UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD.,
`SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS AMERICA, INC., and APPLE INC.,
`
`Petitioners
`v.
`
`JAWBONE INNOVATIONS, LLC,
`
`Patent Owner
`
`Case IPR2022-00865
`
`U.S. Patent No. 8,467,543
`
`DECLARATION OF CHRIS KYRIAKAKIS, PH.D.
`IN SUPPORT OF PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW
`OF U.S. PATENT NO. 8,467,543
`
`Exhibit 1002
`Page 01 of 99
`
`

`

`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`I.
`II.
`
`INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................... 1
`BACKGROUND AND QUALIFICATIONS ................................................. 1
`A.
`Relevant Academic Experience ............................................................ 2
`B.
`Relevant Professional Experience ......................................................... 4
`III. MATERIALS REVIEWED ............................................................................ 6
`IV.
`LEVEL OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART ............................................. 9
`V.
`RELEVANT LEGAL STANDARDS ...........................................................10
`VI.
`SUMMARY OF OPINIONS .........................................................................13
`VII. BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF TECHNOLOGY ..............................................14
`VIII. OVERVIEW OF THE ’543 PATENT ..........................................................18
`IX. OVERVIEW OF THE PRIMARY PRIOR ART REFERENCES ................26
`A.
`Yang .................................................................................................... 26
`B.
`Burnett Thesis ...................................................................................... 36
`C.
`Park ...................................................................................................... 37
`D.
`Sasaki/Short ......................................................................................... 38
`CLAIM CONSTRUCTION ..........................................................................40
`SPECIFIC GROUNDS FOR CHALLENGE ................................................41
`A.
`Grounds Challenging Claims 1-26 of the ’543 Patent ........................ 41
`B.
`Ground 1A: Yang and Burnett Thesis Render Obvious Claims
`1, 2, 6–10, 12–18, and 26 .................................................................... 41
`1.
`Combination of Yang and Burnett Thesis ................................41
`2.
`Yang’s Microphone Configuration ...........................................46
`
`X.
`XI.
`
`i
`
`Exhibit 1002
`Page 02 of 99
`
`

`

`6.
`
`7.
`
`3.
`4.
`5.
`
`Claim 1 ......................................................................................52
`Claim 2 ......................................................................................70
`Claim 6: “The system of claim 1, further including a
`portable handset that includes the microphones, wherein
`the portable handset includes at least one of cellular
`telephones [and] . . . personal digital assistants (PDAs)” .........72
`Claim 7: “The system of claim 6, wherein the portable
`handset includes at least one of the voice detection
`subsystem and the denoising subsystem.” ................................73
`Claim 8: “The system of claim 1, further including a
`portable headset that includes the microphones along
`with at least one speaker device.” .............................................73
`Claim 9: “The system of claim 8, wherein the portable
`headset couples to at least one communication device
`selected from among cellular telephones . . .” ..........................73
`Claim 10: “The system of claim 9, wherein the portable
`headset couples to the communication device using at
`least one of wireless couplings, wired couplings, and
`combination wireless and wired couplings.” ............................74
`10. Claim 12: “The system of claim 8, wherein the portable
`headset includes at least one of the voice detection
`subsystem and the denoising subsystem.” ................................74
`11. Claim 13: “The system of claim 8, wherein the portable
`headset is a portable communication device selected from
`among cellular telephones [and] . . . personal digital
`assistants (PDAs)”.....................................................................75
`12. Claim 14: “The system of claim 1, wherein the first
`microphone is a unidirectional microphone and the
`second microphone is a unidirectional microphone.” ...............75
`13. Claim 15: “The system of claim 14, wherein the first
`microphone and the second microphone are separated by
`
`8.
`
`9.
`
`ii
`
`Exhibit 1002
`Page 03 of 99
`
`

