`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`______________________
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`______________________
`
`Google LLC,
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`Jawbone Innovations, LLC,
`Patent Owner
`
`______________________
`
`Case IPR2022-00888
`
`U.S. Patent No. 8,321,213
`______________________
`
`DECLARATION OF JEFFREY S. VIPPERMAN, PH.D.
`
`
`
`Page 1 of 115
`
`GOOGLE EXHIBIT 1007
`
`

`

`
`Introduction .................................................................................................... 1
`I.
`Summary of Opinions ................................................................................... 1
`II.
`III. Background and Qualifications .................................................................... 2
`A.
`Education ............................................................................................... 2
`B.
`Experience ............................................................................................. 3
`C.
`Compensation ........................................................................................ 7
`IV. Materials Considered .................................................................................... 7
`V.
`Legal Standards ............................................................................................. 8
`A.
`Claim Construction ............................................................................... 9
`B.
`Level of Ordinary Skill ......................................................................... 9
`C. Obviousness ......................................................................................... 10
`VI. The ’213 Patent ............................................................................................ 13
`A. Overview ............................................................................................. 13
`B.
`Prosecution History ............................................................................. 14
`VII. Analysis of Petition Grounds ...................................................................... 15
`A. Overview of The Asserted References ................................................ 15
`1.
`Elko (Ex. 1002) ......................................................................... 15
`2.
`Boll (Ex. 1003) .......................................................................... 20
`3.
`Buck (Ex. 1004) ........................................................................ 21
`4.
`Balan (Ex. 1005) ....................................................................... 22
`5.
`Elko II (Ex. 1006) ..................................................................... 23
`6.
`Kanamori (Ex. 1018) ................................................................ 24
`
`
`
`Page 2 of 115
`
`

`

`B.
`C.
`
`
`
`
`Claim Construction ............................................................................. 26
`Elko in view of Boll and Buck (Combination 1) Renders
`Claims 1 and 3-13 Obvious ................................................................. 27
`1.
`Claim 1 ...................................................................................... 28
`[1a] “An acoustic voice activity detection system comprising:
`a first virtual microphone comprising a first combination
`of a first signal and a second signal, wherein the first
`signal is received from a first physical microphone and
`the second signal is received from a second physical
`microphone;” ............................................................................. 28
`[1b] “a filter, wherein the filter is formed by generating a first
`quantity by applying a calibration to at least one of the
`first signal and the second signal,” ........................................... 31
`[1c] “generating a second quantity by applying a delay to the
`first signal,” ............................................................................... 37
`[1d] “and forming the filter as a ratio of the first quantity to
`the second quantity; and” .......................................................... 41
`[1e] “a second virtual microphone formed by applying the
`filter to the first signal to generate a first intermediate
`signal and summing the first intermediate signal and the
`second signal,” .......................................................................... 44
`[1f] “wherein acoustic voice activity of a speaker is
`determined to be present when an energy ratio of
`energies of the first virtual microphone and the second
`virtual microphone is greater than a threshold value.” ............. 47
`Claim 3 — “The system of claim 1, wherein a calibration
`is applied to the second signal, wherein the calibration
`compensates a second response of the second physical
`microphone so that the second response is equivalent to a
`first response of the first physical microphone.” ...................... 55
`Claim 4 — “The system of claim 1, wherein the delay is
`applied to the first intermediate signal, wherein the delay
`
`3.
`
`2.
`
`ii
`
`Page 3 of 115
`
`

