Trials@uspto.gov
`Tel: 571-272-7822
`
`Paper 12
`Date: November 28, 2022
`
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`GOOGLE LLC,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`JAWBONE INNOVATIONS, LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`IPR2022-00888
`Patent 8,321,213 B2
`____________
`
`
`
`
`Before GEORGIANNA W. BRADEN, STEVEN M. AMUNDSON, and
`JULIET MITCHELL DIRBA, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`AMUNDSON, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`
`
`DECISION
`Denying Institution of Inter Partes Review
`35 U.S.C. § 314
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Jawbone's Exhibit No. 2002, IPR2023-00279
`Page 001
`
`
`Tel: 571-272-7822
`
`Paper 12
`Date: November 28, 2022
`
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`GOOGLE LLC,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`JAWBONE INNOVATIONS, LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`IPR2022-00888
`Patent 8,321,213 B2
`____________
`
`
`
`
`Before GEORGIANNA W. BRADEN, STEVEN M. AMUNDSON, and
`JULIET MITCHELL DIRBA, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`AMUNDSON, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`
`
`DECISION
`Denying Institution of Inter Partes Review
`35 U.S.C. § 314
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Jawbone's Exhibit No. 2002, IPR2023-00279
`Page 001
`
`
`
`IPR2022-00888
`Patent 8,321,213 B2
`
`
`I. INTRODUCTION
`Google LLC (“Petitioner”) filed a Petition requesting an inter partes
`review of claims 1–13 and 42 in U.S. Patent No. 8,321,213 B2
`(Exhibit 1001, “the ’213 patent”) under 35 U.S.C. §§ 311–319. Paper 1
`(“Pet.”). Jawbone Innovations, LLC (“Patent Owner”) filed a Preliminary
`Response. Paper 6 (“Prelim. Resp.”). Additionally, after receiving Board
`authorization, Petitioner filed a Preliminary Reply, and Patent Owner filed
`a Preliminary Sur-reply. Paper 7 (“Prelim. Reply”); Paper 9 (“Prelim.
`Sur-reply”).
`Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.4(a), we have authority to determine whether
`to institute an inter partes review. We may institute an inter partes review
`only if “the information presented in the petition filed under section 311
`and any response filed under section 313 shows that there is a reasonable
`likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of
`the claims challenged in the petition.” 35 U.S.C. § 314(a) (2018). The
`“reasonable likelihood” standard is “a higher standard than mere notice
`pleading” but “lower than the ‘preponderance’ standard to prevail in a final
`written decision.” Hulu, LLC v. Sound View Innovations, LLC, IPR2018-
`01039, Paper 29 at 13 (PTAB Dec. 20, 2019) (precedential).
`After considering the Petition, the Preliminary Response, the
`Preliminary Reply, the Preliminary Sur-reply, and the evidence of record,
`and for the reasons explained below, we determine that Petitioner has not
`demonstrated a reasonable likelihood that it would prevail in proving the
`unpatentability of thirteen of the fourteen challenged claims. Hence, under
`the particular circumstances of this case, we decline to institute an inter
`partes review. See infra §§ V–VI.
`
`2
`
`Jawbone's Exhibit No. 2002, IPR2023-00279
`Page 002
`
`
`
`IPR2022-00888
`Patent 8,321,213 B2
`
`
`II. BACKGROUND
`A. Real Parties in Interest
`Petitioner identifies itself as the real party in interest. Pet. 84.
`Petitioner asserts that (1) “Google LLC is a subsidiary of XXVI Holdings
`Inc., a subsidiary of Alphabet Inc.,” and (2) “XXVI Holdings Inc. and
`Alphabet Inc. are not real parties in interest to this proceeding.” Id.
`at 84 n.3. Patent Owner identifies itself as the real party in interest.
`Paper 5, 2. The parties do not raise any issue about real parties in interest.
`B. Related Matters
`Petitioner and Patent Owner identify the following civil actions as
`related matters:
`• Jawbone Innovations, LLC v. Apple Inc., No. 6:21-cv-
`00984-ADA (W.D. Tex. filed Sept. 23, 2021);
`• Jawbone Innovations, LLC v. Google LLC, No. 6:21-cv-
`00985-ADA (W.D. Tex. Sept. 23, 2021) (the “Google
`Texas case”); and
`• Jawbone Innovations, LLC v. Amazon.com, Inc. et al.,
`No. 2:21-cv-00435-JRG (E.D. Tex. filed Nov. 29, 2021).