`

`a distance in a range of approximately zero (0)
`centimeters to 15 centimeters.” .................................................77
`14. Claims 16, 17, and 18 ...............................................................77
`15. Claim 26 ....................................................................................79
`Ground 1B: Yang and Park Render Obvious Claims 1, 3, 6–10,
`12–18, and 26 ...................................................................................... 80
`1.
`Claims 1, 6–10, 12–18, and 26 .................................................81
`2.
`Claim 3 ......................................................................................82
`Ground 2: The Combination of Yang, Burnett Thesis or Park,
`and Sasaki Renders Obvious Claims 19–25........................................ 84
`1.
`Motivation to Combine: Obvious to Use a Microphone
`Array with an Omnidirectional Microphone and a
`Unidirectional Microphone in Yang’s System .........................84
`2.
`Claims 19 and 24.......................................................................86
`3.
`Claims 20 and 25.......................................................................87
`4.
`Claims 21, 22, and 23 ...............................................................87
`Ground 3: The Combination of Yang, Burnett Thesis or Park,
`and Lichtblau Renders Obvious Claim 4 ............................................ 89
`Ground 4: The Combination of Yang, Burnett Thesis or Park,
`and Andrea Renders Obvious Claim 5 ................................................ 91
`Ground 5: The Combination of Yang, Burnett Thesis or Park,
`and Turnbull Renders Obvious Claims 8-11 ....................................... 92
`1.
`Claims 8-10 ...............................................................................92
`2.
`Claim 11 ....................................................................................94
`
`C.
`
`D.
`
`E.
`
`F.
`
`G.
`
`iii
`
`Exhibit 1002
`Page 04 of 99
`
`

`

`I, Chris Kyriakakis, declare as follows:
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`1.
`I have been retained by Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. and Samsung
`
`Electronics America, Inc. (“Samsung” or “Petitioners”) as an independent expert
`
`consultant in this proceeding before the United States Patent and Trademark Office
`
`(“PTO”).
`
`2.
`
`I am being compensated at a rate of $525/hour for my services in this
`
`proceeding, which is my regular and customary rate.
`
`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 this or any other
`
`proceeding. I have no other interest in this proceeding.
`
`4.
`
`I have been asked to consider whether certain references disclose or
`
`suggest the features recited in the claims of U.S. Patent No. 8,467,543 (“the ’543
`
`patent”) (Ex. 1001).1 My opinions are set forth below.
`
`II.
`
`BACKGROUND AND QUALIFICATIONS
`5.
`I am an independent consultant. All of my opinions stated in this
`
`declaration are based on my own personal knowledge and professional judgment. In
`
`1 Where appropriate, I refer to exhibits I understand will be attached to the petition
`
`for inter partes review of the ’543 patent (the “Petition”).
`
`1
`
`Exhibit 1002
`Page 05 of 99
`
`

`

`forming my opinions, I have relied on my education, experience, and knowledge
`
`regarding electrical engineering, computer science, and audio and acoustic sciences.
`
`6.
`
`I am over 18 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. A copy of my current
`
`curriculum vitae, which details my education and professional and academic
`
`experience, as well as a list of all publications I have authored in the past ten years,
`
`is included as Ex. 1003 in this proceeding. The following provides an overview of
`
`some of my experience that is relevant to the matters set forth in this declaration.
`
`A.
`7.
`
`Relevant Academic Experience
`I earned my Bachelor of Science degree in Engineering and Applied
`
`Science from the California Institute of Technology (Caltech) in 1985. I received my
`
`Master of Science degree in Electrical Engineering in 1987 and my Ph.D. in
`
`Electrical Engineering in 1993, both from the University of Southern California
`
`(“USC”).
`
`8.
`
`Since 2002, I am a tenured Associate Professor in the Electrical
`
`Engineering Department at USC. My research interests lie at the intersection of
`
`acoustics, psychoacoustics (the science that studies human perception of sound), and
`
`audio signal processing. My recent research has focused on the study of audio
`
`systems in challenging environments including automobiles and mobile devices, as
`
`well as algorithms for enhancing the performance of voice recognition engines. I
`
`2
`
`Exhibit 1002
`Page 06 of 99
`
`

`

`have published nearly 100 technical papers, including several peer reviewed papers.
`
`I have published a book entitled Immersive Audio Signal Processing, and hold
`
`several patents in acoustic measurement of loudspeakers in rooms and cars,
`
`loudspeaker crossover optimization, and loudspeaker response correction using
`
`signal processing. My publications examine various aspects of sound measurement,
`
`how sound interacts with the acoustical elements of the environment, novel methods
`
`for surround sound recording and reproduction, and the perception of sound by
`
`human listeners.
`
`9.
`
`A major focus of my recent research has been the study of microphone
`
`arrays for applications in enhanced far field voice recognition. This includes
`
`methods for Direction of Arrival finding and beam forming from linear and circular
`
`microphone arrays. I have also investigated methods for noise removal and
`
`reverberation reduction from microphone signals. In addition, over the past year I
`
`have worked on methods for echo cancellation for applications in wearable devices.
`
`Previous work includes loudspeakers and how they interact with their acoustical
`
`environment. In particular, I have researched the role of sound reflections,
`
`absorption, and diffusion in the performance of loudspeakers. I have also published
`
`several technical papers on acoustical measurement methods in rooms and device
`
`enclosures and developed novel signal processing algorithms for optimizing sound
`
`system performance. Other topics I have researched include multichannel audio
`
`3
`
`Exhibit 1002
`Page 07 of 99
`
`

