UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`GOOGLE LLC,
`
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`JAWBONE INNOVATIONS, LLC,
`
`Patent Owner.
`
`Case IPR2022-01027
`
`Patent No. 8,467,543
`
`DECLARATION OF DAVID V. ANDERSON
`
`Page 1 of 129
`
`GOOGLE EXHIBIT 1003
`
`

`

`Declaration of David V. Anderson, Ph.D.
`
`IPR2022-01027
`Patent No. 8,467,543
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`Page
`I.
`INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................... 4
`II. QUALIFICATIONS ........................................................................................ 5
`III. MATERIALS CONSIDERED ........................................................................ 7
`IV. LEGAL STANDARDS ................................................................................... 8
`V.
`LEVEL OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART ........................................... 11
`VI. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION .......................................................................... 13
`VII. BACKGROUND OF THE ’543 PATENT ................................................... 14
`A.
`Specification ........................................................................................ 14
`B.
`Prosecution History ............................................................................. 18
`VIII. GROUNDS OF UNPATENTABILITY ........................................................ 21
`IX. CLAIMS 1-26 WOULD HAVE BEEN OBVIOUS TO A PERSON
`OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART BASED ON THE PRIOR
`ART IN GROUNDS 1-3 ............................................................................... 22
`A. Ground 1: Claims 1-2 and 5-26 Are Obvious over Andrea,
`Hussain, and Holzrichter ..................................................................... 22
`1.
`Overview of Andrea .................................................................. 22
`2.
`Overview of Hussain ................................................................. 26
`3.
`Overview of Holzrichter ........................................................... 28
`4.
`Independent Claim 1 ................................................................. 30
`5.
`Dependent Claims 6-7 ............................................................... 70
`6.
`Dependent Claims 8-13 ............................................................. 73
`7.
`Dependent Claims 14-18 ........................................................... 84
`8.
`Dependent Claims 19-23 ........................................................... 93
`
`2
`
`Page 2 of 129
`
`

`

`Declaration of David V. Anderson, Ph.D.
`
`IPR2022-01027
`Patent No. 8,467,543
`9.
`Dependent Claims 24-25 ........................................................... 97
`10. Dependent Claims 2 and 5 ........................................................ 99
`11.
`Independent Claim 26 .............................................................106
`B. Ground 2: Claim 3 Is Obvious over Andrea, Hussain,
`Holzrichter, and Stevens ...................................................................108
`1.
`Overview of Stevens ...............................................................108
`2.
`Dependent Claim 3 .................................................................109
`C. Ground 3: Claim 4 Is Obvious over Andrea, Hussain,
`Holzrichter, and Alcivar ....................................................................115
`1.
`Overview of Alcivar................................................................116
`2.
`Dependent Claim 4 .................................................................117
`CONCLUSION ............................................................................................122
`
`
`X.
`
`3
`
`Page 3 of 129
`
`

`

`Declaration of David V. Anderson, Ph.D.
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`IPR2022-01027
`Patent No. 8,467,543
`
`1.
`
`I have been retained by 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. 8,467,543
`
`(“the ’543 patent,” Ex. 1001). The application for the ’543 patent was filed on
`
`March 27, 2003, as U.S. Patent Application No. 10/400,282 (“the ’282
`
`application”). The ’282 application issued as the ’543 patent on June 18, 2013.
`
`5.
`
`The ’543 patent claims priority to U.S. Provisional Application No.
`
`60/368,209, filed March 27, 2002.
`
`6.
`
`I have been asked by Petitioner to provide my opinion on whether the
`
`claims of the ’543 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 ’543 patent. In
`
`performing my analysis, I have been asked to assume that the priority date is
`
`March 27, 2002. My opinions are set forth below.
`
`4
`
`Page 4 of 129
`
`

`

`Declaration of David V. Anderson, Ph.D.
`
`IPR2022-01027
`Patent No. 8,467,543
`Throughout this declaration, I refer to specific pages, figures, and/or
`
`7.
`
`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,
`
`and I received my B.S. and M.S. in Electrical Engineering from Brigham Young
`
`University.
`
`9.
`
`Prior to my time at Georgia Tech, I worked in the field of speech and
`
`audio signal processing. From 1993 to 1994, I designed and implemented signal
`
`processing methods for hearing aids at Sonic Innovations. From 1994 to 1999, I
`
`performed research in audio signal processing, specializing in speech
`
`enhancement. During that time, I also worked as a consultant to multiple
`
`companies developing algorithms for general speech enhancement in wireless
`
`telephone systems, speech quality assessment, and speech detection. This work led
`
`to the filing and issuance of several patents, including one on speech detection in
`
`noise and one on speech enhancement (noise removal from speech).
`
`5
`
`Page 5 of 129
`
`