`Pet. 84; Paper 5, 2; Prelim. Resp. 22; Paper 10, 2.
`Petitioner and Patent Owner identify the following Board proceedings
`as related matters:
`• Google LLC v. Jawbone Innovations, LLC,
`IPR2022-00604 (PTAB filed Feb. 22, 2022)
`(Patent 8,326,611 B2);
`• Google LLC v. Jawbone Innovations, LLC,
`IPR2022-00797 (PTAB filed Apr. 7, 2022)
`(Patent 8,321,213 B2);
`
`3
`
`Jawbone's Exhibit No. 2002, IPR2023-00279
`Page 003
`
`
`
`IPR2022-00888
`Patent 8,321,213 B2
`
`
`• Google LLC v. Jawbone Innovations, LLC,
`IPR2022-00889 (PTAB filed May 16, 2022)
`(Patent 8,326,611 B2);
`• Apple Inc. v. Jawbone Innovations, LLC,
`IPR2022-01084 (PTAB filed June 3, 2022)
`(Patent 8,321,213 B2);
`• Apple Inc. v. Jawbone Innovations, LLC,
`IPR2022-01085 (PTAB filed June 3, 2022)
`(Patent 8,326,611 B2);
`• Apple Inc. v. Jawbone Innovations, LLC,
`IPR2022-01494 (PTAB filed Sept. 2, 2022)
`(Patent 8,321,213 B2); and
`• Apple Inc. v. Jawbone Innovations, LLC,
`IPR2022-01495 (PTAB filed Sept. 2, 2022)
`(Patent 8,326,611 B2).
`Pet. 84; Paper 5, 2; Paper 10, 2–3.
`C. The ’213 Patent (Exhibit 1001)
`The ’213 patent, titled “Acoustic Voice Activity Detection (AVAD)
`for Electronic Systems,” issued on November 27, 2012, from an application
`filed on October 26, 2009. Ex. 1001, codes (22), (45), (54). The patent
`identifies that application as a continuation-in-part of the following
`applications: (1) U.S. Patent Application No. 11/805,987, filed on May 25,
`2007; and (2) U.S. Patent Application No. 12/139,333, filed on June 13,
`2008. Id. at 1:8–11, code (63). The patent claims priority to U.S.
`Provisional Patent Application No. 61/108,426, filed on October 24, 2008.
`Id. at 1:6–7, code (60). The patent states that the disclosure relates generally
`“to noise suppression” and more particularly “to noise suppression systems,
`devices, and methods for use in acoustic applications.” Id. at 1:16–19; see
`id. at code (57).
`
`4
`
`Jawbone's Exhibit No. 2002, IPR2023-00279
`Page 004
`
`
`
`IPR2022-00888
`Patent 8,321,213 B2
`
`
`The ’213 patent explains that the “ability to correctly identify voiced
`and unvoiced speech is critical to many speech applications including speech
`recognition, speaker verification, noise suppression, and many others.”
`Ex. 1001, 1:23–26. In “the speaker’s environment,” however, “there may
`exist one or more noise sources that pollute the speech signal, the signal of
`interest, with unwanted acoustic noise.” Id. at 1:28–31. The unwanted
`acoustic noise “makes it difficult or impossible for the receiver, whether
`human or machine, to understand the user’s speech.” Id. at 1:31–32.
`The ’213 patent also explains that “[t]ypical methods for classifying
`voiced and unvoiced speech have relied mainly on the acoustic content of
`single microphone data, which is plagued by problems with noise and the
`corresponding uncertainties in signal content.” Ex. 1001, 1:33–36.
`According to the patent, non-acoustic methods “have been employed
`successfully in commercial products,” but “an acoustic-only solution is
`desired in some cases (e.g., for reduced cost, as a supplement to the non-
`acoustic sensor, etc.).” Id. at 1:41–46.