`

`5.
`
`6.
`
`7.
`
`8.
`
`9.
`
`4.
`
`is proportional to a time difference between arrival of the
`speech at the second physical microphone and arrival of
`the speech at the first physical microphone.” ........................... 56
`Claim 5 — “The system of claim 1, wherein the first
`virtual microphone is formed by applying the filter to the
`second signal.” .......................................................................... 59
`Claim 6 — “The system of claim 5, wherein the first
`virtual microphone is formed by applying the calibration
`to the second signal.” ................................................................ 61
`Claim 7 — “The system of claim 6, wherein the first
`virtual microphone is formed by applying the delay to the
`first signal.” ............................................................................... 61
`Claim 8 — “The system of claim 7, wherein the first
`virtual microphone is formed by subtracting the second
`signal from the first signal.” ...................................................... 61
`Claim 9 — “The system of claim 1, wherein the filter is
`an adaptive filter.” ..................................................................... 61
`Claim 10 — “The system of claim 1, wherein the filter is
`adapted to minimize a second virtual microphone output
`when only speech is being received by the first physical
`microphone and the second physical microphone.” ................. 62
`10. Claim 11 — “The system of claim 1, wherein
`coefficients of the filter are generated during a period
`when only speech is being received by the first physical
`microphone and the second physical microphone.” ................. 63
`11. Claim 12 — “The system of claim 1, wherein the energy
`ratio comprises an energy ratio for a frequency band.” ............ 64
`12. Claim 13 — “The system of claim 1, wherein the energy
`ratio comprises an energy ratio for a frequency subband.” ...... 68
`Elko in view of Boll (Combination 2) Renders Claim 42
`Obvious ............................................................................................... 69
`1.
`Claim 42 .................................................................................... 69
`
`
`
`
`iii
`
`D.
`
`Page 4 of 115
`
`

`

`
`
`
`[42a] “A device comprising: a headset including at least one
`loudspeaker, wherein the headset attaches to a region of a
`human head,” ............................................................................ 69
`[42b] “a microphone array connected to the headset, the
`microphone array including a first physical microphone
`outputting a first signal and a second physical
`microphone outputting a second signal; and” ........................... 71
`[42c] “a processing component coupled to the first physical
`microphone and the second physical microphone, the
`processing component forming a first virtual
`microphone,” ............................................................................. 73
`[42d] “the processing component forming a filter that describes
`a relationship for speech between the first physical
`microphone and the second physical microphone,” ................. 73
`[42e] “the processing component forming a second virtual
`microphone by applying the filter to the first signal to
`generate a first intermediate signal, and summing the first
`intermediate signal and the second signal,” .............................. 77
`[42f] “the processing component detecting acoustic voice
`activity of a speaker when an energy ratio of energies of
`the first virtual microphone and the second virtual
`microphone is greater than a threshold value.”......................... 77
`Elko, Boll and Buck, Further in View of Balan (Combination
`3), Renders Claims 5-8, 10, and 11 Obvious ...................................... 77
`1.
`Claim 5 — “The system of claim 1, wherein the first
`virtual microphone is formed by applying the filter to the
`second signal.” .......................................................................... 77
`Claims 6-8 ................................................................................. 80
`Claim 10 — “The system of claim 1, wherein the filter is
`adapted to minimize a second virtual microphone output
`when only speech is being received by the first physical
`microphone and the second physical microphone.” ................. 80
`
`2.
`3.
`
`E.
`
`iv
`
`Page 5 of 115
`
`

`

`F.
`
`G.
`
`
`
`
`4.
`
`2.
`
`Claim 11 — “The system of claim 1, wherein
`coefficients of the filter are generated during a period
`when only speech is being received by the first physical
`microphone and the second physical microphone.” ................. 82
`Elko, Boll and Buck, in view of Elko II (Combination 4),
`Renders Claims 4 and 7 Obvious ........................................................ 83
`1.
`Claim 4 — “The system of claim 1, wherein the delay is
`applied to the first intermediate signal, wherein the delay
`is proportional to a time difference between arrival of the
`speech at the second physical microphone and arrival of
`the speech at the first physical microphone.” ........................... 83
`Claim 7 — “The system of claim 6, wherein the first
`virtual microphone is formed by applying the delay to the
`first signal.” ............................................................................... 85
`Elko, Boll and Buck, in View of Kanamori (Combination 5),
`Renders Claims 1 and 2 Obvious ........................................................ 85
`1.
`Claim 1 ...................................................................................... 85
`[1a] “An acoustic voice activity detection system comprising:
`a first virtual microphone comprising a first combination
`of a first signal and a second signal, wherein the first
`signal is received from a first physical microphone and
`the second signal is received from a second physical
`microphone;” ............................................................................. 85
`[1b] “a filter, wherein the filter is formed by generating a first
`quantity by applying a calibration to at least one of the
`first signal and the second signal,” ........................................... 85
`[1c] “generating a second quantity by applying a delay to the
`first signal,” ............................................................................... 85
`[1d] “and forming the filter as a ratio of the first quantity to
`the second quantity; and” .......................................................... 88
`[1e] “a second virtual microphone formed by applying the
`filter to the first signal to generate a first intermediate
`
`v
`
`Page 6 of 115
`
`