`

`Declaration of David V. Anderson, Ph.D.
`
`IPR2022-01027
`Patent No. 8,467,543
`In my employment prior to Georgia Tech, as well as in my subsequent
`
`10.
`
`studies and research, I have worked extensively in areas related to research, design,
`
`and implementation of audio and speech processing algorithms and in speech
`
`enhancement. I have designed and taught a graduate course on adaptive signal
`
`processing, which includes the topics of estimating transfer functions, correlation,
`
`using cross-correlation to estimate signal similarity and to compute transfer
`
`functions, and extracting signals of interest from noisy signals. 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). These courses and my research have covered
`
`many topics relevant to the subject matter of the ’543 patent and the cited prior art.
`
`In particular, concepts such as voice detection, denoising, and subband processing
`
`are all topics with which I am intimately familiar.
`
`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.
`
`6
`
`Page 6 of 129
`
`

`

`Declaration of David V. Anderson, Ph.D.
`
`IPR2022-01027
`Patent No. 8,467,543
`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:
`
`Description
`Exhibit
`Ex. 1001 U.S. Patent No. 8,467,543 (“the ’543 patent”)
`Ex. 1002 Prosecution History of the ’543 Patent
`Ex. 1005 U.S. Patent No. 5,732,143 to Andrea et al. (“Andrea”)
`Ex. 1006 Amir Hussain et al., A New Metric for Selecting Sub-Band Processing
`in Adaptive Speech Enhancement Systems, Proc. 5th European
`Conference on Speech Communication and Technology (Eurospeech
`’97), 2611-14 (“Hussain”)
`Ex. 1007 U.S. Patent No. 6,006,175 to Holzrichter (“Holzrichter”)
`Ex. 1008 K.N. Stevens et al., A Miniature Accelerometer For Detecting
`Glottal Waveforms and Nasalization, Journal of Speech and
`Hearing Research, September 1975, Vol. 18 (No. 3) 594-99
`(“Stevens”)
`Ex. 1009 U.S. Patent No. 3,746,789 to Alcivar (“Alcivar”)
`
`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.
`
`7
`
`Page 7 of 129
`
`

`

`Declaration of David V. Anderson, Ph.D.
`
`IPR2022-01027
`Patent No. 8,467,543
`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 ’543 patent at the time of the alleged
`
`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 (in this case, the
`
`filing date of the provisional patent application to which the ’543 patent claims
`
`priority): March 27, 2002.
`
`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 1-26 of the ’543 patent from the perspective
`
`of a person of ordinary skill in the art at the ’543 patent’s priority date in 2002, as
`
`described in more detail below.
`
`8
`
`Page 8 of 129
`
`

`

`Declaration of David V. Anderson, Ph.D.
`
`IPR2022-01027
`Patent No. 8,467,543
`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
`
`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.
`
`9
`
`Page 9 of 129
`
`

`

`Declaration of David V. Anderson, Ph.D.
`
`IPR2022-01027
`Patent No. 8,467,543
`I have been advised and understand that a patent claim may be invalid
`
`23.
`
`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
`
`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
`
`10
`
`Page 10 of 129
`
`

`

`Declaration of David V. Anderson, Ph.D.
`
`IPR2022-01027
`Patent No. 8,467,543
`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.
`
`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 or her 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 ’543 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 ’543 patent’s claims and the prior art through the eyes of a
`
`11
`
`Page 11 of 129
`
`

`

`Declaration of David V. Anderson, Ph.D.
`
`IPR2022-01027
`Patent No. 8,467,543
`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.
`
`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 ’543 patent as of its filing date, would have at
`
`least 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 March 27, 2002, I was at least a person of ordinary skill in the art,
`
`as shown by my qualifications and work experience above.
`
`12
`
`Page 12 of 129
`
`

`

`Declaration of David V. Anderson, Ph.D.
`
`IPR2022-01027
`Patent No. 8,467,543
`In this declaration, and for all of my opinions herein, I have applied
`
`33.
`
`the knowledge of a person of ordinary skill in the art as of March 27, 2002.
`
`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
`
`that the “time of the invention” for purposes of claim construction is March 27,
`
`2002, which is the earliest claimed priority filing date for the ’543 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 or
`
`her 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 or her patent claims, which may differ
`
`from the term’s plain and ordinary meaning. That special definition or limitation
`
`13
`
`Page 13 of 129
`
`