`Toward that end, the ’213 patent discloses “Acoustic Voice Activity
`Detection (AVAD) methods and systems” that use physical microphones
`“to generate virtual directional microphones which have very similar noise
`responses and very dissimilar speech responses.” Ex. 1001, 3:57–62,
`code (57); see id. at 4:21–25, 5:35–52, 17:44–51. “The ratio of the energies
`of the virtual microphones is then calculated over a given window size and
`the ratio can then be used with a variety of methods to generate a VAD
`signal.” Id. at 3:62–65, code (57). “The virtual microphones can be
`constructed using either a fixed or an adaptive filter.” Id. at 3:65–66,
`code (57); see id. at 4:27–30.
`
`5
`
`Jawbone's Exhibit No. 2002, IPR2023-00279
`Page 005
`
`
`
`IPR2022-00888
`Patent 8,321,213 B2
`
`
`The ’213 patent defines various terms. Ex. 1001, 17:62–18:35. The
`patent includes the following definitions:
`• The term “speech” means desired speech of the user.
`• The term “noise” means unwanted environmental
`acoustic noise.
`• The term “O1” means a first physical omnidirectional
`microphone used to form a microphone array.
`• The term “O2” means a second physical omnidirectional
`microphone used to form a microphone array.
`• The term “virtual microphones (VM)” or “virtual
`directional microphones” means a microphone
`constructed using two or more omnidirectional
`microphones and associated signal processing.
`• The term “V1” means the virtual directional “speech”
`microphone, which has no nulls.
`• The term “V2” means the virtual directional “noise”
`microphone, which has a null for the user’s speech.
`Id. at 18:14–35.
`The ’213 patent explains that “V2 is configured in such a way that it
`has minimal response to the speech of the user” and “V1 is configured so
`that it does respond to the user’s speech but has a very similar noise
`magnitude response to V2.” Ex. 1001, 4:21–25. “A further refinement is the
`use of an adaptive filter to further minimize the speech response of V2.” Id.
`at 4:27–28; see id. at 6:10–11.
`
`6
`
`Jawbone's Exhibit No. 2002, IPR2023-00279
`Page 006
`
`
`
`IPR2022-00888
`Patent 8,321,213 B2
`
`
`The ’213 patent’s Figure 3 (reproduced below) depicts a block
`diagram of a virtual microphone V2:
`
`(2)
`
`(3)
`
`(4)
`
`
`Figure 3 illustrates the following components where “z” denotes a discrete
`frequency domain and “γ” is a fixed delay that depends on the size of the
`microphone array:
`(1)
`a physical omnidirectional microphone O1 providing a
`signal to an adaptive filter β(z);
`the adaptive filter β(z) providing a signal to a delay
`filter z-γ;
`a physical omnidirectional microphone O2 providing a
`signal to a calibration filter α(z);
`a summing circuit (Σ) summing (i) a positive signal from
`the calibration filter α(z) and (ii) a negative signal from
`the delay filter z-γ to form a virtual microphone V2; and
`the virtual microphone V2 providing a signal to the
`adaptive filter β(z).
`See Ex. 1001, 1:62–63, 4:41, 5:22–33, 6:1–16, Fig. 3.
`
`(5)
`
`7
`
`Jawbone's Exhibit No. 2002, IPR2023-00279
`Page 007
`
`
`
`IPR2022-00888
`Patent 8,321,213 B2
`
`
`The ’213 patent’s Figure 4 (reproduced below) depicts a block
`diagram of a virtual microphone V1:
`
`(2)
`
`
`Figure 4 illustrates the following components where “z” denotes a discrete
`frequency domain and “γ” is a fixed delay that depends on the size of the
`microphone array:
`a physical omnidirectional microphone O1 providing a
`(1)
`signal to a delay filter z-γ;
`a physical omnidirectional microphone O2 providing a
`signal to a calibration filter α(z);
`the calibration filter α(z) providing a signal to an
`adaptive filter β(z); and
`a summing circuit (Σ) summing (i) a positive signal from
`the delay filter z-γ and (ii) a negative signal from
`the adaptive filter β(z) to form a virtual microphone V1.
`See Ex. 1001, 1:64–65, 4:41, 5:22–33, 6:17–19, Fig. 4.
