Case 2:21-cv-00186-JRG-RSP Document 67 Filed 06/21/22 Page 1 of 27 PageID #: 1342
`
`
`JAWBONE INNOVATIONS, LLC,
`
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`
`
`v.
`
`
`SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO. LTD. and
`SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS AMERICA,
`INC.,
`
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
`MARSHALL DIVISION
`§
`
`§
`Case No. 2:21-cv-00186-JRG
`§
`
`JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`§
`§
`
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`
`
`
`Defendants.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`JAWBONE INNOVATIONS, LLC’S
`OPENING CLAIM CONSTRUCTION BRIEF
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`APPLE 1023
`
`1
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-00186-JRG-RSP Document 67 Filed 06/21/22 Page 2 of 27 PageID #: 1343
`
`
`I.
`
`II.
`
`III.
`
`IV.
`
`V.
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`Page(s)
`
`INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................................. 1
`
`THE PATENTS IN SUIT ................................................................................................... 1
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`D.
`
`The ’091 Patent ....................................................................................................... 1
`
`The ’058 Patent ....................................................................................................... 2
`
`The ’543 Patent ....................................................................................................... 2
`
`The ’691, ’080, and ’357 Patents ............................................................................ 3
`
`LEGAL STANDARD ......................................................................................................... 3
`
`AGREED CONSTRUCTIONS .......................................................................................... 4
`
`DISPUTED TERMS ........................................................................................................... 5
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`D.
`
`E.
`
`F.
`
`G.
`
`“a signal processor coupled with the first and second microphone signals
`and operative … to apply a varying linear transfer function between the
`first and second microphone signals” (’357 Patent, claim 1) / “a
`processing component … applying a varying linear transfer function
`between the acoustic signals” (’080 Patent, claim 14) ........................................... 5
`
`“response [to speech/noise]” / “linear response [to speech/noise]” (’357
`Patent, claims 1, 15, and 17; ’080 Patent, claims 1, 7, 9, and 14; ’691
`Patent, claim 1, 3-7, 23-34, and 41-45)................................................................... 8
`
`“an adaptive noise removal application coupled to . . . and generating”
`(’080 Patent, claims 1and 7) ................................................................................. 10
`
`“an adaptive noise removal application . . . generating denoised output
`signals by forming a plurality of combinations . . . by filtering and
`summing the plurality of combinations . . . and by a varying linear
`transfer function between the plurality of combinations” (’080 Patent,
`claims 1 and 7) ...................................................................................................... 13
`
`“microphone” (’543 Patent, claims 1 and 26) ....................................................... 15
`
`“the one receiver” / “the two receivers” (’058 Patent, claim 1) ............................ 16
`
`“acoustic noise” (’091 Patent, claims 1, 10, 11, and 17) ...................................... 20
`
`VI.
`
`CONCLUSION ................................................................................................................. 21
`
`i
`
`2
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-00186-JRG-RSP Document 67 Filed 06/21/22 Page 3 of 27 PageID #: 1344
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`
`
`Page(s)
`
`Cases
`
`August Tech. Corp. v. Camtek, Ltd.,
`655 F.3d 1278 (Fed. Cir. 2011)..................................................................................................3
`
`Comark Commc’ns, Inc. v. Harris Corp.,
`156 F.3d 1182 (Fed. Cir. 1998)................................................................................................16
`
`In re Downing,
`754 Fed. App’x 988 (Fed. Cir. 2018) .......................................................................................19
`
`Energizer Holdings, Inc. v. Int’l Trade Comm’n,
`435 F.3d 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2006)................................................................................................19