`

`Declaration of David V. Anderson, Ph.D.
`
`IPR2022-01027
`Patent No. 8,467,543
`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 POSITA in the relevant time period.
`
`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 ’543
`
`patent (March 27, 2002).
`
`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 ’543 patent as it would have been
`
`understood by one skilled in the art as of March 27, 2002.
`
`VII. BACKGROUND OF THE ’543 PATENT
`A.
`
`Specification
`
`39. The ’543 patent describes “detecting and processing a desired acoustic
`
`signal in the presence of acoustic noise.” Ex. 1001, 1:28-30. The ’543 patent states
`
`that most prior noise suppression systems were “based on a single-microphone
`
`14
`
`Page 14 of 129
`
`

`

`Declaration of David V. Anderson, Ph.D.
`
`IPR2022-01027
`Patent No. 8,467,543
`spectral subtraction technique” and used “a single-microphone Voice Activity
`
`Detector (VAD) to determine the background noise characteristics.” Id., 1:35-37,
`
`1:44-47. The ’543 patent explains that these systems were “limited in capability”
`
`because they used a single microphone to receive acoustic information and that
`
`performance was especially limited “when processing signals having a low signal-
`
`to-noise ratio (SNR), and in settings where the background noise varies quickly.”
`
`Id., 1:60-67.
`
`40. The ’543 patent describes a signal processing system 100 shown in
`
`Figure 1 below. Id., 5:18-20, 14:40-50, Fig. 1. Signal processing system 100
`
`includes a noise removal or suppression system 105 and a VAD system 106. Id.
`
`The signal processing system 100 also includes an array of two microphones, MIC
`
`1 103 and MIC 2 104, that receive signals from a speech source 101 and a noise
`
`source 102. Id., 5:20-24, 14:43-46. H1(z) represents the path from the noise
`
`source 102 to MIC 1, and H2(z) represents the path from the speech signal
`
`source 101 to MIC 2. Id., 5:26-28, 14:48-50.
`
`15
`
`Page 15 of 129
`
`

`

`Declaration of David V. Anderson, Ph.D.
`
`IPR2022-01027
`Patent No. 8,467,543
`
`microphone array
`
`Id., Fig. 1 (annotated). The VAD indicates whether speech (voice activity) is
`
`occurring. See id., 4:52-57.
`
`41. The system uses the VAD signal 106 “to control the method of noise
`
`removal.” Id. 14:51-52. For example, “where the VAD indicates voicing is not
`
`
`
`occurring,” the system assumes that the speech signal is zero and approximates
`
`H1(z) as:
`
`H(cid:2869)(cid:4666)z(cid:4667)(cid:3404)M(cid:2869)(cid:2924)(cid:4666)z(cid:4667)
`M(cid:2870)(cid:2924)(cid:4666)z(cid:4667)
`
`where M1(z) and M2(z) denote the digital frequency (“z”) domain acoustic
`
`information coming into MIC 1 and MIC 2, respectively, and where the n subscript
`
`indicates that only noise is being received. Id., 14:51-56, 14:67-15:14. In contrast,
`
`16
`
`Page 16 of 129
`
`

`

`Declaration of David V. Anderson, Ph.D.
`
`IPR2022-01027
`Patent No. 8,467,543
`“[w]hen the VAD indicates voicing,” the system assumes that the noise signal is
`
`zero and approximates H2(z) as: H(cid:2870)(cid:4666)z(cid:4667)(cid:3404)M(cid:2870)(cid:2929)(cid:4666)z(cid:4667)
`M(cid:2869)(cid:2929)(cid:4666)z(cid:4667)
`
`Id., 15:20-35.
`
`42. The calculations of H1(z) and H2(z) are “used to remove the noise
`
`from the [speech] signal” to produce a cleaned or denoised speech signal S(z) as
`
`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)
`
`
`
`follows:
`
`Id., 15:46-63.
`
`43. The ’543 patent describes subband processing of the acoustic signals.
`
`Id., 16:9-11. The signals from the first and second microphones are filtered into
`
`multiple subbands, sending data from each subband to its own adaptive filter, and
`
`then adding the noise-suppressed results from each subband “to form the final
`
`denoised signal at the end.” Id., 16:31-40.
`
`44. The ’543 patent also describes a number of microphone types
`
`(omnidirectional and unidirectional) and configurations in handsets and headsets.
`
`See, e.g., id., 2:34-3:35.
`
`17
`
`Page 17 of 129
`
`