`The ’213 patent provides the following equations for virtual
`microphones V1 and V2 constructed using physical omnidirectional
`microphones O1 and O2:
`V1(z) = –β(z)α(z)O2(z)+O1(z)z-γ
`V2(z) = α(z)O2(z)–β(z)O1(z)z-γ
`
`(3)
`
`(4)
`
`8
`
`Jawbone's Exhibit No. 2002, IPR2023-00279
`Page 008
`
`
`
`IPR2022-00888
`Patent 8,321,213 B2
`
`Ex. 1001, 5:20–28. The patent explains that in these equations (1) the
`calibration filter α(z) “compensate[s] O2’s response so that it is the same
`as O1” and (2) the adaptive filter β(z) “describes the relationship between
`O1 and calibrated O2 for speech.” Id. at 5:29–32. The patent also explains
`that by “varying the magnitude and sign of the delays and gains, a wide
`variety of virtual microphones (VMs), also referred to herein as virtual
`directional microphones, can be realized.” Id. at 21:6–9.
`The ’213 patent discloses an adaptive filter β(z) that “minimize[s]
`the output of V2 when only speech is being received by O1 and O2” and
`preferably has the following construction:
`β(z) = α(z)O2(z) / z-γO1(z)
`Ex. 1001, 6:1–11, 6:35–38. “Any adaptive process may be used,” such as
`“a normalized least-mean squares (NLMS) algorithm.” Id. at 6:14–15.
`With β(z) suitably selected, “the ratio for speech should be relatively
`high (e.g., greater than approximately 2) and the ratio for noise should be
`relatively low (e.g., less than approximately 1.1).” Ex. 1001, 6:29–32. “The
`ratio calculated will depend on both the relative energies of the speech and
`noise as well as the orientation of the noise and the reverberance of the
`environment.” Id. at 6:32–35.
`
`9
`
`Jawbone's Exhibit No. 2002, IPR2023-00279
`Page 009
`
`
`
`IPR2022-00888
`Patent 8,321,213 B2
`
`
`The ’213 patent’s Figure 5 (reproduced below) depicts a flow diagram
`of acoustic voice activity detection:
`
`
`Figure 5 illustrates “acoustic voice activity detection 500” including
`steps 502 through 510. Ex. 1001, 1:66–67, 6:60–61, Fig. 5.
`At step 502, the “detection comprises forming a first virtual
`microphone by combining a first signal of a first physical microphone and a
`second signal of a second physical microphone.” Ex. 1001, 6:61–64, Fig. 5.
`At step 504, the “detection comprises forming a filter that describes a
`relationship for speech between the first physical microphone and the second
`physical microphone.” Id. at 6:64–67, Fig. 5. At step 506, the “detection
`comprises forming a second virtual microphone by applying the filter to the
`
`10
`
`Jawbone's Exhibit No. 2002, IPR2023-00279
`Page 010
`
`
`
`IPR2022-00888
`Patent 8,321,213 B2
`
`first signal to generate a first intermediate signal, and summing the first
`intermediate signal and the second signal.” Id. at 6:67–7:3, Fig. 5. At
`step 508, the “detection comprises generating an energy ratio of energies
`of the first virtual microphone and the second virtual microphone.” Id.
`at 7:3–5, Fig. 5. At step 510, the “detection comprises detecting acoustic
`voice activity of a speaker when the energy ratio is greater than a threshold
`value.” Id. at 7:5–7, Fig. 5.
`D. The Challenged Claims
`Petitioner challenges independent system claim 1, claims 2–13 that
`depend directly or indirectly from claim 1, and independent apparatus
`claim 42. Pet. 3, 23–83.
`Claims 1 and 42 exemplify the challenged claims and read as follows
`(with formatting added for clarity and with numbers and letters added for
`reference purposes):1
`1. [1a] An acoustic voice activity detection system
`comprising:
`[1a] a first virtual microphone comprising a first
`combination of a first signal and a second signal, wherein the
`first signal is received from a first physical microphone and the
`second signal is received from a second physical microphone;
`[1b] a filter, wherein the filter is formed by generating a
`first quantity by applying a calibration to at least one of the first
`signal and the second signal,
`[1c] generating a second quantity by applying a delay to
`the first signal,
`[1d] and forming the filter as a ratio of the first quantity
`to the second quantity; and
`
`
`1 We use the same numbers and letters that Petitioner uses to identify the
`claim language. These annotations do not impact our analysis.