`

`acquisition and rendering, virtual microphones and virtual speakers, hybrid
`
`headphone-loudspeaker rendering methods, and advanced signal processing
`
`techniques for optimizing sound quality from small portable devices.
`
`B.
`10.
`
`Relevant Professional Experience
`I am the founding Director of the USC Immersive Audio Laboratory
`
`with facilities for experimental work in room acoustics, multichannel audio, and
`
`psychoacoustics. This laboratory also serves as a unique teaching facility for my
`
`undergraduate course in Introduction to Digital Audio and my graduate course in
`
`Immersive Audio Signal Processing. Both courses have a major acoustics
`
`component that examines the interaction of sound with the acoustical environment
`
`(e.g., home, movie theater, car). The graduate course was developed through a two-
`
`year grant I received from the National Science Foundation entitled “Collaborative
`
`Learning in Engineering Using Immersive Environments,” and was the first of its
`
`kind to assess the impact of audio immersion in student learning. In addition to the
`
`courses I teach, I have also supervised and served on Ph.D. dissertation committees
`
`for more than 30 students.
`
`11.
`
`In 2019, I joined Syng as the Chief Audio Scientist. Syng creates
`
`innovative products for next generation spatial audio, and my role there includes
`
`research and development of audio algorithms for sound capture using microphone
`
`4
`
`Exhibit 1002
`Page 08 of 99
`
`

`

`arrays to measure the acoustics of the room and loudspeaker beamforming for
`
`rendering sound in various directions.
`
`12.
`
`From 2003 to 2018, I was the co-founder and Chief Technology Officer
`
`of Audyssey Laboratories, a USC spin-off company that develops and licenses audio
`
`technology to leading automotive, professional, and consumer electronic companies
`
`around the world. As part of my work at Audyssey, I have developed audio
`
`algorithms and designed speakers. These speakers were novel acoustical designs that
`
`used a combination of unique enclosures and audio signal processing to optimize
`
`their performance and overcome limitations that arise from small drivers and
`
`enclosures. For example, we used signal processing technologies combined with
`
`novel acoustical design to extend the bass response of small woofers and passive
`
`radiators beyond what was previously possible in small speaker enclosures. The
`
`innovations in these designs have received awards, including Popular Science’s
`
`“Best of What’s New.”
`
`13.
`
`In April 2018 I was elected as Senior Member of the Institute of
`
`Electrical and Electronic Engineers (IEEE) in recognition of my contributions to the
`
`field of engineering. I am also a member of the Audio Engineering Society (AES),
`
`an association for professionals in the audio industry.
`
`14.
`
`In 2006, I received a World Technology Network Award. This
`
`organization presents awards to innovators in several areas in which technology can
`
`5
`
`Exhibit 1002
`Page 09 of 99
`
`

`

`foster a paradigm change. My award was for innovations in immersive audio that
`
`enable new capabilities in media and journalism. Other award recipients at that event
`
`included Vice President Al Gore, Google, and Space-X. In addition, my work has
`
`been featured in multiple news articles, including pieces by The Atlantic, the BBC
`
`World Service, the New York Times, and National Public Radio.
`
`15.
`
`In the late 1990s and early 2000s, I was a faculty researcher and later
`
`Deputy Director of the National Science Foundation’s engineering research center
`
`established at USC. I was studying the fundamental and technological limitations of
`
`immersive audio and the role of acoustics on the performance of loudspeakers and
`
`audio systems in homes and cars. In 2003, together with one of my graduate students,
`
`I received the award for Best Paper at the Institute of Electrical and Electronics
`
`Engineers (“IEEE”) Conference on Signals, Systems and Computers.
`
`III. MATERIALS REVIEWED
`16.
`The opinions contained in this declaration are based on the documents
`
`I reviewed, my professional judgment, as well as my education, experience, and
`
`knowledge regarding electrical engineering, computer science, and audio and
`
`acoustic sciences.
`
`17.
`
`In forming my opinions expressed in this declaration, I reviewed the
`
`following materials:
`
`
`
`the ’543 patent (Ex. 1001);
`
`6
`
`Exhibit 1002
`Page 10 of 99
`
`