`

`Declaration of David V. Anderson, Ph.D.
`
`B.
`
`Prosecution History
`
`IPR2022-01027
`Patent No. 8,467,543
`
`45. The ’543 patent was filed as U.S. Patent Application No. 10/400,282
`
`(“the ’282 application”) and claims priority to U.S. Provisional Application No.
`
`60/368,209, filed March 27, 2002. The ’282 application received eight rejections
`
`during prosecution. Ex. 1002, 213-221, 289-307, 330-342, 381-394, 431-444, 481-
`
`492, 541-553, 613-621.
`
`46.
`
`In response to the first rejection, Applicant amended independent
`
`claims 1 and 18 to recite a voice detection subsystem comprising two
`
`unidirectional microphones separated by a distance in a range of 0-15 centimeters
`
`and an angle in a range of 0-180° and a VAD algorithm. Id., 232, 235. Applicant
`
`also amended independent claim 34 to recite a headset, id., 238, and added four
`
`new independent claims, id., 239-241. Applicant argued that the amended claims
`
`were patentable because they incorporated subject matter the Examiner identified
`
`as allowable. Id., 242-243.
`
`47.
`
`In the next rejection, the Examiner indicated that the subject matter
`
`Applicant had added to independent claims 1 and 18 was “mistakenly included in
`
`the list” of allowable subject matter in the previous rejection. See id., 291. The
`
`Examiner rejected all pending claims. Id., 289-307.
`
`48.
`
`In response to the second rejection, Applicant amended independent
`
`claims 1 and 41 to remove the language it added by its previous amendment,
`
`18
`
`Page 18 of 129
`
`

`

`Declaration of David V. Anderson, Ph.D.
`
`IPR2022-01027
`Patent No. 8,467,543
`remove additional language, and add limitations related to “a microphone array” of
`
`two microphones and their relative orientation. Id., 313, 316-317. Applicant argued
`
`that none of the prior art references disclosed two microphones with vectors
`
`normal to the front surfaces and an angle between the two vectors. Id. 321.
`
`Applicant also added 12 new dependent claims related to the types of microphones
`
`(unidirectional and omnidirectional) and their relative spacing and orientation. Id.,
`
`317-318.
`
`49. The Examiner found Applicant’s amendments and arguments
`
`unpersuasive and “assert[ed] that the newly recited claim language is implicit.” Id.,
`
`332.
`
`50.
`
`In response to the third and fourth rejections, Applicant did not amend
`
`the claims, id., 364-369, 408-413, and instead argued that the prior art did not
`
`disclose “the relative positioning of the two microphones” as claimed. Id., 373,
`
`415; see also id., 374-378, 416-422.
`
`51.
`
`In response to the fifth rejection, Applicant amended independent
`
`claims 1 and 41 to remove reference to “vector[s]” normal to the front of the
`
`microphones and instead recite the orientation of the microphones based on a first
`
`and second position relative to the mouth of a user and each other. Id., 459, 462.
`
`Applicant continued to argue that the prior art did not teach “the relative
`
`positioning of the two microphones” as claimed. Id., 465-472.
`
`19
`
`Page 19 of 129
`
`

`

`Declaration of David V. Anderson, Ph.D.
`
`IPR2022-01027
`Patent No. 8,467,543
`In response to the sixth rejection, Applicant amended independent
`
`52.
`
`claims 1 and 41 to recite “wherein the angle [between the front of the first and
`
`second microphones] is greater than zero degrees” and argued that the prior art did
`
`not teach this limitation. Id., 520, 523, 526-535.
`
`53.
`
`In the next rejection, the Examiner found Applicant’s arguments about
`
`the microphone orientation, specifically “a first position oriented towards the
`
`mouth and the other position away from the mouth” persuasive, withdrew the prior
`
`rejection, but issued an additional ground of rejection. Id., 543.
`
`54.
`
`In response to the seventh rejection, Applicant amended independent
`
`claims 1 and 41 to recite “wherein the voice detection subsystem is configured to
`
`receive the voice activity signals using a sensor independent from the microphone
`
`array and to output the control signals generated from the voice activity signals to
`
`the denoising system, the denoising system configured to use the control signals to
`
`denoise the acoustic signals from the microphone array.” Id. 585-586, 589.
`
`55. After issuing two notices of noncompliant amendments, id., 592-593,
`
`608-609, the Examiner issued an office action withdrawing the prior rejection and
`
`issuing a double patenting rejection over copending U.S. Application Nos.
`
`10/301,237, 12/163,647, and 12/123,364, id., 615-620. In response to the eighth
`
`rejection, Applicant filed a terminal disclaimer to address the double patenting
`
`rejection. Id., 637-638.
`
`20
`
`Page 20 of 129
`
`

