`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`_____________________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`_____________________________
`
`
`Google LLC,
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`Jawbone Innovations, LLC,
`Patent Owner
`
`_____________________________
`
`Case IPR2022-00630
`
`U.S. Patent No. 8,280,072
`_____________________________
`
`DECLARATION OF JEFFREY S. VIPPERMAN, PH.D.
`
`
`
`
`
`APPLE 1003
`
`1
`
`

`

`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`
`I.
`INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................... 1
`SUMMARY OF OPINIONS ........................................................................... 1
`II.
`III. BACKGROUND AND QUALIFICATIONS ................................................. 2
`A.
`Education ............................................................................................... 2
`B.
`Experience ............................................................................................. 3
`C.
`Compensation ........................................................................................ 6
`IV. MATERIALS CONSIDERED ........................................................................ 7
`V.
`LEGAL STANDARDS ................................................................................... 8
`A.
`Claim Construction ............................................................................... 9
`B.
`Level of Ordinary Skill ......................................................................... 9
`C. Anticipation ......................................................................................... 10
`D. Obviousness ......................................................................................... 10
`VI. THE ’072 PATENT ....................................................................................... 13
`A. Overview of Disclosure ....................................................................... 13
`B.
`Prosecution History ............................................................................. 16
`VII. THE STATE OF THE ART AT THE TIME OF THE ALLEGED
`INVENTION ................................................................................................. 17
`VIII. ANALYSIS OF GROUNDS OF UNPATENTABILITY............................. 20
`A.
`Claim Construction ............................................................................. 20
`B. Ground 1: Claims 1-6 and 9 are Anticipated by or Rendered
`Obvious over Ikeda ............................................................................. 20
`1.
`Overview of Ikeda ..................................................................... 21
`
`ii
`
`
`2
`
`

`

`
`
`2.
`Claim 1 ...................................................................................... 25
`Claim 2 ...................................................................................... 35
`3.
`Claim 3 ...................................................................................... 40
`4.
`Claim 4 ...................................................................................... 41
`5.
`Claim 5 ...................................................................................... 42
`6.
`Claim 6 ...................................................................................... 42
`7.
`Claim 9 ...................................................................................... 44
`8.
`C. Ground 2: Claims 1-3 and 6-9 are Anticipated by or Rendered
`Obvious over Ikeda ............................................................................. 45
`1.
`Claim 1 ...................................................................................... 46
`2.
`Claim 2 ...................................................................................... 47
`3.
`Claim 3 ...................................................................................... 53
`4.
`Claim 6 ...................................................................................... 54
`5.
`Claim 7 ...................................................................................... 55
`6.
`Claim 8 ...................................................................................... 55
`7.
`Claim 9 ...................................................................................... 56
`D. Ground 3: Claims 1-9 are Rendered Obvious over Sasaki in
`View of Ono ........................................................................................ 58
`1.
`Overview of Sasaki ................................................................... 58
`2.
`Overview of Ono ....................................................................... 60
`3.
`The Sasaki-Ono Combination ................................................... 62
`4.
`Claim 1 ...................................................................................... 69
`5.
`Claim 2 ...................................................................................... 81
`6.
`Claim 3 ...................................................................................... 84
`
`iii
`
`
`3
`
`

`

`
`
`7.
`Claim 4 ...................................................................................... 85
`Claim 5 ...................................................................................... 86
`8.
`Claim 6 ...................................................................................... 88
`9.
`10. Claim 7 ...................................................................................... 89
`11. Claim 8 ...................................................................................... 89
`12. Claim 9 ...................................................................................... 91
`IX. CONCLUSION .............................................................................................. 92
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`iv
`
`
`4
`
`

`

`
`
`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. 8,280,072 (“the ’072 patent”) (Ex. 1001). I have prepared this declaration in
`
`connection with Google’s petition.
`
`2.
`
`Specifically, this document contains my opinions about the
`
`technology claimed in claims 1-9 of the ’072 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 ’072 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
`
`’072 patent is March 27, 2003, which is the filing date of U.S. Patent Application
`
`No. 10/400,282 (“the ’282 application”), as listed on the cover page of the ’072
`
`patent. Ex. 1001, Cover. I understand the ’072 patent claims priority as a
`
`continuation-in-part of the ’282 application. Ex. 1001, Cover.
`
`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
`
`
`5
`
`

