`
`following legal standards, which I have applied in forming my opinions.
`
`18.
`
`I have been asked to provide my opinions as to whether the cited prior
`
`art teaches or renders obvious claims 1-20 of the ’091 patent from the perspective
`
`of a person of ordinary skill in the art at the ’091 patent’s priority date in 2000, as
`
`described in more detail below.
`
`19. For purposes of this declaration, I have been informed and understand
`
`certain aspects of the law as it relates to my opinions.
`
`20.
`
`I have been advised and understand that there are two ways in which
`
`prior art may render a patent claim unpatentable. First, I have been advised that the
`
`prior art can “anticipate” a claim. Second, I have been advised that the prior art can
`
`make a claim “obvious” to a person of ordinary skill in the art. I understand that for
`
`
`
`Page 9 of 113
`
`

`

`U.S. Patent No. 8,019,091
`Declaration of David V. Anderson, Ph.D.
`
`
`an invention claimed in a patent to be patentable, it must not be anticipated and
`
`must not be obvious based on what was known before the invention was made.
`
`21.
`
`I have been advised and understand the information used to evaluate
`
`whether an invention was new and not obvious when made is generally referred to
`
`as “prior art.” I understand that prior art includes patents and printed publications
`
`that existed before the earliest filing date of the patent (which I have been informed
`
`is also called the “effective filing date”). I have been informed and understand that
`
`a patent or published patent application is prior art if it was filed before the earliest
`
`filing date of the claimed invention and that a printed publication is prior art if it
`
`was publicly available before the earliest filing date.
`
`22.
`
`I have been advised and understand that a dependent claim is a patent
`
`claim that refers back to another patent claim. I have been informed and
`
`understand that a dependent claim includes all of the limitations of the claim to
`
`which it refers.
`
`23.
`
`I have been advised and understand that a patent claim may be invalid
`
`as obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103 if the differences between the subject matter
`
`claimed and the prior art are such that the claimed subject matter as a whole would
`
`have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention
`
`was made. I have also been advised that several factual inquiries underlie a
`
`determination of obviousness. These inquiries include (1) the scope and content of
`
`
`
`Page 10 of 113
`
`

`

`U.S. Patent No. 8,019,091
`Declaration of David V. Anderson, Ph.D.
`
`
`the prior art, (2) the level of ordinary skill in the field of the invention, (3) the
`
`differences between the claimed invention and the prior art, and (4) any objective
`
`evidence of non-obviousness (which I have been informed may also be called
`
`“secondary considerations”).
`
`24.
`
`I have also been advised and understand that, when obviousness is
`
`based on a combination of references, that party must identify a reason why a
`
`person skilled in the art would have been motivated to combine or modify the
`
`asserted references in the manner recited in the claims and to explain why one
`
`skilled in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success in making
`
`such combinations or modifications.
`
`25.
`
`I have been advised and understand that the law permits the
`
`application of “common sense” in examining whether a claimed invention would
`
`have been obvious to a person skilled in the art. For example, I have been advised
`
`that combining familiar elements according to known methods and in a predictable
`
`way may suggest obviousness when such a combination would yield nothing more
`
`than predictable results. I understand, however, that a claim is not obvious merely
`
`because every claim element is disclosed in the prior art and that a party asserting
`
`obviousness must still provide a specific motivation to combine or modify the
`
`references as recited in the claims and explain why one skilled in the art would
`
`have reasonably expected to succeed in doing so.
`
`
`
`Page 11 of 113
`
`