`
`Hill-Rom Servs., Inc. v. Stryker Corp.¸
`755 F.3d 1367 (Fed. Cir. 2014)........................................................................................3, 9, 15
`
`HTC Corp. v. IPCom GmbH & Co. KG,
`667 F.3d 1270 (Fed. Cir. 2012)................................................................................................12
`
`Innogenetics, N.V. v. Abbot Labs.,
`512 F.3d 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2008)................................................................................................16
`
`IPXL Holdings, L.L.C. v. Amazon.com, Inc.,
`430 F.3d 1377 (Fed. Cir. 2005)..........................................................................................10, 11
`
`Markman v. Westview Instruments, Inc.,
`52 F.3d 967 (Fed. Cir. 1995)......................................................................................................3
`
`Nautilus, Inc. v. Biosig Instr., Inc.,
`572 U.S. 898 (2014) ...................................................................................................................4
`
`Nevro Corp. v. Boston Sci. Corp.,
`955 F.3d 35 (Fed. Cir. 2020)......................................................................................................4
`
`Phillips v. AWH Corp.,
`415 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc) .................................................................................3
`
`Thorner v. Sony Comput. Ent. Am. LLC,
`669 F.3d 1362 (Fed. Cir. 2012)..................................................................................................3
`
`Ultimate Pointer, L.L.C. v. Nintendo Co., Ltd.,
`816 F.3d 816 (Fed. Cir. 2016)............................................................................................11, 12
`
`ii
`
`3
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-00186-JRG-RSP Document 67 Filed 06/21/22 Page 4 of 27 PageID #: 1345
`
`Vitronics Corp. v. Conceptronic, Inc.,
`90 F.3d 1576 (Fed. Cir. 1996)................................................................................................4, 6
`
`Statutes
`
`35 U.S.C. §112 .................................................................................................................................4
`
`
`
`iii
`
`4
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-00186-JRG-RSP Document 67 Filed 06/21/22 Page 5 of 27 PageID #: 1346
`
`Pursuant to the Court’s Second Amended Docket Control Order (Dkt. 58), Plaintiff
`
`Jawbone Innovations, LLC (“Jawbone”) hereby submits its Opening Claim Construction Brief.
`
`The asserted patents are U.S. Patent Nos. 8,019,091 (the “’091 Patent”), 7,246,058 (the “’058
`
`Patent”), 10,779,080 (the “’080 Patent”), 11,122,357 (the “’357 Patent”), 8,467,543 (the “’543
`
`Patent”), and 8,503,691 (the “’691 Patent”), (together, the “Asserted Patents”).1
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`Samsung ignores the disclosures of the Asserted Patents to argue that multiple, plainly
`
`understandable limitations are indefinite. Even where Samsung has proposed constructions, those
`
`constructions import limitations from the specification and attempt to limit the claims to the
`
`disclosed embodiments. The Court should reject Samsung’s indefiniteness arguments and
`
`unsupported constructions and adopt Jawbone’s proposals.
`
`II.
`
`THE PATENTS IN SUIT
`
`Jawbone is a pioneer in audio processing technology. The Asserted Patents in this case
`
`stem from the groundbreaking work of Dr. Gregory Burnett, named inventor or co-inventor on
`
`every Asserted Patent, and his co-workers. The patented inventions all generally relate to noise
`
`suppression in acoustic signal processing.
`
`A.
`
`The ’091 Patent
`
`The ’091 Patent generally relates to accomplishing noise suppression in a multiple
`
`microphone system using a Voice Activity Detector (VAD). (’091 Patent, Abstract.) The system
`
`receives acoustic signals from microphones, as well as voicing information (such as the vibration
`
`of human tissue) from the VAD. (Id.) By using that information, the system can generate a transfer
`
`function that characterizes the received acoustic signals, while the VAD indicates that the user is
`
`
`1 In its Election of Asserted Claims pursuant to the Court’s Order Focusing Patent Claims and
`Prior Art (Dkt. 49), Jawbone did not elect any claims of 8,280,072 (the “’072 Patent”).
`
`
`
`5
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-00186-JRG-RSP Document 67 Filed 06/21/22 Page 6 of 27 PageID #: 1347
`
`not talking. (Id.) Using that transfer function, the system can remove environmental noise while
`
`the user is speaking, resulting in denoised, cleaned speech. (Id.)
`
`B.