`

`
`
`
`signal and summing the first intermediate signal and the
`second signal,” .......................................................................... 88
`[1f] “wherein acoustic voice activity of a speaker is
`determined to be present when an energy ratio of
`energies of the first virtual microphone and the second
`virtual microphone is greater than a threshold value.” ............. 88
`Claim 2 — “The system of claim 1, wherein the first
`virtual microphone and the second virtual microphone
`have approximately similar responses to noise and
`approximately, dissimilar responses to speech.” ...................... 88
`
`2.
`
`vi
`
`Page 7 of 115
`
`

`

`
`
`
`I, Jeffrey S. Vipperman, declare as follows:
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`1.
`
`I have been retained as an independent expert by Google LLC
`
`(“Petitioner” or “Google”) in connection with an inter partes review of U.S. Patent
`
`No. 8,321,213 (the “’213 patent”) (Ex. 1001). I have prepared this declaration in
`
`connection with Google’s Petition (Paper 1).
`
`2.
`
`Specifically, this document contains my opinions about the
`
`technology claimed in claims 1-13 and 42 of the ’213 patent (the “Challenged
`
`Claims”) and Google’s grounds of unpatentability for these claims.
`
`II.
`
`SUMMARY OF OPINIONS
`3.
`This declaration considers the Challenged Claims of the ’213 patent.
`
`Below I set forth the opinions I have formed, the conclusions I have reached, and
`
`the bases for these opinions and conclusions.
`
`4.
`
`In forming my opinions, I have assumed that the priority date of the
`
`’213 patent is May 25, 2007, which is the filing date of U.S. Application No.
`
`11/805,987, as listed on the cover page of the ’213 patent. Ex. 1001 at Cover. I
`
`understand the ’213 patent purports to be a continuation-in-part of the ’987
`
`application. Id.
`
`5.
`
`Based on my experience, knowledge of the art, analysis of the
`
`asserted grounds and references, and understanding a person of ordinary skill in the
`
`1
`
`Page 8 of 115
`
`

`

`
`
`
`art (“POSITA”) would have had of the claims, it is my opinion that the Challenged
`
`Claims of the ’213 patent would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in
`
`the art as of 2007, based on the asserted grounds.
`
`III. BACKGROUND AND QUALIFICATIONS
`6.
`I believe that I am well qualified to serve as a technical expert in this
`
`matter based upon my educational and work experience, which I summarize below.
`
`I understand that my curriculum vitae, which includes a more detailed summary of
`
`my background, experience, patents, and publications, is attached as Ex. 1011.
`
`A. Education
`7.
`I received my Ph.D. in Mechanical Engineering from Duke University
`
`in 1997. Previously, I obtained Master of Science and Bachelor of Science degrees
`
`in Mechanical Engineering from the Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State
`
`University (“Virginia Tech”) in 1992 and 1990, respectively. My dissertation at
`
`Duke was titled “Adaptive Piezoelectric Sensoriactuators for Multivariable
`
`Structural Acoustic Control.” My dissertation addressed the development of a
`
`hybrid analog/digital circuit and adaptation method to permit piezoelectric
`
`transducers to be used simultaneously as a sensor and an actuator. Doing so
`
`provides an array of truly “co-located” sensor/actuator pairs with minimum phase,
`
`such that stability of the multichannel feedback system is greatly enhanced. These
`
`were demonstrated for active structural acoustic control.
`
`2
`
`Page 9 of 115
`
`