`

`U.S. Patent No. 8,019,091
`Declaration of David V. Anderson, Ph.D.
`
`
`
`26.
`
`I have been advised and understand that two references are considered
`
`to be in the same field of art when the references are either (1) in the same field of
`
`endeavor, regardless of the problems they address, or (2) reasonably pertinent to
`
`the particular problem being solved by the inventor in his patent.
`
`27.
`
`I am not aware of any evidence of secondary considerations that
`
`would support a determination of non-obviousness of the claimed subject matter in
`
`the ’091 patent.
`
`28.
`
` I have been informed that in inter partes review proceedings, such as
`
`this one, the party challenging the patent bears the burden of proving
`
`unpatentability by a preponderance of the evidence. I understand that a
`
`preponderance of the evidence means “more likely than not.”
`
`V. LEVEL OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART
`
`29.
`
`In rendering the opinions set forth in this declaration, I have been
`
`asked to consider the ’091 patent’s claims and the prior art through the eyes of a
`
`person of ordinary skill in the art (which I may also refer to as “one skilled in the
`
`art,” “skilled artisan,” “POSITA,” or similar variation). I have considered factors
`
`such as the educational level and years of experience of those working in the
`
`pertinent art, the types of problems encountered in the art, the teachings of the
`
`prior art, patents and publications of other persons or companies, and the
`
`sophistication of the technology.
`
`
`
`Page 12 of 113
`
`

`

`U.S. Patent No. 8,019,091
`Declaration of David V. Anderson, Ph.D.
`
`
`
`30.
`
`I have been instructed to assume a person of ordinary skill in the art is
`
`not a specific real individual, but rather a hypothetical individual having the
`
`qualities reflected by the factors discussed above.
`
`31. Taking these factors into consideration, it is my opinion that a person
`
`of ordinary skill in the art of the ’091 patent as of its filing date, would have had a
`
`minimum of a bachelor’s degree in computer engineering, computer science,
`
`electrical engineering, mechanical engineering, or a similar field, and
`
`approximately three years of industry or academic experience in a field related to
`
`acoustics, speech recognition, speech detection, or signal processing. Work
`
`experience can substitute for formal education and additional formal education can
`
`substitute for work experience.
`
`32. By July 19, 2000, I was at least a person of ordinary skill in the art, as
`
`shown by my qualifications and work experience above.
`
`33.
`
`In this declaration, and for all of my opinions herein, I have applied
`
`the knowledge of a person of ordinary skill in the art as of July 19, 2000.
`
`VI. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
`
`34.
`
`I have been instructed that the words of a claim are typically given
`
`their ordinary and customary meaning, as they would have been understood by a
`
`person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention, in view of the
`
`intrinsic record (discussed below). In this case, I have been instructed to assume
`
`
`
`Page 13 of 113
`
`

`

`U.S. Patent No. 8,019,091
`Declaration of David V. Anderson, Ph.D.
`
`
`that the “time of the invention” for purposes of claim construction is July 19, 2000,
`
`which is the earliest claimed priority filing date for the ’091 patent. The opinions
`
`herein pertain to that time frame, except where expressly stated otherwise.
`
`35.
`
`I have been instructed that the “intrinsic record” includes the patent
`
`itself, including the claims, description, and figures (Ex. 1001), and the patent’s
`
`prosecution history—i.e., the record of proceedings at the U.S. Patent and
`
`Trademark Office (“Patent Office”) concerning the patent (Ex. 1002). I understand
`
`that, like the claims and written description, the prosecution history provides
`
`evidence to a person of ordinary skill in the art of how the inventor intended his
`
`patent to be understood, and how the Patent Office understood the patent. I
`
`understand that the inventor is permitted to apply a special definition to the terms
`
`or to limit the scope of claim terms in his patent claims, which may differ from the
`
`term’s plain and ordinary meaning. That special definition or limitation on scope
`
`may be provided in the patent’s written description, the patent’s prosecution
`
`history, or both.
`
`36.
`
`I understand that claim interpretation may also be informed by
`
`“extrinsic evidence” (that is, evidence outside of the patent record itself). I have
`
`been informed that extrinsic evidence may include dictionaries, technical treatises,
`
`and other materials evidencing the meaning of a claim term and the understanding
`
`held by a person of ordinary skill in the art in the relevant time period.
`
`
`
`Page 14 of 113
`
`