`
`The ’058 Patent
`
`The ’058 Patent relates to “detecting voiced and unvoiced speech in acoustic signals having
`
`varying levels of background noise.” (’058 Patent, Abstract.) In exemplary embodiments, “[t]he
`
`systems receive acoustic signals at two microphones, and generate difference parameters between
`
`the acoustic signals received at each of the two microphones. The difference parameters are
`
`representative of the relative difference in signal gain between portions of the received acoustic
`
`signals. The systems identify information of the acoustic signals as unvoiced speech when the
`
`difference parameters exceed a first threshold, and identify information of the acoustic signals as
`
`voiced speech when the difference parameters exceed a second threshold. Further, embodiments
`
`of the systems include non-acoustic sensors that receive physiological information to aid in
`
`identifying voiced speech.” (Id.)
`
`C.
`
`The ’543 Patent
`
`The ’543 Patent generally relates to “[c]ommunication systems . . . which use a number of
`
`microphone configurations to receive acoustic signals of an environment. In exemplary
`
`embodiments, “[t]he microphone configurations include, for example, a two-microphone array
`
`including two unidirectional microphones, and a two-microphone array including one
`
`unidirectional microphone and one omnidirectional microphone. The communication systems also
`
`include Voice Activity Detection (VAD) devices to provide information of human voicing activity.
`
`Components of the communications systems receive the acoustic signals and voice activity signals
`
`and, in response, automatically generate control signals from data of the voice activity signals.
`
`Components of the communication systems use the control signals to automatically select a
`
`denoising method appropriate to data of frequency subbands of the acoustic signals. The selected
`
`2
`
`6
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-00186-JRG-RSP Document 67 Filed 06/21/22 Page 7 of 27 PageID #: 1348
`
`denoising method is applied to the acoustic signals to generate denoised acoustic signals when the
`
`acoustic signal includes speech and noise.” ’543 Patent at Abstract.
`
`D.
`
`The ’691, ’080, and ’357 Patents
`
`The ’691, ’080, and ’357 Patents generally relate to “dual omnidirectional microphone
`
`array noise suppression.” The patents claim various aspects of performing noise suppression by
`
`using two microphones. The microphones have similar responses to noise, with dissimilar
`
`responses to speech. This allows the system to isolate the speech signal by subtracting the noise
`
`signal as received by the noise microphone. E.g., ’691 Patent at Abstract.
`
`III. LEGAL STANDARD
`
`Claim construction is a question of law to be decided by the Court. Markman v. Westview
`
`Instruments, Inc., 52 F.3d 967, 979 (Fed. Cir. 1995). In construing claim terms, courts begin with
`
`an examination of the claim language itself. August Tech. Corp. v. Camtek, Ltd., 655 F.3d 1278,
`
`1284 (Fed. Cir. 2011). The terms used in the claims are generally given their “ordinary and
`
`customary meaning.” Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1312 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc)
`
`(citations omitted). This is the meaning as understood by a person of ordinary skill in the art at the
`
`time of the invention. Id. at 1313. “There are only two exceptions” to the general rule that a claim
`
`term is given its plain and ordinary meaning: “1) when a patentee sets out a definition and acts as
`
`his own lexicographer, or 2) when the patentee disavows the full scope of a claim term either in
`
`the specification or during prosecution.” Thorner v. Sony Comput. Ent. Am. LLC, 669 F.3d 1362,
`
`1365 (Fed. Cir. 2012)); accord Hill-Rom Servs., Inc. v. Stryker Corp.¸ 755 F.3d 1367, 1371 (Fed.
`
`Cir. 2014) (“We depart from the plain and ordinary meaning of claim terms based on the
`
`specification in only two instances: lexicography and disavowal.”). Accordingly, “although the
`
`specification often describes very specific embodiments of the invention, [the Federal Circuit]
`
`ha[s] repeatedly warned against confining the claims to those embodiments.” Phillips, 415 F.3d at
`
`3
`
`7
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-00186-JRG-RSP Document 67 Filed 06/21/22 Page 8 of 27 PageID #: 1349
`
`1323. That being said, a construction that excludes a preferred embodiment is “rarely, if ever,
`
`correct.” Vitronics Corp. v. Conceptronic, Inc., 90 F.3d 1576, 1583 (Fed. Cir. 1996).