`

`
`
`
`B.
`8.
`
`Experience
`I am a Professor of Mechanical Engineering, Bioengineering, and
`
`Communication Sciences and Disorders. I also currently serve as Vice Chair of the
`
`Mechanical Engineering and Materials Science Department at the University of
`
`Pittsburgh.
`
`9.
`
`I first began research in acoustics and sound systems in 1989 as an
`
`undergraduate student. My masters research concerned adaptive feedforward
`
`control of broadband structural vibration, and my Ph.D. research concerned the
`
`development of arrays of self-sensing piezoelectric transducers that could be used
`
`for active structural-acoustic control. I have also developed a number of algorithms
`
`for active control of noise and vibration.
`
`10. My acoustics research has included a mix of theory, analytical and
`
`numerical modeling, and measurement of acoustic and vibration systems. Aside
`
`from the previously mentioned array research, my acoustics research has included
`
`transducer and controls development, transducer modeling/fabrication/testing,
`
`analog/digital signal processing, embedded systems, active and passive noise and
`
`vibration control, development of various types of metamaterials (e.g., phononic
`
`crystals, resonant lattices, layered media, and pentamode materials) for acoustical
`
`filtering and cloaking, development of noise classifiers to discern types of military
`
`noise or for incorporation into surgical devices as surgical aids, development of
`
`3
`
`Page 10 of 115
`
`

`

`
`
`
`thermoacoustic engines, refrigerators, and sensors (e.g., a wireless, “in-core”
`
`thermoacoustic sensor that can measure temperature and neutron flux inside a
`
`nuclear reactor). Additional topics of my research include developing structural
`
`acoustic models (i.e., concerned with sound radiation from vibrating structures) of
`
`sound transmission through finite cylinders, various methods of passive and active
`
`control of noise, vibration, and structural-acoustic radiation (i.e., controlling sound
`
`radiation of a vibrating structure by introducing additional vibrations to make it an
`
`inefficient radiator), hearing loss prevention, and modeling of ear response and
`
`damage to the inner ear for impulsive and ultrasound sources. During the early
`
`stages of the microelectromechanical systems (MEMS) revolution, I worked on
`
`producing some of the earliest silicon-on-insulator (MEMS) microphones through
`
`electronic fabrication methods.
`
`11. As a professor, I have developed and taught three graduate courses
`
`directly related to acoustics and signal processing, including “Measurement and
`
`Analysis of Vibroacoustic Systems,” “Fundamentals of Acoustics and Vibration,”
`
`and “Measurement and Analysis of Random Data from Dynamical Systems.” The
`
`latter two courses cover acoustical arrays. I have also taught three mechanical
`
`measurements courses, a dynamic systems and introductory undergraduate and
`
`graduate mechanical vibrations course, and an advanced (Ph.D. candidate level)
`
`vibrations course, as well as related courses such as controls, undergraduate and
`
`4
`
`Page 11 of 115
`
`

`

`
`
`
`graduate dynamics, kinematics, mechanical measurements, and electrical circuits.
`
`Further, I have developed and given a short course at the American Controls
`
`Conference on “Active Control of Sound, Vibration, and Structural Acoustics,” as
`
`well as two other short courses for local industry on “Acoustical Theory and
`
`Measurements” and “Noise and Vibration Measurements.”
`
`12.
`
`I also have a consulting business (Blue Ridge Consulting) and am
`
`Vice President of Atlas Medtech, LLC, a University of Pittsburgh licensed startup
`
`company.
`
`13.
`
`I have worked on Department of Defense (“DoD”) projects as a
`
`Principal Investigator and Co-Principal Investigator on projects that involve
`
`acoustic arrays. In one project, a microphone array and cross-correlation methods
`
`(time difference of arrival or TDOA methods) were used to determine the bearing
`
`angle for acoustic plane waves associated with various forms of military and
`
`natural noise. Multiple arrays were used to triangulate the location of the noise
`
`source. In conjunction, we developed machine learning algorithms to classify the
`
`noise source, which provided additional help for noise management programs
`
`around U.S. military bases. A corporate partner commercialized the array and
`
`research into a product. In another project, I helped co-develop a method for
`
`localizing sound using small arrays of unidirectional (e.g., “shot-gun”)
`
`microphones. The methods worked in both the time and frequency domains.
`
`5
`
`Page 12 of 115
`
`