`

`Declaration of David V. Anderson, Ph.D.
`
`IPR2022-01027
`Patent No. 8,467,543
`56. The Examiner issued a notice of allowance and provided the
`
`following reasons for allowance:
`
`The above claims are allowed after further search since
`although, the prior arts disclose of the voice detecting
`subsystem and denoising subsystem but, none of the prior
`art disclose of such specific as wherein the voice detection
`subsystem is configured to receive the voice activity
`signals using a sensor independent from the microphone
`array and to output the control signals generated from the
`voice activity signals to the denoising system, the
`denoising system configured to use the control signals to
`denoise the acoustic signals from the microphone array.
` Id., 654 (emphasis added).
`
`57. During prosecution, the Examiner did not have the benefit of the prior
`
`art asserted in this Petition (with the exception of Holzrichter, which was submitted
`
`in an IDS but not applied by the Examiner), which disclose the features the
`
`Examiner determined were not present in the prior art.
`
`VIII. GROUNDS OF UNPATENTABILITY
`
`58. Based on my review of the materials set forth above, including my
`
`application of the knowledge of a person of ordinary skill in the art, it is my
`
`opinion that claims 1-26 of the ’543 patent would have been obvious to a person of
`
`ordinary skill in the art.
`
`59.
`
`In particular, it is my opinion that claims 1-26 of the ’543 patent
`
`would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art based on the
`
`combinations shown below:
`
`21
`
`Page 21 of 129
`
`

`

`Declaration of David V. Anderson, Ph.D.
`
`IPR2022-01027
`Patent No. 8,467,543
`
`Ground 1 Andrea, Hussain, and Holzrichter render obvious claims 1-2 and 5-
`
`26 under pre-AIA § 103.
`
`Ground 2 Andrea, Hussain, Holzrichter, and Stevens render obvious claim 3
`
`under pre-AIA § 103.
`
`Ground 3 Andrea, Hussain, Holzrichter, and Alcivar render obvious claim 4
`
`under pre-AIA § 103.
`
`
`
`IX. CLAIMS 1-26 WOULD HAVE BEEN OBVIOUS TO A PERSON OF
`ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART BASED ON THE PRIOR ART IN
`GROUNDS 1-3
`A. Ground 1: Claims 1-2 and 5-26 Are Obvious over Andrea,
`Hussain, and Holzrichter
`
`60.
`
`In my opinion, claims 1-2 and 5-26 would have been obvious to a
`
`POSITA based on Andrea, Hussain, and Holzrichter.
`
`1. Overview of Andrea
`
`61. Andrea, like the ’543 patent, discloses a “noise cancellation
`
`apparatus” used in telecommunication and other communication systems. Ex.
`
`1005, 11:19-20, 9:13-21, 6:58-61, 7:9-13. Andrea’s Figure 2, shown below,
`
`discloses a nearly identical structure to Figure 1 of the ’543 patent. Compare Ex.
`
`1005, Fig. 2, with Ex. 1001, Fig. 1. Andrea discloses a first microphone 12 and a
`
`second microphone 14 (making up a microphone array) and a subtracting device
`
`22
`
`Page 22 of 129
`
`

`

`Declaration of David V. Anderson, Ph.D.
`
`IPR2022-01027
`Patent No. 8,467,543
`16, such as an operation amplifier (op-amp). Ex. 1005, 12:46-54. Andrea describes
`
`a “VOX circuit” to sense speech in a “headset having a ‘talk-thru’ capability.” See
`
`Ex. 1005, 33:44-35:7.
`
`microphone
`array
`
`Id., Fig. 2 (annotated).
`
`
`
`62. Andrea discloses that “[t]he op-amp 16 is adapted to subtract the noise
`
`signal from the second microphone 14 from the speech and noise signal from the
`
`first microphone 12” and to supply “an electrical signal representing substantially
`
`the speech to the telephone unit 18.” Id., 12:55-66.
`
`63. Andrea contains various disclosures implementing its system in
`
`handsets or headsets. Figure 1 of Andrea, below, shows an exemplary handset. Id.,
`
`12:33-45, Fig. 1. Andrea describes, and Figures 3A and 3B below show, the
`
`relative position and orientation of the first microphone 12 and second microphone
`
`23
`
`Page 23 of 129
`
`

`

`Declaration of David V. Anderson, Ph.D.
`
`IPR2022-01027
`Patent No. 8,467,543
`14 below portion 46 of handset 10. Id., 13:65-14:6, 14:7-29, 14:30-34, 14:49-53,
`
`Figs. 3A, 3B.
`
`handset
`
`Id., Fig. 1 (annotated).
`
`
`
`Id., Figs. 3A, 3B (annotated).
`
`64. Figure 9C of Andrea, below, shows a headset. Id., 19:65-20:14, Fig.
`
`9C. Andrea describes, and Figure 9A below show