`

`
`
`art (“POSITA”) would have had of the claims, it is my opinion that the challenged
`
`claims of the ’072 patent are anticipated or would have been obvious to a person of
`
`ordinary skill in the art as of 2003, 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. 1004.
`
`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
`
`
`6
`
`

`

`
`
`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
`
`
`7
`
`

`

`
`
`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
`
`
`8
`
`

`

`
`
`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 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. Another military project
`
`5
`
`
`9
`
`

`

`
`
`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.
`
`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
`
`6
`
`
`10
`
`

`

`
`
`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 ’072 patent or any proceeding involving
`
`the ’072 patent.
`
`IV. MATERIALS CONSIDERED
`18.
`In forming my opinions, I have analyzed the following, including the
`
`’072 patent, its file history, the prior art listed in this declaration and in the petition
`
`grounds, and the materials listed in this declaration.
`
`Exhibit
`
`Description
`
`Ex. 1001
`
`U.S. Patent No. 8,280,072 to Burnett (“the ’072 patent”)
`
`Ex. 1002
`
`File History of U.S. Patent No. 8,280,072
`
`Ex. 1004
`
`Curriculum Vitae of Jeffrey S. Vipperman, Ph.D.
`
`Ex. 1005
`
`Ex. 1006
`
`Japanese Unexamined Patent Application Publication No. H11-
`18186A to Ikeda et al. (“Ikeda”)
`
`Certified Translation of Japanese Unexamined Patent Application
`Publication No. H11-18186A to Ikeda et al. (“Ikeda”)
`
`Ex. 1007
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,471,538 to Sasaki et al. (“Sasaki”)
`
`Ex. 1008
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,526,430 to Ono et al. (“Ono”)
`
`7
`
`
`11
`
`

`

`
`
`Ex. 1009
`
`Declaration of Rachel J. Watters
`
`Ex. 1010
`
`Harry F. Olson, Directional Microphones, Journal of the Audio
`Engineering Society, Vol. 15, No. 4 (1967), 420-430
`
`Ex. 1011
`
`Declaration of Kelley M. Hayes Greenhill
`
`Ex. 1012
`
`Ex. 1013
`
`Scheduling Order, Jawbone Innovations, LLC v. Google LLC, No.
`6:21-cv-00985, Dkt. 27 (W.D. Tex. Jan. 7, 2022)
`
`U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2003/0031328 to Elko et
`al.
`
`Ex. 1014
`
`U.S. Patent No. 2,301,744 to Olson
`
`Ex. 1015
`
`Docket Control Order, Jawbone Innovations, LLC v. Samsung
`Electronics Co., Ltd. et al., No. 2:21-cv-00186, Dkt. 38 (E.D. Tex.
`Feb. 1, 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
`
`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.
`
`8
`
`
`12
`
`

`

`
`
`A. Claim Construction
`21.
`I have been instructed that the terms appearing in the ’072 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 March 27, 2003. 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 ’072 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.
`
`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
`
`9
`
`
`13
`
`

`

`
`
`acoustics, speech recognition, speech detection, or signal processing. Work
`
`experience can substitute for formal education and additional formal education can
`
`substitute for work experience. I was at least a POSITA as of March 27, 2003.
`
`C. Anticipation
`24.
`I understand that a patent claim is invalid as anticipated under 35
`
`U.S.C. § 102 if a single piece of prior art discloses each and every element of the
`
`claim and enables a person of ordinary skill in the art to make and use the claimed
`
`invention without undue experimentation. I also understand that an anticipatory
`
`reference does not have to recite word for word what is in the anticipated claim.
`
`Anticipation can also occur when a claimed limitation is inherent in the relevant
`
`reference. I have been advised that if the prior art necessarily functions in
`
`accordance with, or includes, the claimed limitation, it can anticipate even though
`
`the limitation is not expressly disclosed.
`
`D. Obviousness
`25.
`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.
`
`10
`
`
`14
`
`