`
`With regard to definiteness under 35 U.S.C. §112, the Supreme Court has explained that
`
`“absolute precision is unattainable” and “some modicum of uncertainty is the ’price of ensuring
`
`the appropriate incentives for innovation.’” Nautilus, Inc. v. Biosig Instr., Inc., 572 U.S. 898, 899
`
`(2014). “Claims, when viewed in light of the specification and prosecution history, must ‘inform
`
`those skilled in the art about the scope of the invention with reasonable certainty.’” Nevro Corp.
`
`v. Boston Sci. Corp., 955 F.3d 35, 39-40 (Fed. Cir. 2020) (quoting Nautilus, 572 U.S. at 910).
`
`IV. AGREED CONSTRUCTIONS
`
`The Parties have met and conferred, and request that the Court enter the following
`
`agreed-upon constructions.
`
`Term
`“transfer function[s]”
`
`
`“acoustic microphone”
`
`“virtual microphone”
`
`
`Samsung’s Construction
`“a mathematical expression
`that specifies the relationship
`between an output signal and
`an input signal”
`
`“physical microphone”
`
`“microphone constructed
`using two or more
`omnidirectional microphones
`and associated signal
`processing”
`
`Patent Claims
`’091 Patent
`Claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 9, 11, and 15
`
`’357 Patent
`Claim 1
`
`’080 Patent
`Claim 1
`’091 Patent
`Claims 1, 10, 11, and 17
`’357 Patent
`Claims 1, 5, 11, 12, 15, 17, 18, and
`19
`
`’080 Patent
`Claims 1, 14, 18, and 19
`
`’691 Patent
`Claims 1, 4, 10, 12, 15, 17, 21, 22,
`23, 27, 28, 29, 31, 38, 41, and 42
`
`4
`
`8
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-00186-JRG-RSP Document 67 Filed 06/21/22 Page 9 of 27 PageID #: 1350
`
`Term
`“the second linear
`response to noise being
`substantially [missing
`word] the first linear
`response to noise”
`“null”
`
`Patent Claims
`’691 Patent
`Claim 28
`
`’691 Patent
`Claims 3, 4, 5, 20, 23, 24, 30, 31,
`32, 41, 42, 43, and 46
`
`“the VAD”
`
`
`
`
`’091 Patent
`Claims 1 and 2
`
`V.
`
`DISPUTED TERMS
`
`Samsung’s Construction
`“the second linear response to
`noise being substantially
`similar to the first linear
`response to noise”
`
`“a zero or minima in the
`spatial response of a physical
`or virtual directional
`microphone”
`“the VAD signal”
`
`
`A. “a signal processor coupled with the first and second microphone
`signals and operative … to apply a varying linear transfer function
`between the first and second microphone signals” (’357 Patent, claim
`1) / “a processing component … applying a varying linear transfer
`function between the acoustic signals” (’080 Patent, claim 14)
`
`Term
`“a signal processor
`coupled with the first
`and second microphone
`signals and operative …
`to apply a varying linear
`transfer function
`between the first and
`second microphone
`signals”
`
`
`
`Jawbone’s Construction
`Plain and ordinary meaning except
`for “transfer function”
`
`Samsung’s Construction
`“a signal processor coupled
`with the first and second
`microphone signals and
`operative … to apply a
`varying linear transfer
`function to the first
`microphone signal and to
`apply the varying linear
`transfer function to the
`second microphone signal.”
`
`Otherwise indefinite.
`
`Except for “transfer function,”2 this phrase can be given its plain and ordinary meaning
`
`and requires no construction. Samsung does not argue that any portion of the claim language is
`
`
`2 The parties have agreed to construe transfer function as “a mathematical expression that specifies
`the relationship between an output signal and an input signal.” See Section III, supra.