`

`
`
`
`Another military project funded by DoD involved the development of 2-D and 3-D
`
`source parametric arrays for steering heterodyned ultrasound for communications
`
`systems.
`
`14. Some of my professional activities include chairing an American
`
`National Standards Institute (ANSI) Committee to revise the ANSI S1.1 Acoustical
`
`Terminology Standard. I am also a Fellow in the American Society of Mechanical
`
`Engineers (ASME) and a former Chair of the Noise Control and Acoustics
`
`Division of ASME. I also chaired the Per Bruel Gold Medal in Acoustics Award
`
`selection committee for ASME. I have organized nine conference sessions on
`
`acoustics and was a Track Organizer (over multiple conference sessions) for nine
`
`ASME conferences, as well as Technical Program Chair over all acoustics-related
`
`conference sessions at the ASME International Mechanical Engineering Congress
`
`and Exposition (IMECE) in 2009. I also participated on a National Research
`
`Council (National Academies) panel to evaluate the hearing loss prevention
`
`component of the mining program for the National Institute for Occupational
`
`Safety and Health (NIOSH) research programs.
`
`15.
`
`I have published numerous technical papers, book chapters, reports,
`
`and the like related to acoustic sensors and acoustic signal processing.
`
`6
`
`Page 13 of 115
`
`

`

`
`
`
`C. Compensation
`16.
`I am being compensated for services provided in this matter at my
`
`usual and customary rate of $400 per hour plus travel expenses. My compensation
`
`is not conditioned on the conclusions I reach as a result of my analysis or on the
`
`outcome of this matter, and in no way affects the substance of my statements in
`
`this declaration.
`
`17.
`
`I am not aware of any financial interest that I have in the Patent
`
`Owner, or any of its subsidiaries or affiliates. Likewise, I am not aware of any
`
`financial interest that I have in Petitioner, or any of its subsidiaries or affiliates. I
`
`do not have any financial interest in the ’213 patent or any proceeding involving
`
`the ’213 patent.
`
`IV. MATERIALS CONSIDERED
`
`18.
`
`In forming my opinions, I have analyzed the following, including the
`
`’213 patent, its file history, the prior art listed in this declaration and in the Petition
`
`grounds, and the materials listed in this declaration.
`
`Description
`Exhibit
`1001 U.S. Patent No. 8,321,213 to Petit (“the ’213 patent”)
`1002 U.S. Patent No. 8,098,844 to Elko (“Elko”)
`1003
`
`S. F. Boll, Suppression of Acoustic Noise in Speech Using Spectral
`Subtraction, 27 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON ACOUSTICS, SPEECH, &
`SIGNAL PROCESSING 113, April 1979
`
`7
`
`Page 14 of 115
`
`

`

`
`
`
`1004 U.S. Patent No. 8,194,872 to Buck
`1005 U.S. Patent No. 7,146,315 to Balan
`1006 U.S. Patent No. 8,942,387 to Elko (“Elko II”)
`1008 Declaration of Ray Cruitt
`1009
`
`Scheduling Order, Jawbone Innovations, LLC v. Google LLC,
`No. 6:21-cv-00985, Dkt. 27 (W.D. Tex. Sep. 23, 2021)
`
`1010
`File History of U.S. Patent No. 8,321,213
`1012 MICHAEL BRANDSTEIN ET AL., MICROPHONE ARRAYS – SIGNAL
`PROCESSING TECHNIQUES AND APPLICATIONS, 1st ed., 2001.
`1013 EP1488661 B1 to Elko
`1014 U.S. Patent No. 5,757,937 to Itoh et al.
`1015 WO/2003096031 A2 to Burnett et al.
`1018 U.S. Patent Publication No. 2004/0185804 to Kanamori
`1019 Brüel & Kjaer, Type 4128-C Head And Torso Simulator (HATS),
`https://www.bksv.com/en/transducers/simulators/head-and-torso/hats-
`type-4128c (last visited Feb. 22, 2022).
`
`19. My opinions are based on my experience, knowledge of the relevant
`
`art, the documents identified above, and the documents discussed in this
`
`declaration.
`
`V. LEGAL STANDARDS
`
`20.
`
`I am not a lawyer. My understanding of the legal standards to apply in
`
`reaching the conclusions in this declaration is based on discussions with counsel
`
`for Petitioner, my experience applying similar standards in other patent-related
`
`8
`
`Page 15 of 115
`
`