`

`the file history of the ’543 patent (Ex. 1004);
`
`File History of Provisional Patent Application 60/328,209 (Ex. 1005);
`
`U.S. Patent Application Publication 2002/0193130 (“Yang”) (Ex.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1006);
`
`
`
`Gregory Burnett, The Physiological Basis of Glottal Electromagnetic
`
`Micropower Sensors (GEMS) and Their Use in Defining an Excitation Function for
`
`the Human Vocal Tract, Dissertation, January 1999 (“Burnett Thesis”) (Ex. 1007);
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`U.S. Patent 5,590,241 (“Park”) (Ex. 1008);
`
`U.S. Patent 5,471,538 (“Sasaki”) (Ex. 1009);
`
`U.S. Patent 6,714,654 (“Lichtblau”) (Ex. 1010);
`
`U.S. Patent 6,061,456 (“Andrea”) (Ex. 1011);
`
`U.S. Patent 6,980,092 (“Turnbull”) (Ex. 1012);
`
`U.S. Patent 8,000,482 (“Lambert”) (Ex. 1013;
`
`U.S. Patent 6,978,010 (“Short”) (Ex. 1014);
`
`U.S. Patent No. 3,180,936 (“Schroeder ’936”) (Ex. 1015);
`
`U.S. Patent No. 3,403,224 (“Schroeder ’224”) (Ex. 1016);
`
`U.S. Patent 6,035,048 (“Diethorn”) (Ex. 1017);
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,617,099 (“Yang ’099”) (Ex. 1018);
`
`Hansen, Colin H, Understanding Active Noise Cancellation (2001)
`
`(“Hansen”) (Ex. 1019);
`
`7
`
`Exhibit 1002
`Page 11 of 99
`
`

`

`
`
`E. Toner & D.R. Campbell, Speech enhancement using sub-band
`
`intermittent adaption, 12 Speech Communication 253 (1993) (“Toner”) (Ex. 1020);
`
`
`
`J. S. Lim and A. V. Oppenheim, “Enhancement and Bandwidth
`
`Compression of Noisy Speech,” Proceedings of the IEEE, 67(12), December 1979
`
`(“Lim”) (Ex. 1021);
`
`
`
`M.M Sondhi, C.E Schmidt, and L.R. Rabiner, “Improving the Quality
`
`of a Noisy Speech Signal,” The Bell System Technical Journal, Volume 60, No. 8,
`
`October 1981 (“Sondhi”) (Ex. 1022);
`
`
`
`Steven F. Boll, “Suppression of Acoustic Noise in Speech Using
`
`Spectral Subtraction,” IEEE Transactions on Acoustics, Speech, and Signal
`
`Processing, Vol. ASSP-27, No. 2, 113-20, April 1979 (“Boll”) (Ex. 1023);
`
`and any other materials I refer to in this declaration in support of my opinions.
`
`18. 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 appreciation of how a person of ordinary skill in the
`
`art would have understood the claims and the specification of the ’543 patent at the
`
`time of the alleged invention, which I have been asked to initially consider as no
`
`earlier than March 27, 2003 (the filing date of U.S. Application No. 10/400,282).
`
`My opinions reflect how one of ordinary skill in the art would have understood
`
`8
`
`Exhibit 1002
`Page 12 of 99
`
`