`
`5
`
`9
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-00186-JRG-RSP Document 67 Filed 06/21/22 Page 10 of 27 PageID #: 1351
`
`unclear, but rather that the claim should be restricted to the case where: a transfer function is
`
`applied to the first microphone signal and the same transfer function is applied to the second
`
`microphone signal. One of skill in the art would not understand the claims to be so limited. (Brown
`
`Decl., ¶¶ 69-75.) Indeed, there is no support in the specification for such a restriction; the intrinsic
`
`evidence itself contradicts Samsung’s construction.
`
`The claim language counsels against Samsung’s construction. Each claim that recites this
`
`term also recites “filtering and summing” the microphone signals to generate an output signal that
`
`is denoised or has less noise. (’357 Patent, cl. 1; ’080 Patent cl., 14.) Faced with this claim
`
`language, a person of skill would understand that different filtering can be applied to each
`
`microphone signal. (Brown Decl., ¶ 71.)
`
`Moreover, the term is used in an expansive faction in the specifications. For example, the
`
`’357 Patent explains that, in one embodiment, the “varying linear transfer function” is used to
`
`remove noise from the signal of one microphone. (’357 Patent,3 8:30-39 (“The adaptive filter
`
`generally uses the signal received from a first microphone of the DOMA to remove noise from the
`
`speech received from at least one other microphone of the DOMA, which relies on a slowly
`
`varying linear transfer function between the two microphones for sources of noise.”).) Thus, in
`
`that embodiment, the transfer function is applied only to one signal, contrary to Samsung’s
`
`construction. (Brown Decl., ¶ 72.) Samsung’s construction would exclude this particular
`
`embodiment and should be rejected. Vitronics, 90 F.3d at 1583 (“Such an interpretation is rarely,
`
`if ever, correct….”).
`
`Further, another discussion and equation show different transfer functions, H1(z) and H2(z)
`
`
`3 The ’357 and ’080 Patents have similar disclosures. For simplicity, Jawbone cites to the ’080
`Patent.
`
`6
`
`10
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-00186-JRG-RSP Document 67 Filed 06/21/22 Page 11 of 27 PageID #: 1352
`
`applied to microphone signals M1(z) and M2(z). Dr. Brown explains that the entirety of equation
`
`three further constitutes a transfer function that a POSITA would understand can be slowly varied
`
`(Brown Decl., ¶ 73.):
`
`
`
`(’357 Patent at 7:40-50.) One of skill in the art would understand that different transfer functions
`
`are applied to each microphone signal under equation 3. (Brown Decl., ¶ 73.) The specification
`
`further shows an embodiment where a transfer function is applied to only one of the microphone
`
`signals under certain conditions (sufficiently little leakage from the speech source into M2):
`
`
`
`(’357 Patent at 7:49-53.) One of skill in the art would understand that in equation 4, transfer
`
`function H2(z) is applied only to M2(z), and Samsung’s construction would therefore exclude this
`
`embodiment as well. (Brown Decl., ¶ 74.)
`
`
`
`Samsung’s expert, Dr. Kiaei, states that the varying linear transfer function must be applied
`
`without variation to both microphone signals. (Ex. 2, Kiaei Decl., ¶¶ 48-57.) In particular,
`
`Dr. Kiaei states that a situation where “The first transfer function would be applied, for example,
`
`to the first signal, then the transfer function would be changed (varied), and then applied to the
`
`second signal” would not meet the claim language. (Id., ¶ 56 (emphasis added).) Dr. Kiaei’s
`
`opinion is contrary to the claim language, which recites that the transfer function is “varying.”4
`
`Indeed, while Dr. Kiaei pays lip service to the “varying” portion of the claim term, he argues that
`
`
`4 At his deposition, Dr. Kiaei backed away from this statement and argued that a transfer function
`that has varied is still the same transfer function. (Ex. 1, Kiaei Dep. Tr. at 127:3-128:4; 135:5-
`139:17.)
`
`7
`
`11
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-00186-JRG-RSP Document 67 Filed 06/21/22 Page 12 of 27 PageID #: 1353
`
`“the claims do not recite or even imply that the varying linear transfer function is changing as it is
`
`being applied.” Ex. 2, Kiaei Decl. ¶ 56. Dr. Kiaei’s interpretation would thus read “varying” out
`
`of the claims and should be rejected.