`

`
`
`
`matters, and my reading of the documents submitted in this proceeding. In
`
`preparing this declaration, I sought to faithfully apply these legal standards to the
`
`challenged claims.
`
`A. Claim Construction
`21.
`I have been instructed that the terms appearing in the ’213 patent
`
`should be interpreted in view of the claim language itself, the specification, the
`
`prosecution history of the patent, and any relevant extrinsic evidence. The words of
`
`a claim are generally given their ordinary and customary meaning, which is the
`
`meaning that the term would have to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time
`
`of the invention, which I am assuming here is May 25, 2007. While claim
`
`limitations cannot be read in from the specification, the specification is the single
`
`best guide to the meaning of a disputed term. I have followed these principles in
`
`reviewing the claims of the ’213 patent and forming the opinions set forth in this
`
`declaration.
`
`B.
`22.
`
`Level of Ordinary Skill
`I understand a person of ordinary skill in the art is determined by
`
`looking at (i) the type of problems encountered in the art; (ii) prior art solutions to
`
`those problems; (iii) rapidity with which innovations are made; (iv) sophistication
`
`of the technology; and (v) educational level of active workers in the field.
`
`9
`
`Page 16 of 115
`
`

`

`
`
`
`23.
`
`In my opinion, a person of ordinary skill in the art (“POSITA”) 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 formal education and additional formal education can
`
`substitute for work experience. I was at least a POSITA as of May 25, 2007.
`
`C. Obviousness
`24.
`I have been told that under 35 U.S.C. § 103, a patent claim may be
`
`obvious if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the
`
`prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the
`
`time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which
`
`said subject matter pertains.
`
`25.
`
`I have been told that a proper obviousness analysis requires the
`
`following:
`
`a.
`
`b.
`
`Determining the scope and content of the prior art;
`
`Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the
`
`claims at issue;
`
`c.
`
`Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art; and
`
`10
`
`Page 17 of 115
`
`

`

`
`
`
`d.
`
`Considering evidence of secondary indicia of non-obviousness
`
`(if available).
`
`26.
`
`I have been told that the relevant time for considering whether a claim
`
`would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art is the time of
`
`invention. For purposes of my analysis, I assumed that the date of invention for the
`
`Challenged Claims is May 25, 2007.
`
`27.
`
`I have been told that a reference may be modified or combined with
`
`other references or with the person of ordinary skill’s own knowledge, if the
`
`person would have found the modification or combination obvious. I have also
`
`been told that a person of ordinary skill in the art is presumed to know all the
`
`relevant prior art, and the obviousness analysis may take into account the
`
`inferences and creative steps that a person of ordinary skill in the art would
`
`employ.
`
`28.
`
`I have been told that whether a prior art reference renders a patent
`
`claim obvious is determined from the perspective of a person of ordinary skill in
`
`the art. I have also been told that, while there is no requirement that the prior art
`
`contain an express suggestion to combine known elements to achieve the claimed
`
`invention, and while a suggestion to combine known elements to achieve the
`
`claimed invention may come from the prior art as a whole or individually and may
`
`consider the inferences and creative steps a person of ordinary skill in the art
`
`11
`
`Page 18 of 115
`
`

`

`
`
`
`would employ, as filtered through the knowledge of one skilled in the art,
`
`obviousness grounds cannot be sustained by mere conclusory statements and must
`
`include some articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning to support the
`
`legal conclusion of obviousness.
`
`29.
`
`I have been told that there is no rigid rule that a reference or
`
`combination of references must contain a “teaching, suggestion, or motivation” to
`
`combine references. But I also have been told that the “teaching, suggestion, or
`
`motivation” test can be used in establishing a rationale for combining elements of
`
`the prior art. I have also been told to be aware of distortions caused by hindsight
`
`bias, and that reading into the prior art the teachings of the invention at issue is
`
`improper.
`
`30.
`
`I am aware that a claim may be obvious where the claim represents
`
`nothing more than a combination of prior art elements according to understood
`
`methods that yields predictable results. I am further aware that a claim may be
`
`obvious where it merely involves the simple substitution of one known element for
`
`another to achieve predictable results. I am additionally aware that it may be
`
`obvious to try a particular combination of claim features if selecting them requires
`
`merely choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a
`
`reasonable expectation of success.
`
`12
`
`Page 19 of 115
`
`