`

`the ’543 patent, the prior art to the patent, and the state of the art at the time of the
`
`alleged invention. My opinions would remain the same even if the ’543 patent were
`
`entitled to priority to U.S. Provisional Patent Application 60/368,209, such that the
`
`priority date would be March 27, 2002.
`
`19. Based on my experience and expertise, it is my opinion that certain
`
`references disclose and/or suggest, alone or in combination, all the features recited
`
`in claims 1-26 (“challenged claims”) of the ’543 patent, as I discuss in detail below.
`
`IV. LEVEL OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART
`20.
`I have been informed and understand that, in the context of an invalidity
`
`analysis, a person having ordinary skill in the art is a hypothetical person who looks
`
`to prior art at the time of the invention. I further understand that the factors that may
`
`be considered in determining the level of ordinary skill include: (1) the problems
`
`encountered in the art; (2) the prior art solutions to the problems encountered in the
`
`art; (3) the rapidity of innovation; (4) the sophistication of the technology; and (5)
`
`the education level of active workers in the field. I understand that these factors need
`
`not all be considered for the analysis and that one or more of these factors may
`
`control.
`
`21.
`
`I was asked to provide my opinion on the level of one of ordinary skill
`
`in the art with respect to the alleged invention of the ’543 patent as of March 27,
`
`2003. Based on my consideration of the factors above, I believe a person of ordinary
`
`9
`
`Exhibit 1002
`Page 13 of 99
`
`

`

`skill in the art would have had a bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering,
`
`computer science, audio engineering or a similar field and two years of experience
`
`in designing voice-detection and noise-reducing systems. More education could
`
`have been used to supplement practical experience and vice versa. I was also asked
`
`whether the level of one of ordinary skill in the art would be different if the alleged
`
`invention date of the ’543 patent were March 27, 2002. In my opinion, a difference
`
`of one year would not change the level of one of ordinary skill in the art.
`
`22. As of March 27, 2003 (and as of March 27, 2002), I met, and in fact
`
`exceeded, the qualifications of a person of ordinary skill in the art. To be clear, all
`
`of my opinions in this declaration are from the perspective of one of ordinary skill
`
`in the art as I have defined it here during the relevant timeframe.
`
`V.
`
`RELEVANT LEGAL STANDARDS
`23.
`I am not an attorney and offer no legal opinions, but in the course of
`
`my work, I have had experience studying and analyzing patents and patent claims
`
`from the perspective of a person skilled in the art.
`
`24.
`
`For the purposes of this declaration, I have been informed about certain
`
`aspects of the law that are relevant to forming my opinions. My understanding of the
`
`law is as follows:
`
`25.
`
`Petitioners’ counsel have informed me that a patent claim is anticipated
`
`and therefore invalid under 35 U.S.C. section 102, if, among other things, (a) the
`
`10
`
`Exhibit 1002
`Page 14 of 99
`
`

`

`alleged invention was patented or described in a printed publication in the United
`
`States or a foreign country before the alleged invention thereof by the patent's
`
`applicant(s), or (b) the alleged invention was patented or described in a printed
`
`publication in this or a foreign country more than one year prior to the priority date
`
`of the application for patent in the United States, or (e) the invention was described
`
`in a patent granted or an application for patent by another filed in the United States
`
`before the individuals named on the ’543 patent allegedly made their invention.
`
`26.
`
`Petitioners’ counsel have informed me that references or products that
`
`fall into one or more of these categories are called “prior art,” and that to anticipate
`
`a patent claim a single reference must contain all of the elements and limitations
`
`recited in the claim either expressly or inherently.
`
`27.
`
`Petitioners’ counsel has informed me that for the prior art to inherently
`
`disclose a claimed limitation, the prior art need not expressly disclose the limitation,
`
`so long as the claimed limitation necessarily flows from a disclosure in the prior art.
`
`28.
`
`Petitioners’ counsel has informed me that a patent claim can be
`
`considered to have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time
`
`the application was filed in view of the prior art. This means that, even if all of the
`
`requirements of a claim are not found in a single prior art reference, the claim is not
`
`patentable if the differences between the subject matter in the prior art and the
`
`subject matter in the claim would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in
`
`11
`
`Exhibit 1002
`Page 15 of 99
`
`

`

`the art at the relevant time, which I have been informed in this case is March 27,
`
`2003.
`
`29.
`
`Petitioners’ counsel has informed me that a determination of whether a
`
`claim would have been obvious should be based upon several factors, including,
`
`among others:
`
`the level of ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed;
`
`the scope and content of the prior art; and
`
`what differences, if any, existed between the claimed invention and the
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`prior art.
`
`30.
`
`Petitioners’ counsel has informed me that a single prior art reference
`
`can render a patent claim obvious if any differences between that reference and the
`
`claims would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art. Alternatively,
`
`the teachings of two or more references may be combined in the same way as
`
`disclosed in the claims, if such a combination would have been obvious to one
`
`having ordinary skill in the art. In determining whether a combination based on
`
`either a single reference or multiple references would have been obvious, it is
`
`appropriate to consider, among other factors:
`
`
`
`whether the teachings of the prior art references disclose known
`
`concepts combined in familiar ways, and when combined, would yield predictable
`
`results;
`
`12
`
`Exhibit 1002
`Page 16 of 99
`
`