`
`
`
`Dr. Kiaei also selectively cites to a portion of the specification discussed above. (Id., ¶¶ 53-
`
`54 (quoting ’357 Patent at 8:27-35.) Dr. Kiaei explains that a person of skill in the art would
`
`understand this portion of the specification, which states “relies on a slowly varying linear transfer
`
`function between the two microphones for sources of noise” to mean that “the transfer function is
`
`applied to both microphones to attain the respective signals.” (Id.) Even if Dr. Kiaei were correct—
`
`he is not for the reasons discussed above—he does not account for the disclosure of embodiments
`
`where different transfer functions are applied to different microphone signals. Samsung’s other
`
`cited evidence provides no further support for its construction.
`
`
`
`Accordingly, the Court should reject Samsung’s construction and afford this term its plain
`
`meaning.
`
`B.
`
`“response [to speech/noise]” / “linear response [to speech/noise]”
`(’357 Patent, claims 1, 15, and 17; ’080 Patent, claims 1, 7, 9, and 14;
`’691 Patent, claim 1, 3-7, 23-34, and 41-45)
`
`Term
`“response [to
`speech/noise]” / “linear
`response [to
`speech/noise]”
`
`
`Jawbone’s Construction
`“output [in response to
`speech/noise]” / “output of a linear
`system [in response to
`speech/noise]”
`
`Samsung’s Construction
`“[linear] sensitivity in the
`direction of [speech/noise]”
`
`
`
`The Court should construe “response [to speech/noise]” and “linear response [to
`
`speech/noise]” as “output [in response to speech/noise]” and “output of a linear system [in
`
`response to speech/noise],” respectively.
`
`As Dr. Brown explains, “response” is a “a term of art that refers to the output of the system
`
`when a specified input is applied.” (Brown Decl., ¶ 78.) Of particular relevance are the terms
`
`8
`
`12
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-00186-JRG-RSP Document 67 Filed 06/21/22 Page 13 of 27 PageID #: 1354
`
`“directional response” and “frequency response” which describe the output of a system in response
`
`to a signal either from a specified direction or a particular frequency, respectively. (Id.) The
`
`specification provides examples of both directional response (’357 Patent, Figs. 9-12) and
`
`frequency response (’357 Patent, Fig. 14, 19-22) (Brown Decl., ¶¶ 79-80.)
`
`
`
`(’357 Fig. 9 (directional response), Fig 14 (frequency response).) Both of the figures above
`
`represent “response to speech” as recited in the claims. (’357 Patent at 2:54-57; 3:7-9.)
`
`
`
`Samsung’s construction would limit a “response” to a “directional response,” reading out
`
`the frequency responses discussed in the specification. Dr. Kiaei ignores the discussion of
`
`frequency responses within the specification. (Ex, 2, Kiaei Decl., ¶¶ 58-67.) Instead, he seizes on
`
`descriptions of directional response embodiments and attempts to limit the claims to those
`
`embodiments. But the embodiments do not limit the claims. Hill-Rom Servs., 755 F.3d at 1371
`
`(“[W]e do not read limitations from the embodiments in the specification into the claims.”).
`
`
`
`At bottom, Samsung and Dr. Kiaei’s position is that speech can only be differentiated from
`
`noise based on direction. (Ex. 2, Kiaei Decl., ¶ 66 (“Speech and noise, absent a directional
`
`component, are simply sounds.”).) Dr. Kiaei provides no evidence in support. (Id.)
`
`
`
`In contrast, the specification shows that speech can be differentiated from noise by
`
`frequency. As discussed above, Fig. 14 shows two responses to speech based on frequency. (’357
`
`9
`
`13
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-00186-JRG-RSP Document 67 Filed 06/21/22 Page 14 of 27 PageID #: 1355
`
`Patent at 12:52-54; 13:5-11; Brown Decl., ¶ 80.) Accordingly, one of skill in the art would
`
`understand “response [to speech/noise]” and “linear response [to speech/noise]” to mean “output
`
`[in response to speech/noise]” and “output of a linear system [in response to speech/noise],”
`
`respectively.