`

`U.S. Patent No. 8,019,091
`Declaration of David V. Anderson, Ph.D.
`
`
`
`37.
`
`I have been asked for purposes of this declaration to apply the plain
`
`and ordinary meaning of the claim terms as they would have been understood by a
`
`person of ordinary skill in the art at the earliest claimed priority date of the ’091
`
`patent (July 19, 2000).
`
`38.
`
`I understand that no claim term’s construction is in dispute at this
`
`time. Based on my review of these materials and my personal knowledge and
`
`experience, I have considered each term of the ’091 patent as it would have been
`
`understood by one skilled in the art as of July 19, 2000.
`
`VII. BACKGROUND OF THE ’091 PATENT
`A. The ’091 Patent
`
`39. The ’091 patent relates to “detecting and processing a desired signal
`
`in the presence of acoustic noise.” Ex. 1001, 1:16-18. The specification refers to
`
`multiple denoising systems that predated the ’091 patent. For example, I
`
`specification states that most prior art denoising systems used “a
`
`microphone-based Voice Activity Detector (VAD)” and were limited by “the
`
`addition of environmental acoustic noise to the desired speech signal received by
`
`[a] single microphone.” Ex. 1001, 1:23-37, 1:48-58, 3:60-65. The ’091 patent also
`
`refers to “conventional two-microphone noise removal systems,” where “the
`
`information from MIC 2 is used to attempt to remove noise from MIC 1.”
`
`Ex. 1001, 3:60-62.
`
`
`
`Page 15 of 113
`
`

`

`U.S. Patent No. 8,019,091
`Declaration of David V. Anderson, Ph.D.
`
`
`
`40. As shown in annotated Figure 2 below, the ’091 patent discloses a
`
`denoising system having two microphones (Mic 1, and Mic 2) that receive acoustic
`
`signals (acoustic waves propagating in air) from signal source 100 (e.g., speech)
`
`and noise source 101. Ex. 1001, 3:22-30, 2:61-62. Transfer functions between the
`
`noise source, n(n), and Mic 1 and between the speech source, s(n), and Mic 2 are
`
`described by a first transfer function, H1(z), and second transfer function, H2(z),
`
`respectively. Ex. 1001, 3:53-55. The patent explains that, “[i]f the transfer
`
`functions H1(z) and H2(z) can be described with sufficient accuracy,” then the
`
`noise can be removed from the speech signal. Ex. 1001, 5:29-31. This is done
`
`based on a VAD signal that “uses physiological information to determine when a
`
`speaker is speaking.” Ex. 1001, 3:40-42, 3:6-11. VAD examples include “a skin
`
`surface microphone in physical contact with” a user’s skin. Ex. 1001, 3:42-44.
`
`Acoustic Signals
`
`Ex. 1001, Fig. 2 (annotated).
`
`
`
`
`
`Page 16 of 113
`
`

`

`U.S. Patent No. 8,019,091
`Declaration of David V. Anderson, Ph.D.
`
`
`
`41. The system uses the VAD to define periods for approximating each
`
`transfer function. Ex. 1001, 4:29-5:6, 7:50-56. When “voicing information is
`
`absent from the acoustic signal” (VAD=0), the speech signal s(n) 100 is assumed
`
`to be zero, and H1(z) can be approximated as:
`
`H(cid:2869)(cid:4666)z(cid:4667)(cid:3404)M(cid:2869)(cid:4666)z(cid:4667)M(cid:2870)(cid:4666)z(cid:4667)
`
`where M1(z) and M2(z) are the digital frequency (“z”) domain acoustic signals
`
`received at microphones 1 and 2, respectively. Ex. 1001, 4:5-8, 4:29-51, 7:50-53.
`
`When “the VAD equals one and speech is being produced” and the noise 101 is
`
`assumed to be low or zero, H2(z) can be approximated as:
`
`H(cid:2870)(cid:4666)z(cid:4667)(cid:3404)M(cid:2870)(cid:4666)z(cid:4667)M(cid:2869)(cid:4666)z(cid:4667)
`
`Ex. 1001, 4:53-5:5, 7:53-56.
`
`42. The approximations of H1(z) and H2(z) are then used to “remove the
`
`noise from the [speech] signal” s(n) to produce a cleaned or denoised speech signal
`
`S(cid:4666)z(cid:4667)(cid:3404)M(cid:2869)(cid:4666)z(cid:4667)(cid:3398)M(cid:2870)(cid:4666)z(cid:4667)H(cid:2869)(cid:4666)z(cid:4667)
`1(cid:3398)H(cid:2870)(cid:4666)z(cid:4667)H(cid:2869)(cid:4666)z(cid:4667)
`
`
`
`S(z) as follows:
`
`Ex. 1001, 5:13-36.
`
`43. The ’091 patent discloses that “[t]he calculation of H1(z) is
`
`accomplished every 10 milliseconds using the Least-Mean Squares (LMS) method,
`
`
`
`Page 17 of 113
`
`