`11
`
`Jawbone's Exhibit No. 2002, IPR2023-00279
`Page 011
`
`
`
`IPR2022-00888
`Patent 8,321,213 B2
`
`
`[1e] a second virtual microphone formed by applying the
`filter to the first signal to generate a first intermediate signal
`and summing the first intermediate signal and the second
`signal,
`[1f] wherein acoustic voice activity of a speaker is
`determined to be present when an energy ratio of energies of
`the first virtual microphone and the second virtual microphone
`is greater than a threshold value.
`42. [42a] A device comprising:
`[42a] a headset including at least one loudspeaker,
`wherein the headset attaches to a region of a human head;
`[42b] a microphone array connected to the headset, the
`microphone array including a first physical microphone
`outputting a first signal and a second physical microphone
`outputting a second signal; and
`[42c] a processing component coupled to the first
`physical microphone and the second physical microphone, the
`processing component forming a first virtual microphone,
`[42d] the processing component forming a filter that
`describes a relationship for speech between the first physical
`microphone and the second physical microphone,
`[42e] the processing component forming a second virtual
`microphone by applying the filter to the first signal to generate
`a first intermediate signal, and summing the first intermediate
`signal and the second signal,
`[42f] the processing component detecting acoustic voice
`activity of a speaker when an energy ratio of energies of the
`first virtual microphone and the second virtual microphone is
`greater than a threshold value.
`Ex. 1001, 37:4–22, 40:7–27.
`
`12
`
`Jawbone's Exhibit No. 2002, IPR2023-00279
`Page 012
`
`
`
`1002
`
`1003
`
`1004
`
`1005
`
`1006
`
`1018
`
`IPR2022-00888
`Patent 8,321,213 B2
`
`
`Elko
`
`Boll
`
`Kanamori
`
`E. The Asserted References
`For its challenges, Petitioner relies on the following references:
`Name
`Reference
`Exhibit
`US 8,098,844 B2, issued January 17, 2012
`(based on an application filed November 15, 2006)
`Steven F. Boll, Suppression of Acoustic Noise in
`Speech Using Spectral Subtraction, 27 IEEE
`Transactions on Acoustics, Speech, and Spectral
`Processing 113–20 (April 1979)
`US 8,194,872 B2, issued June 5, 2012
`Buck
`(based on an application filed September 23, 2005)
`Balan US 7,146,315 B2, issued December 5, 2006
`(based on an application filed August 30, 2002)
`Elko II US 8,942,387 B2, issued January 27, 2015
`(based on an application filed March 9, 2007)
`US 2004/0185804 A1, published September 23,
`2004 (based on an application filed November 18,
`2003)
`Pet. 2–3, 23–83.
`Petitioner asserts that:
`(1) Balan qualifies as prior art under § 102(a);
`(2) Boll and Kanamori qualify as prior art under § 102(b);
`and
`(3) Elko, Buck, and Elko II qualify as prior art under
`§ 102(e).
`Pet. 2–3; see 35 U.S.C. § 102(a), (b), (e) (2006).2
`
`2 The Leahy-Smith America Invents Act (“AIA”), Pub. L. No. 112-29,
`125 Stat. 284 (2011), amended 35 U.S.C. § 102 and § 103 effective
`March 16, 2013. Because the filing date of the challenged claims predates
`the AIA’s amendments to § 102 and § 103, this decision refers to the
`pre-AIA versions of § 102 and § 103.
`13
`
`Jawbone's Exhibit No. 2002, IPR2023-00279
`Page 013
`
`
`
`IPR2022-00888
`Patent 8,321,213 B2
`
`
`At this stage of the proceeding, Patent Owner does not dispute that
`each reference qualifies as prior art. See, e.g., Prelim. Resp. 7–22.