`
`
`
`Finally, Dr. Kiaei provides no support for his construction’s use of “sensitivity.” (See Ex.
`
`2, Kiaei Decl., ¶¶ 58-67.) As discussed above, the plain and ordinary meaning of “response” is
`
`“output.” (Brown Decl., ¶ 78.) Indeed, Dr. Kiaei explained at his deposition that Figure 9 of the
`
`’357 Patent, which is labeled as showing a “linear response” shows an output. (Ex. 1, Kiaei Dep.
`
`Tr. at 143:11-144:13 (“What that shows is a response of a sound or the sensitivity of it at zero
`
`degrees from the microphone that would output an amplitude of zero for a sound coming from
`
`zero degree direction.” (emphasis added)).)
`
`Samsung’s other cited evidence provides no further support for its construction.
`
`The Court should therefore adopt Jawbone’s construction and reject Samsung’s
`
`construction. (Brown Decl., ¶¶ 76-82.)
`
`C.
`
`“an adaptive noise removal application coupled to . . . and
`generating” (’080 Patent, claims 1and 7)
`
`Jawbone’s Construction
`Plain and ordinary meaning
`
`Samsung’s Construction
`Indefinite
`
`Term
`“an adaptive noise
`removal application
`coupled to . . . and
`generating”
`
`
`This phrase is clear on its face and can be applied without construction. Dr. Kiaei argues
`
`that the phrase is indefinite “because a POSITA would not know whether an apparatus or a process
`
`would infringe the claim.” (Ex. 2, Kiaei Decl., ¶¶ 69-71.) Samsung apparently intends to argue
`
`that the claim is invalid for mixing method and apparatus limitations as in IPXL Holdings, L.L.C.
`
`10
`
`14
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-00186-JRG-RSP Document 67 Filed 06/21/22 Page 15 of 27 PageID #: 1356
`
`v. Amazon.com, Inc., 430 F.3d 1377, 1384 (Fed. Cir. 2005), which held a system claim with the
`
`limitation “the user uses the input means” is indefinite. The claim here is far different from that in
`
`IPXL.
`
`Claim 1 of the ’080 Patent claims a system comprising (among other limitations):
`
`an adaptive noise removal application coupled to the processing component
`and generating denoised output signals by forming a plurality of
`combinations of signals output from the first virtual microphone and the
`second virtual microphone, by filtering and summing the plurality of
`combinations of signals in the time domain, and by a varying linear transfer
`function between the plurality of combinations of signals, wherein the
`denoised output signals include less acoustic noise than acoustic signals
`received at the microphone array.
`
`(’080 Patent at cl. 1.)
`
`The claim is thus clear that the infringing system must include an “adaptive noise removal
`
`application” that is “coupled to the processing component” and includes functionality for
`
`“generating denoised output signals.” Reciting functional capabilities in conjunction with an
`
`apparatus is not indefinite. E.g., Ultimate Pointer, L.L.C. v. Nintendo Co., Ltd., 816 F.3d 816, 826-
`
`27 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (holding that claims with limitations such as “a handheld device including: an
`
`image sensor, said image sensor generating data” were definite and “reflect the capability of the
`
`claimed apparatus”). The claim here is similar to those in Ultimate Pointer; it describes an
`
`apparatus and reflects its capabilities. The claims are also unlike those in IPXL. The IPXL claims
`
`recited a system with a limitation “the user uses the input means.” IPXL, 430 F.3d at 1384. With
`
`such a formulation, it was “unclear whether infringement of claim 25 occurs when one creates a
`
`system . . .. or when the user actually uses the input means.” Id. Here, the claim is clear that one
`
`can infringe upon making the system with the claimed functionality. Accordingly, the claim is not
`
`11
`
`15
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-00186-JRG-RSP Document 67 Filed 06/21/22 Page 16 of 27 PageID #: 1357
`
`indefinite. Ultimate Pointer; 816 F.3d at 827; see also HTC Corp. v. IPCom GmbH & Co. KG,
`
`667 F.3d 1270, 1315 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (holding claim for a “mobile station” with limitation
`
`“storing link data for a link in a first base station” not indefinite).