`

`U.S. Patent No. 8,019,091
`Declaration of David V. Anderson, Ph.D.
`
`
`a common adaptive transfer function.” Ex. 1001, 8:44-46. The ’091 patent
`
`acknowledges that the LMS method was known, stating that “[a]n explanation may
`
`be found in ‘Adaptive Signal Processing’ (1985), by Widrow and Stearns”
`
`(“Widrow”). Ex. 1001, 8:46-48. Widrow is included as Exhibit 1020 and includes
`
`a chapter on the LMS algorithm. See Ex. 1020, 99-116.
`
`44. Widrow also includes a section on transfer functions and uses the term
`
`consistently with how it is used in the ’091 patent. See Ex. 1020, 120-121. Widrow
`
`states that a “transfer function is simply the transform of the output of a system
`
`divided by the transform of the input.” Ex. 1020, 120. In digital systems, such as
`
`the one described in the ’091 patent, the “transform” is the “z-transform,” which
`
`takes a number of data samples in the time-domain and “transforms” them into the
`
`frequency-domain. Ex. 1020, 117-118, 120. This concept of a transfer function,
`
`which was well known to a person of ordinary skill in the art, can be visualized in
`
`the context of Figure 2 of the ’091 patent. As shown below, the input to the H1(z)
`
`transfer function is noise n(n), and the output is n2(n). Thus, the H1(z) transfer
`
`function is equal to the z-transform of n2(n) divided by the z-transform of n(n):
`
`n(z): H1(z)=n2(z)/n(z). This also means that the output is equal to the z-transform
`
`of the input multiplied by the transfer function: n2(z)=H1(z)n(z).
`
`
`
`Page 18 of 113
`
`

`

`
`
`U.S. Patent No. 8,019,091
`Declaration of David V. Anderson, Ph.D.
`
`
`
`Ex. 1001, Fig. 2 (annotated). In practice, the input and output to a system and the
`
`transfer function are not always known and must be estimated through signal
`
`processing techniques.
`
`45.
`
`Independent claim 11, one of three independent claims in the ’091
`
`patent, is illustrative of what is described in the ’091 patent:
`
`[11P] A system for removing acoustic noise from the acoustic
`signals, comprising:
`
`[11A] a receiver that receives at least two acoustic signals via at
`least two acoustic microphones positioned in a plurality
`of locations;
`
`[11B] at least one sensor that receives human tissue vibration
`information associated with human voicing activity of a
`user;
`
`[11C] a processor coupled among the receiver and the at least
`one sensor that generates a plurality of transfer functions,
`
`
`
`Page 19 of 113
`
`

`

`U.S. Patent No. 8,019,091
`Declaration of David V. Anderson, Ph.D.
`
`
`
`[11D] wherein the plurality of transfer functions includes
`a first transfer function representative of a ratio of energy
`of acoustic signals received using at least two different
`acoustic microphones of the at least two acoustic
`microphones, wherein the first transfer function is
`generated in response to a determination that voicing
`activity is absent from the acoustic signals for a period of
`time,
`[11E] wherein the plurality of transfer functions includes
`a second transfer function representative of the acoustic
`signals, wherein the second transfer function is generated
`in response to a determination that voicing activity is
`present in the acoustic signals for the period of time,
`[11F] wherein acoustic noise is removed from the
`acoustic signals using the first transfer function and at
`least one combination of the first transfer function and
`the second transfer function to produce the denoised
`acoustic data stream.
`
`Ex. 1001, 16:3-29 (element paragraphing added).
`
`B.
`
`Prosecution History of the ’091 Patent
`
`46. The ’091 patent was filed as U.S. Application No. 10/667,207 (“’207
`
`application”) on September 18, 2003, and claims priority to U.S. Application
`
`No. 09/905,361, filed July 12, 2001, and Provisional Application No. 60/219,297,
`
`filed July 19, 2000. Ex. 1001, (21), (22), (60), (63). The ’207 application received
`
`
`
`Page 20 of 113
`
`