`F. The Asserted Challenges to Patentability
`Petitioner asserts the following challenges to patentability:
`Claim(s) Challenged
`35 U.S.C. §
`Reference(s)/Basis
`1, 3–13
`103(a)
`Elko, Boll, Buck
`1, 2
`103(a)
`Elko, Buck, Boll, Kanamori
`4, 7
`103(a)
`Elko, Boll, Buck, Elko II
`5–8, 10, 11
`103(a)
`Elko, Boll, Buck, Balan
`42
`103(a)
`Elko, Boll
`Pet. 3, 23–83.
`
`G. Testimonial Evidence
`To support its challenges, Petitioner relies on the declaration of
`Jeffrey S. Vipperman, Ph.D. (Exhibit 1007, “Vipperman Decl.”).
`Dr. Vipperman states, “I have been retained as an independent expert by”
`Petitioner “in connection with an inter partes review of” the ’213 patent and
`“have prepared this declaration in connection with” the Petition. Ex. 1007
`¶ 1.
`
`III. DISCRETIONARY DENIAL
`BASED ON PARALLEL LITIGATION
`Patent Owner argues that we should exercise our discretion under
`§ 314(a) to deny institution because “the Fintiv factors demonstrate that
`efficiency and integrity of the AIA are best served by denying review”
`in view of the Google Texas case. See Prelim. Resp. 1, 22–28; Prelim.
`Sur-reply 2–5; 35 U.S.C. § 314(a); Apple Inc. v. Fintiv, Inc., IPR2020-
`00019, Paper 11 (PTAB Mar. 20, 2020) (precedential).
`
`14
`
`Jawbone's Exhibit No. 2002, IPR2023-00279
`Page 014
`
`
`
`IPR2022-00888
`Patent 8,321,213 B2
`
`
`For the reasons explained below, we exercise our discretion under
`§ 314(a) to deny institution because we determine that a trial would not be
`an efficient use of the Board’s time and resources. See infra §§ V–VI.
`In view of that decision, we do not consider Patent Owner’s contentions
`concerning exercising our discretion under § 314(a) to deny institution based
`on parallel litigation.
`IV. PATENTABILITY ANALYSIS
`A. Legal Principles: Obviousness
`A patent may not be obtained “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.”
`35 U.S.C. § 103(a) (2006). An obviousness analysis involves underlying
`factual inquiries including (1) the scope and content of the prior art;
`(2) differences between the claimed invention and the prior art; (3) the level
`of ordinary skill in the art; and (4) where in evidence, objective indicia of
`nonobviousness, such as commercial success, long-felt but unsolved needs,
`and failure of others.3 Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 17−18, 35–36
`(1966); Apple Inc. v. Samsung Elecs. Co., 839 F.3d 1034, 1047–48
`(Fed. Cir. 2016) (en banc). When evaluating a combination of references,
`an obviousness analysis should address “whether there was an apparent
`reason to combine the known elements in the fashion claimed by the patent
`at issue.” KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007).
`We analyze the obviousness issues according to these principles.
`
`
`3 The record does not include evidence or argument regarding objective
`indicia of nonobviousness.
`
`15
`
`Jawbone's Exhibit No. 2002, IPR2023-00279
`Page 015
`
`
`
`IPR2022-00888
`Patent 8,321,213 B2
`
`
`B. Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art
`Factors pertinent to determining the level of ordinary skill in the art
`include (1) the educational level of the inventor; (2) the type of problems
`encountered in the art; (3) prior-art solutions to those problems; (4) the
`rapidity with which innovations are made; (5) the sophistication of the
`technology; and (6) the educational level of workers active in the field.
`Envtl. Designs, Ltd. v. Union Oil Co., 713 F.2d 693, 696–97 (Fed. Cir.
`1983). Not all factors may exist in every case, and one or more of these or
`other factors may predominate in a particular case. Id. These factors are not
`exhaustive, but merely a guide to determining the level of ordinary skill in
`the art. Daiichi Sankyo Co. v. Apotex, Inc., 501 F.3d 1254, 1256 (Fed. Cir.
`2007). Moreover, the prior art itself may reflect an appropriate skill level.
`Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001).