`

`
`
`whether a person of ordinary skill in the art could implement a
`
`predictable variation, and would see the benefit of doing so;
`
`
`
`whether the claimed elements represent one of a limited number of
`
`known design choices, and would have a reasonable expectation of success by those
`
`skilled in the art;
`
`
`
`whether a person of ordinary skill would have recognized a reason to
`
`combine known elements in the manner described in the claim;
`
`
`
`whether there is some teaching or suggestion in the prior art to make
`
`the modification or combination of elements claimed in the patent; and
`
`
`
`whether the innovation applies a known technique that had been used
`
`to improve a similar device or method in a similar way.
`
`31.
`
`Petitioners’ counsel has informed me that one of ordinary skill in the
`
`art has ordinary creativity and is not an automaton. Petitioners’ counsel has also
`
`informed me that in considering obviousness, it is important not to determine
`
`obviousness using the benefit of hindsight derived from the patent being considered.
`
`VI.
`
`SUMMARY OF OPINIONS
`32.
`For the reasons I discuss below, it is my opinion that claims 1-26 of
`
`the ’543 patent are disclosed in the prior art, and are anticipated and/or rendered
`
`obvious by the prior art.
`
`13
`
`Exhibit 1002
`Page 17 of 99
`
`

`

`VII. BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF TECHNOLOGY
`33.
`The ’543 patent purports
`to address a problem with voice
`
`communication—i.e., background noise that is picked up and added to the desired
`
`speech signal of the person speaking. The background noise degrades the experience
`
`for the listener at the other end and, in some cases, makes it impossible to understand
`
`the words of the person speaking. For voice communication to be truly feasible, it
`
`was recognized long ago that the incoming voice signal must be “cleaned up.” A
`
`comprehensive overview of methods for enhancing speech in the presence of noise
`
`is found in J. S. Lim and A. V. Oppenheim, “Enhancement and Bandwidth
`
`Compression of Noisy Speech”, Proceedings of the IEEE, 67(12), December 1979.
`
`The authors of this paper identify spectral subtraction as one of the popular methods
`
`to achieve noise suppression. Spectral subtraction is based on an intuitive concept:
`
`an estimate of the noise spectrum is subtracted from the noisy speech spectrum to
`
`produce an estimate of the clean speech.
`
`34.
`
`The concept of spectral subtraction has been known for nearly 60 years.
`
`It was first disclosed in the analog domain by Manfred R. Schroeder of Bell Labs in
`
`U.S. Patent No. 3,180,936, entitled “Apparatus for suppressing noise and distortion
`
`in communication signals” (filed in 1960) and U.S. Patent No. 3,403,224:
`
`“Processing of communication signals to reduce effects of noise” (filed in 1965).
`
`The abstract of the Schroeder ’224 patent states: “To improve quality of a
`
`14
`
`Exhibit 1002
`Page 18 of 99
`
`

`

`communications signal, noise components which accompany the signal are removed
`
`by analyzing a signal to obtain a measure of the energy in each of a number of
`
`frequency sub-bands, by developing a signal representative of the average
`
`contribution of noise to the signal in each sub-band, and by selectively subtracting
`
`the noise representative signals from the sub-band signals.” Schroeder ’224 at 1:11-
`
`18.
`
`35.
`
`The Schroeder patents disclose a bank of bandpass filters that splits the
`
`incoming noisy signal into sub-bands. The output of each filter is rectified and then
`
`averaged to create an estimate of the noisy speech envelope. This estimate is then
`
`subtracted from an estimate of the noise only envelope. The full bandwidth clean
`
`signal is then reconstructed at the output by summing the output of all the sub-bands.
`
`36.
`
`In a 1980 paper (M.M Sondhi, C.E Schmidt, and L.R. Rabiner,
`
`“Improving the Quality of a Noisy Speech Signal,” The Bell System Technical
`
`Journal, Volume 60, No. 8, October 1981), the authors describe this Schroeder
`
`spectral subtraction concept in detail.
`
`37.
`
`Schroeder’s spectral subtraction took place in the analog domain, but
`
`his concepts were subsequently applied to the digital domain. Specifically, in 1979,
`
`spectral subtraction in the digital domain was introduced by Boll (Steven F. Boll,
`
`“Suppression of Acoustic Noise in Speech Using Spectral Subtraction,” IEEE
`
`Transactions on Acoustics, Speech, and Signal Processing, Vol. ASSP-27, No. 2,
`
`15
`
`Exhibit 1002
`Page 19 of 99
`
`