`

`
`six rejections during prosecution. Ex. 1002, 192-206, 253-272, 306-326, 366-380,
`
`U.S. Patent No. 8,019,091
`Declaration of David V. Anderson, Ph.D.
`
`416-431, 478-494.
`
`47.
`
`In response to the first two rejections, the Applicant amended pending
`
`independent claims 1, 26, and 35 over U.S. Patent No. 5,729,694 (“Holzrichter”) to
`
`recite new features including “at least two acoustic microphones positioned in a
`
`plurality of locations” and generating a first transfer function representative of “a
`
`ratio of energy of acoustic signals received.” Ex. 1002, 218, 228, 284, 288, 290.
`
`The Applicant argued that the pending claims were patentable because Holzrichter
`
`lacks “transfer function(s),” the “use of more than one microphone,” and “the use
`
`of [a] physiologically-based device to determine the VAD signal.” Ex. 1002, 228.
`
`48.
`
`In response to the third rejection, the Applicant amended pending
`
`claim 1 over U.S. Patent No. 5,473,702 (“Yoshida”) and Holzrichter to require
`
`generating “two transfer functions” and amended pending claims 26 and 35 to add
`
`limitations regarding the second transfer function and how noise is removed.
`
`Ex. 1002, 339, 342-43, 344, 351-54. The Applicant attempted to distinguish
`
`Yoshida as teaching an “adaptive filter” that “estimates a single transfer function,”
`
`but “fails to teach the use of two or more transfer functions to generate denoised
`
`acoustic signals.” Ex. 1002, 351.
`
`49.
`
`In response to the fourth rejection, the Applicant amended pending
`
`claims 1, 26, and 35 over U.S. Patent No. 5,406,622 (“Silverberg”) and Holzrichter
`
`
`
`Page 21 of 113
`
`

`

`U.S. Patent No. 8,019,091
`Declaration of David V. Anderson, Ph.D.
`
`
`to recite removing noise using “the first transfer function and at least one
`
`combination of the first transfer function and the second transfer function.”
`
`Ex. 1002, 402, 404-406, 408-411. The Applicant distinguished Silverberg as
`
`denoising an “input signal by applying a first transfer function and then applying a
`
`second transfer function,” not “applying a first transfer function and at least one
`
`combination of the first transfer function and the second transfer function,” as
`
`claimed. Ex. 1002, 408-410.
`
`50.
`
`In response to the fifth rejection, the Applicant distinguished the
`
`claims over Silverberg, Holzrichter, and U.S. Patent No. 5,754,665 (“Hosoi”), for
`
`similar reasons. Ex. 1002, 462-67.
`
`51. The sixth rejection maintained the obviousness rejection based on
`
`Silverberg, Holzrichter, and Hosoi. Ex. 1002, 480. The Applicant appealed,
`
`arguing that all pending claims were distinguishable over the prior art because
`
`Silverberg, Holzrichter, and Hosoi did not disclose claim 1’s “generating at least
`
`two transfer functions representative of a ratio of energy” or the similar limitations
`
`in pending claims 26 and 35. Ex. 1002, 519-24. Applicant argued that “Silverberg
`
`teaches nothing about generating transfer functions” because “Silverberg only
`
`discusses filters in terms of general functionality” and “[t]he disclosure of a filter
`
`does not describe its design or technical implementation and does not teach
`
`generating transfer functions.” Ex. 1002, 520. Similarly, the Applicant argued that
`
`
`
`Page 22 of 113
`
`

`

`U.S. Patent No. 8,019,091
`Declaration of David V. Anderson, Ph.D.
`
`
`Hosoi does not disclose generating two transfer functions because it “merely
`
`describes the use of two FIR adaptive filters but teaches nothing about such filters’
`
`design or technical implementation.” Ex. 1002, 522-24.
`
`52. After the Applicant filed its appeal brief, the Examiner issued a notice
`
`of allowance without stating any reasons for allowance. Ex. 1002, 545.
`
`53. The Examiner did not have the benefit of the prior art analyzed in t