`

`
`
`26.
`
`I have been told that a proper obviousness analysis requires the
`
`following: (a) determining the scope and content of the prior art; (b) ascertaining
`
`the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue; (c) resolving the level
`
`of ordinary skill in the pertinent art; and (d) considering evidence of secondary
`
`indicia of non-obviousness (if available).
`
`27.
`
`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 March 27, 2003.
`
`28.
`
`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.
`
`29.
`
`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
`
`11
`
`
`15
`
`

`

`
`
`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
`
`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.
`
`30.
`
`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.
`
`31.
`
`I am aware that a claim may be obvious where the claim represents
`
`nothing more than a combination of prior art elements according to known
`
`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 aware that a claim may be obvious
`
`where the claim involves nothing more than applying a known technique to a
`
`12
`
`
`16
`
`

`

`
`
`known device ready for improvement to yield 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.
`
`VI. THE ’072 PATENT
`A. Overview of Disclosure
`32. Below I provide an overview of the disclosure of the ’072 patent. The
`
`’072 patent describes “[s]ystems and methods . . . including microphone arrays and
`
`associated processing components for use in noise suppression.” Ex. 1001 at 2:38-
`
`40.
`
`33.
`
`In one embodiment, “a three-microphone adaptive noise suppression
`
`system 400” is shown in figure 4 (reproduced below). Ex. 1001 at 10:44-45, Fig. 4.
`
`The three-microphone system 400 includes “microphone array 410 along with the
`
`processing or circuitry components to which the microphone array is coupled.” Ex.
`
`1001 at 10:45-49.
`
`13
`
`
`17
`
`

`

`
`
`Ex. 1001, Fig. 4.
`
`
`
`34. The microphone array 410 includes three physical omnidirectional
`
`microphones O1, O2, and O3. Ex. 1001 at 10:49-55. I note that Figure 4 of the ’072
`
`patent labels microphones “01”, “02”, and “03”. However, the specification of the
`
`’072 patent at 10:49-55 describes microphones “O1”, “O2”, and “O3” in connection
`
`with figure 4. In my opinion, a POSITA would have understood that the
`
`microphones 01, 02, and 03 shown in figure 4 correspond to the microphones O1,
`
`O2, and O3. The processing or circuitry components include “the noise removal
`
`application or component 105.” Ex. 1001 at 4:1-10, 10:44-49, Figs. 1, 4.
`
`35. The ’072 patent describes that the signals from the three physical
`
`microphones are combined to form two virtual directional microphones M1 and
`
`M2. Ex. 1001 at 10:44-11:56. I note that an example of this is shown in figure 6
`
`14
`
`
`18
`
`

`

`
`
`(reproduced below). Ex. 1001 at 11:22-56, Fig. 6. More particularly, the virtual
`
`microphone M1 is formed by combining the output of physical microphone O1 (as
`
`applied with a delay z11 and a gain A11) and the output of physical microphone O3
`
`(as applied with a delay z21 and a gain A21). Ex. 1001 at 11:34-48, Fig. 6. And the
`
`virtual microphone M2 is formed by combining the output of physical microphone
`
`O2 (as applied with a delay z12 and a gain A12) and the output of physical
`
`microphone O3 (as applied with a delay z22 and a gain A22). Ex. 1001 at 11:34-48,
`
`Fig. 6.
`
`Ex. 1001, Fig. 6.
`
`
`
`36. The signals from the two virtual microphones are input to the noise
`
`removal component 105. Ex. 1001 at 4:11-18, 6:13-29, 11:2-7, Figs. 1, 4. The ’072
`
`15
`
`
`19
`
`