`

`113-20, April 1979). Boll’s solution is still one of the most popular methods for
`
`reducing noise that is added to speech signals in voice communication and speech
`
`recognition applications, and this fact is referenced in the ’543 patent (1:34-41)
`
`38.
`
`Spectral subtraction requires an estimate of the noise in an audio signal.
`
`See, e.g., Boll at 113 (“The approach used was to estimate the magnitude of the
`
`frequency spectrum of the underlying clean speech by subtracting the noise
`
`magnitude spectrum from the noisy speech spectrum. This estimator requires an
`
`estimate of the current noise spectrum.”).
`
`39. Boll describes many of the principles behind spectral subtraction, and
`
`it discloses the basic components of such a system. Using Boll’s basic framework,
`
`an audio signal is divided into frames or windows, an FFT converts each frame into
`
`the frequency domain, the noise magnitude for each frequency bin is estimated, the
`
`noise magnitude is subtracted from each frequency bin, and then an inverse FFT
`
`converts the signal back into the time domain. Boll at 117. Boll describes additional
`
`enhancements to this basic system such as magnitude averaging and residual noise
`
`reduction. Boll at 116-117.
`
`40.
`
`The Boll method also discloses the need for a speech activity detector
`
`(also known as a voice activity detector or VAD). See, e.g., Boll at 113-114 (“For
`
`the slowly varying nonstationary environment, the algorithm requires a speech
`
`activity detector to signal the program that speech has ceased and a new noise bias
`
`16
`
`Exhibit 1002
`Page 20 of 99
`
`

`

`can be estimated.”). Boll proposes a method for implementing a VAD. Boll at 117
`
`(“An effective speech activity detector was defined using spectra generated be the
`
`spectral subtraction algorithm. This detector required the determination of a
`
`threshold signaling absence of speech activity.”).
`
`41.
`
`The concept of using a sensor other than a microphone to identify
`
`periods of speech and non-speech (i.e., as a VAD) was also well known. For
`
`example, using an accelerometer in contact with the skin to detect voicing activity
`
`was well known. Park, a U.S. patent issued over six years before the ’282 application
`
`leading to the ’543 patent was filed, describes in detail the use of such an
`
`accelerometer. Park, Abstract. Park explains that accelerometer 34 “is physically
`
`attached to the larynx area of the neck of human being 21, and provides an electrical
`
`output signal at an output thereof indicative of vibrations present at the larynx area
`
`of the neck of human being 21.” Id., 3:21–34.
`
`42.
`
`The Burnett Thesis discloses a different type of non-microphone sensor
`
`for voice activity detection that is based on using a GEMS (a type of electromagnetic
`
`sensor) in contact with the skin to detect voicing activity: “[t]his detection is
`
`unaffected by acoustic noise and can tell a speech processor (such as one in a cell
`
`phone or speech recognition program) when the person is or is not speaking.”
`
`Burnett Thesis 177.
`
`17
`
`Exhibit 1002
`Page 21 of 99
`
`

`

`VIII. OVERVIEW OF THE ’543 PATENT
`43.
`The ’543 patent, titled “Microphone and voice activity detection (VAD)
`
`configurations for use with communication systems,” is generally directed to
`
`“systems and methods for detecting and processing a desired acoustic signal in the
`
`presence of acoustic noise.” ’543Pat., 1:28–30. Specifically, the ’543 patent
`
`describes microphone configurations:
`
`for use with the Pathfinder noise suppression system. As such, each
`configuration is described in detail along with a method of use to
`reduce noise transmission in communication devices, in the context of
`the Pathfinder system. When the Pathfinder noise suppression system is
`referred to, it should be kept in mind that noise suppression systems that
`estimate the noise waveform and subtract it from a signal and that use or
`are capable of using the disclosed microphone configurations and VAD
`information for reliable operation are included in that reference.
`Pathfinder is simply a convenient referenced implementation for a
`system that operates on signals comprising desired speech signals
`along with noise. Thus, the use of these physic