`Petitioner asserts that a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time
`of the alleged invention “would have had a minimum of a bachelor’s degree
`in computer engineering, computer science, electrical engineering,
`mechanical engineering, or a similar field, and approximately three years of
`industry or academic experience in a field related to acoustics, speech
`recognition, speech detection, or signal processing.” Pet. 6. Petitioner also
`asserts that “[w]ork experience can substitute for formal education and
`additional formal education can substitute for work experience.” Id.
`Dr. Vipperman’s testimony supports Petitioner’s assertions. See Ex. 1007
`¶¶ 22–23.
`In the Preliminary Response, Patent Owner “utilizes Petitioner’s
`proposed level of skill in the art.” Prelim. Resp. 6–7 (quoting Pet. 6).
`
`16
`
`Jawbone's Exhibit No. 2002, IPR2023-00279
`Page 016
`
`
`
`IPR2022-00888
`Patent 8,321,213 B2
`
`
`Based on the current record and for purposes of analysis, we accept
`Petitioner’s description of an ordinarily skilled artisan as consistent with
`the ’213 patent and the asserted prior art.
`C. Claim Construction
`We construe claim terms “using the same claim construction
`standard” that district courts use to construe claim terms in civil actions
`under 35 U.S.C. § 282(b). See 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b) (2022). Under that
`standard, claim terms “are given their ordinary and customary meaning,
`which is the meaning the term would have to a person of ordinary skill in
`the art at the time of the invention.” Power Integrations, Inc. v. Fairchild
`Semiconductor Int’l, Inc., 904 F.3d 965, 971 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (citing Phillips
`v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1312–13 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc)). The
`meaning of claim terms may be determined by “look[ing] principally to the
`intrinsic evidence of record, examining the claim language itself, the written
`description, and the prosecution history, if in evidence.” DePuy Spine, Inc.
`v. Medtronic Sofamor Danek, Inc., 469 F.3d 1005, 1014 (Fed. Cir. 2006)
`(citing Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1312–17).
`Petitioner contends that “no claim terms require construction.” Pet. 6.
`Patent Owner “believes that claim construction is not required to
`resolve any issues.” Prelim. Resp. 6.
`Based on the current record, we determine that no claim term requires
`an explicit construction to decide whether Petitioner satisfies the “reasonable
`likelihood” standard for instituting trial. “[O]nly those terms need be
`construed that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve
`the controversy.” Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795,
`
`17
`
`Jawbone's Exhibit No. 2002, IPR2023-00279
`Page 017
`
`
`
`IPR2022-00888
`Patent 8,321,213 B2
`
`803 (Fed. Cir. 1999); see Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean
`Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017).
`When considering whether the combined disclosures in Elko, Boll,
`and Buck teach claim 1’s subject matter, however, we address a claim-
`construction issue, i.e., whether different claim terms have different
`meanings. See infra § IV.D.4(a).
`D. Alleged Obviousness over Elko, Boll, and Buck: Claims 1 and 3–13
`Petitioner contends that claims 1 and 3–13 are unpatentable under
`§ 103(a) as obvious over Elko, Boll, and Buck. See Pet. 3, 23–58. Below,
`we provide overviews of Elko, Boll, and Buck, and then we consider
`patentability issues raised by the parties. For the reasons explained below,
`Petitioner does not establish sufficiently for purposes of institution that the
`combined disclosures in Elko, Boll, and Buck teach the subject matter of
`claims 1 and 3–13.
`1. OVERVIEW OF ELKO (EXHIBIT 1002)
`Elko is a U.S. patent titled “Dual-Microphone Spatial Noise
`Suppression,” filed on November 15, 2006, and issued on January 17, 2012.
`Ex. 1002, codes (22), (45), (54). Elko states that the invention “relates to
`acoustics, and, in particular, to techniques for reducing room reverberation
`and noise in microphone systems, such as those in laptop computers, cell
`phones, and other mobile communication devices.” Id. at 1:23–26.
`Elko describes “the problem of noise pickup by mobile cell phones
`and other portable communication devices such as communication
`headsets.” Ex. 1002, 1:57–59; see id. at 1:42–56. Moreover, the “maximum
`directional gain for a simple delay-sum array is limited to 3 dB for diffuse
`sound fields” and “is attained only at frequencies where the spacing of the
`
`18
`
`Jawbone's Exhibit No. 2002, IPR2023-00279
`Page 018
`
`
`
`IPR2022-00888
`Patent 8,321,213 B2
`
`elements is greater than or equal to one-half of the acoustic wavelength.” Id.