`

`
`
`patent describes that the output of the noise removal component 105 is “cleaned
`
`speech, also referred to as denoised acoustic signals 107.” Ex. 1001 at 4:1-10,
`
`10:44-49, Figs. 1, 4.
`
`37.
`
`In one embodiment, the noise removal component 105 provides
`
`“adaptive noise cancellation by combining” the signals from the two virtual
`
`microphones. Ex. 1001 at 4:1-18, 6:13-29, 10:44-49, 11:2-7, Figs. 1, 4. The ’072
`
`patent states: “any adaptive filter or noise removal algorithm can be used with the
`
`[microphone arrays] in one or more various alternative embodiments or
`
`configurations.” Ex. 1001 at 3:1-3. The ’072 patent further states: “The adaptive
`
`filter generally uses the signal received from a first microphone . . . to remove
`
`noise from the speech received from at least one other microphone . . . .” Ex. 1001
`
`at 6:20-25.
`
`B.
`38.
`
`Prosecution History
`I understand the ’072 patent was filed on June 27, 2008, as U.S.
`
`Patent Application No. 12/163,617 (“the ’617 application”). Ex. 1001, Cover. I
`
`further understand the ’072 patent claims priority as a continuation-in-part of U.S.
`
`Patent Application Nos.: 12/139,333, filed on June 13, 2008; 11/805,987, filed on
`
`May 25, 2007; 10/667,207, filed on September 18, 2003; and 10/400,282, filed on
`
`March 27, 2003. Ex. 1001, Cover. The ’072 patent also claims priority to U.S.
`
`16
`
`
`20
`
`

`

`
`
`Provisional Patent Application No. 60/937,603, filed on June 27, 2007. Ex. 1001,
`
`Cover.
`
`39.
`
`I understand that the ’617 application was filed with 48 claims. Ex.
`
`1002 at 48-55. Following a restriction requirement, the applicant elected 9 claims.
`
`Ex. 1002 at 117-122, 132-135. The Examiner then allowed the elected claims,
`
`stating that the claims were distinguishable over three cited references. Ex. 1002 at
`
`141-148.
`
`VII. THE STATE OF THE ART AT THE TIME OF THE ALLEGED
`INVENTION
`40. Constructing a microphone having directional characteristics using
`
`two or more omnidirectional microphones and associated signal processing was
`
`well-known prior to the alleged invention of the ’072 patent. For example, it was
`
`well-known to construct a pressure gradient microphone using two omnidirectional
`
`microphones. Figure 2 of Ikeda (reproduced below) shows an example of such a
`
`pressure gradient microphone. Ex. 1006, ¶¶ [0002]-[0004], [0020]-[0022]. The
`
`pressure gradient microphone is constructed using two omnidirectional
`
`microphones M1 and M2, a delay circuit 2, and an inversion adding circuit 3. Ex.
`
`1006, ¶¶ [0002], [0018], [0020], Fig. 2.
`
`17
`
`
`21
`
`

`

`
`
`Ex. 1006, Fig. 2.
`
`
`
`41.
`
`In the pressure gradient microphone, “the output of the microphone
`
`unit M2 is delayed by τ2 (τ2: amount of delay . . .) by a delay circuit 2.” Ex. 1006,
`
`¶ [0002]. The pressure gradient microphone outputs a signal Vm by subtracting the
`
`output ed2 of the delay circuit 2 from the output e1 of the microphone M1. Ex.
`
`1006, ¶¶ [0002]-[0003], Fig. 2. The output signal Vm can be expressed as the
`
`following:
`
`
`
`where k equals 2π/λ (λ is wavelength of sound), θ is the angle between a direction
`
`from which sound comes and the axial direction of the two microphones M1 and
`
`M2, and d is the distance between the two microphones M1 and M2. Ex. 1006,
`
`¶¶ [0002]-[0003], [0021]-[0022], Fig. 2. For the equation above, τ2 is expressed in
`
`18
`
`
`22
`
`