`
`Dr. Kiaei further argues, citing no evidence, that one of skill in the art would understand
`
`the “by forming” and “by filtering and summing” portions of the limitation to be “separate actions
`
`that needed to be performed independent of the components of the recited system.” (Ex. 2, Kiaei
`
`Decl., ¶ 71.) But the claim is clear on its face that the functionality that “generate[s] denoised
`
`output signals” must do so “by forming a plurality of combinations of signals” and “by filtering
`
`and summing the plurality of combinations.” (’080 Patent, cl. 1.) Thus, rather than separate
`
`“actions,” these recitations further limit the claimed functionality. (Brown Decl., ¶¶ 88-91.)
`
`Further, Dr. Kiaei argues that “‘generating’ is offset from the ‘adaptive noise removal
`
`application coupled to the processing component’ by the preposition ‘and,’ which, in my opinion,
`
`a POSITA would understand to separate ‘generating’ from the previous claim limitations.” (Ex. 2,
`
`Kiaei Decl., ¶ 71.) Dr. Kiaei’s opinion is not credible. The word “and,” which is a conjunction, not
`
`a preposition, indicates that two items are linked together. Here, “coupled to the processing
`
`component and generating denoised output signals” indicate that both phrases are part of the
`
`“adaptive noise removal application.” Moreover, the limitation immediately preceding the
`
`“adaptive noise remove application”5 ends with “; and”, which is commonly, if not universally,
`
`used in patent claims to indicate that the following limitation is the final structural limitation of
`
`the claim.
`
`
`5 “a processing component coupled to the microphone array and generating…; and” (’080 Patent,
`cl. 1.) Samsung does not argue that this limitation, which also uses “and” in the same way as the
`“adaptive noise removal” limitation, is indefinite. At his deposition, Dr. Kiaei stated that he had
`not analyzed the processing component limitation and had no opinion on it. (Ex. 1, Kiaei Dep. Tr.
`at 180:6-14).)
`
`12
`
`16
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-00186-JRG-RSP Document 67 Filed 06/21/22 Page 17 of 27 PageID #: 1358
`
`Finally, Dr. Kiaei argues that, “even if ‘generating’ were not a separate method step, a
`
`POSITA would not be able to reasonably determine whether the ‘application’ or the ‘processing
`
`component’ (or both) was ‘generating denoised output.’” (Ex. 2, Kiaei Decl., ¶ 72.) As discussed
`
`at length above, “generating denoised output” is part of the “adaptive noise removal application”
`
`and, thus, the adaptive noise removal application must include the functionality for generating
`
`denoised output signals according to the limitation.
`
`The Court should therefore reject Samsung’s indefiniteness argument and afford this term
`
`its plain and ordinary meaning.
`
`D.
`
`“an adaptive noise removal application . . . generating denoised
`output signals by forming a plurality of combinations . . . by filtering
`and summing the plurality of combinations . . . and by a varying
`linear transfer function between the plurality of combinations” (’080
`Patent, claims 1 and 7)
`
`Jawbone’s Construction
`Plain and ordinary meaning; no
`construction necessary except for
`“transfer function:
`
`Samsung’s Construction
`Indefinite
`
`Term
`“an adaptive noise
`removal application . . .
`generating denoised
`output signals by
`forming a plurality of
`combinations . . . by
`filtering and summing
`the plurality of
`combinations . . . and by
`a varying linear transfer
`function between the
`plurality of
`combinations”
`
`
`This phrase is clear on its face and can be applied without construction. Dr. Kiaei argues
`
`that the phrase is indefinite “because there is no verb specifying any action connected with the
`
`language ‘by a varying linear transfer function between the plurality of combinations,’ nor any
`
`other clear meaning for that phrase.” (Ex. 2, Kiaei Decl., ¶ 74.) Dr. Kiaei is incorrect.
`
`13
`
`17
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-00186-JRG-RSP Document 67 Filed 06/21/22