`

`
`
`
`VI. THE ’213 PATENT
`A. Overview
`31. The ’213 patent discloses generating “virtual microphones” from a
`
`pair of physical microphones to detect voice activity. Ex. 1001, Abstract, 3:55-4:3.
`
`Virtual microphones include those “constructed using two or more omnidirectional
`
`microphones and associated signal processing.” Id., 18:33-35. The patent describes
`
`detecting voice by generating a ratio of energies from its virtual microphones, and
`
`then comparing that ratio to a threshold. Id., 3:55-7:7.
`
`32.
`
`In one embodiment, as shown in Figures 3 and 4 below, a first and
`
`second virtual microphone (V1 and V2) are generated by combining signals from a
`
`first and second physical microphone (O1 and O2). Id., 4:13-30, Figs. 3, 4. The
`
`microphone signals are filtered by a calibration filter (α(z)), a delay filter (z−γ), and
`
`an adaptive filter (β(z)), and then are combined to generate the first and second
`
`virtual microphone. Id., 5:20-6:59, Figs. 3, 4.
`
`
`
`13
`
`Page 20 of 115
`
`

`

`
`
`
`Ex. 1001, Figs. 3, 4
`
`
`
`33. The patent discloses that the calibration filter (α(z)) compensates the
`
`second microphone’s response so that it is the same as the first, id., 5:20-34, the
`
`adaptive filter (β(z)) “describes the relationship between O1 and calibrated O2 for
`
`speech,” id., and the delay filter (z-γ) applies a fixed delay “that depends on the size
`
`of the [microphone] array,” id. The ratio of energies of the virtual microphones
`
`may be used “with any detection system . . . to determine when speech is
`
`occurring.” Id., 6:1-59, 5:20-34, Figs. 5-11.
`
`B.
`34.
`
`Prosecution History
`I understand the ’213 patent was filed on October 26, 2009, as U.S.
`
`Patent Application No. 12/606,146. Ex. 1001, Cover. The ’146 application
`
`purports to be a continuation-in-part of U.S. Patent Application No. 12/139,333,
`
`now U.S. Patent No. 8,503,691, filed on June 13, 2008, and a continuation-in-part
`
`of U.S. Patent Application No. 11/805,987, now abandoned, filed on May 25,
`
`14
`
`Page 21 of 115
`
`

`

`
`
`
`2007. The ’146 application further claims priority to provisional application no.
`
`61/108,426, filed October 24, 2008.
`
`35. During prosecution, I understand that the claims of the ’146
`
`application were subject to a nonstatutory double patenting rejection over claims
`
`1-44 of U.S. Patent Application No. 12/606,140, now U.S. Patent No. 8,326,611.
`
`Ex. 1010, 104-109. The ’146 application was filed on the same day as the ’140
`
`application. The applicant filed a terminal disclaimer, id., 86-97, and the claims
`
`were allowed, id., 67-74.
`
`VII. ANALYSIS OF PETITION GROUNDS
`36. Based on my professional and academic experience, and my review of
`
`the prior art, it is my opinion that claims 1-13 and 42 of the ’213 patent would have
`
`been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art as of the priority date of the
`
`’213 patent based on the asserted combinations, including Elko (Ex. 1002),
`
`Boll (Ex. 1003), Buck (Ex. 1004), Balan (Ex. 1005), Elko II (Ex. 1006), and
`
`Kanamori (Ex. 1018) (collectively, the “Asserted References”). I provide an
`
`overview of these references below.
`
`A. Overview of The Asserted References
`1.
`Elko (Ex. 1002)
`37. Elko discloses noise suppression systems and methods using multiple
`
`microphones. Ex. 1002, Abstract, 2:36-62. In one embodiment, Elko discloses a
`
`spatial noise suppression (SNS) system 600 that sums (606) and differences (604)
`
`15
`
`Page 22 of 115
`
`

`

`
`
`
`signals from a pair of microphones (“mic 1” and “mic 2”) to generate sum and
`
`difference arrays. Id., 9:22-40, 8:5-22, Fig. 6 (below). Elko comp