`

`
`
`terms of a distance of sound propagation for the time period of the delay. Ex. 1006,
`
`¶ [0002]; Ex. 1013, ¶¶ [0021]-[0023], Fig. 1, Claim 5.
`
`42. Setting τ2 to different values would result in different directional
`
`characteristics for the pressure gradient microphone. Ex. 1006, ¶¶ [0003], [0020]-
`
`[0024], [0026], [0035], Figs. 3, 5, 10. For example, setting τ2 to a value smaller
`
`than d yields directional characteristics for the pressure gradient microphone as
`
`shown below. Ex. 1006, ¶ [0003], Fig. 3.
`
`
`
`43. As another example, setting τ2 to a value equal to d yields directional
`
`characteristics for the pressure gradient microphone as shown below. Ex. 1006,
`
`¶¶ [0020]-[0024], [0026], Figs. 5, 10.
`
`
`
`19
`
`
`23
`
`

`

`
`
`44.
`
`It was well-known that a pressure gradient microphone such as shown
`
`above constructed using two omnidirectional microphones, a delay, and a
`
`subtraction function is “of order one,” or “first-order.” Ex. 1013, ¶¶ [0021]-[0023],
`
`Fig. 1, Claim 5; Ex. 1014 at p. 3, col. 1, ll. 3-7, 36-37, p. 3, col. 2, l. 73-p. 4, col. 1,
`
`l. 22; Ex. 1010 at 420, 422 (Fig. 2); Ex. 1009; Ex. 1011.
`
`VIII. ANALYSIS OF GROUNDS OF UNPATENTABILITY
`45. Based on my professional and academic experience, and my review of
`
`the prior art, it is my opinion that claims 1-9 of the ’072 patent are unpatentable in
`
`view of the prior art, including Ikeda (Ex. 1005, translation at Ex. 1006), Sasaki
`
`(Ex. 1007), and Ono (Ex. 1008), as discussed below.
`
`A. Claim Construction
`46.
`I understand that the claim terms of the ’072 patent should be given
`
`their plain and ordinary meaning as understood by a POSITA, consistent with the
`
`’072 patent’s disclosure and prosecution history. For purposes of my analysis, I
`
`have considered each claim term and applied its plain and ordinary meaning
`
`consistent with the patent’s disclosure and prosecution history.
`
`B. Ground 1: Claims 1-6 and 9 are Anticipated by or Rendered
`Obvious over Ikeda
`In my opinion, claims 1-6 and 9 are anticipated by or rendered
`
`47.
`
`obvious over Ikeda.
`
`20
`
`
`24
`
`

`

`
`
`1. Overview of Ikeda
`48. Below I provide an overview of the Ikeda reference. Ikeda discloses a
`
`microphone apparatus including an adaptive noise cancellation system. Ex. 1006,
`
`¶¶ [0008], [0011]-[0013], [0016]-[0017], [0027]-[0029], [0031], [0036], Abstract,
`
`Figs. 1, 8. Ikeda discloses that the microphone apparatus includes “three
`
`omnidirectional microphone units” M1, M2, and M3, as shown in figure 8
`
`(reproduced below). Ex. 1006, ¶¶ [0018], [0031], Fig. 8.
`
`Ex. 1006, Fig. 8.
`
`
`
`49.
`
`Ikeda discloses that, in figure 8, the output “of the microphone unit
`
`M2 is delayed . . . by a delay circuit 2,” and an inversion adding circuit 3 outputs a
`
`main signal Vm by “calculating the difference between the output . . . of the
`
`microphone unit M1 and the output . . . of the delay circuit 2.” Ex. 1006, ¶¶ [0018],
`
`[0020]; see also Ex. 1006, ¶ [0031] (in figure 8, “[t]he main signal Vm is generated
`21
`
`
`25
`
`

`

`
`
`in the same manner as in FIG. 1.”). A POSITA would have understood that the
`
`main signal Vm is generated by subtracting the output signal of the microphone
`
`M2, as delayed by the delay circuit 2, from the output signal of the microphone
`
`M1. Ex. 1006, ¶¶ [0018], [0021], Fig. 8. A signal system constructed using the
`
`microphones M1 and M2, the delay circuit 2, and the inversion adding circuit 3 for
`
`outputting the main signal Vm functions as a main microphone. Ex. 1006,
`
`¶¶ [0