`at 2:2–6. Thus, “there is little added directional gain at low frequencies
`where typical room noise dominates.” Id. at 2:6–7.
`Elko addresses this problem by employing “a spatial noise
`suppression (SNS) algorithm that uses a parametric estimation of the main
`signal direction to attain higher suppression of off-axis signals than is
`possible by classical linear beamforming for two-element broadside arrays.”
`Ex. 1002, 2:7–14; see id. at 2:36–46, 13:51–54. The “SNS algorithm
`utilizes the ratio of the power of the differenced array signal to the power
`of the summed array signal to compute the amount of incident signal from
`directions other than the desired front position.” Id. at 2:19–22; see id.
`at 4:25–28, code (57). A “standard” noise-suppression algorithm “is then
`adjusted accordingly to further suppress undesired off-axis signals”
`corresponding to noise. Id. at 2:22–32; see id. at 2:40–46.
`Elko identifies two “standard” noise-suppression algorithms,
`including the algorithm disclosed in Boll (Exhibit 1003). Ex. 1002,
`2:22–30. Elko incorporates Boll by reference. Id. at 2:22–31.
`Elko discloses “a method for processing audio signals” including the
`following steps:
`(a)
`“generating an audio difference signal”;
`(b)
`“generating an audio sum signal”;
`(c)
`“generating a difference-signal power based on the audio
`difference signal”;
`“generating a sum-signal power based on the audio sum
`signal”;
`“generating a power ratio based on the difference-signal
`power and the sum-signal power”;
`
`(d)
`
`(e)
`
`19
`
`Jawbone's Exhibit No. 2002, IPR2023-00279
`Page 019
`
`
`
`IPR2022-00888
`Patent 8,321,213 B2
`
`
`(f)
`
`“generating a suppression value based on the
`power ratio”; and
`“performing noise suppression processing for at least one
`audio signal based on the suppression value to generate at
`least one noise-suppressed output audio signal.”
`Ex. 1002, 2:47–57; see id. at code (57).
`Elko’s Figure 6 (reproduced below) depicts a block diagram of a two-
`element microphone array spatial noise suppression system:
`
`(g)
`
`
`Figure 6 illustrates “two-element microphone array spatial noise suppression
`system 600” including two microphones 602 (labeled mic 1 and mic 2) and
`various signal-processing components. Ex. 1002, 9:22–25, Fig. 6; see id.
`at 3:18–20.
`As Figure 6 shows, “the signals from two microphones 602 are
`differenced (604) and summed (606).” Ex. 1002, 9:24–26, Fig. 6. “The sum
`signal is equalized by convolving the sum signal with a (kd/2) high-pass
`filter (608), and the short-term powers of the difference signal (610) and the
`equalized sum signal (612) are calculated.” Id. at 9:26–29, Fig. 6. “In a
`
`20
`
`Jawbone's Exhibit No. 2002, IPR2023-00279
`Page 020
`
`
`
`IPR2022-00888
`Patent 8,321,213 B2
`
`frequency-domain implementation, the sum signal is equalized by
`multiplying the frequency components of the sum signal by (kd/2).” Id.
`at 9:29–32. “The difference signal power and the equalized sum signal
`power are used to compute the power ratio ℜN (614).” Id. at 9:32–33,
`Fig. 6. The power ratio ℜN “is then used to determine (e.g., compute and
`limit) the suppression level (616) used to perform (e.g., conventional)
`subband noise suppression (618) on the sum signal to generate a noise-
`suppressed, single-channel output signal.” Id. at 9:33–37, Fig. 6.
`Elko explains that “difference and sum blocks 604 and 606 can be
`eliminated by using a directional (e.g., cardioid) microphone to generate the
`difference signal applied to power block 610 and a non-directional (e.g.,
`omni) microphone to generate the sum signal applied to” high-pass filter 608
`and noise-suppression block 618. Ex. 1002, 9:41–46, Fig. 6.
`Elko’s Figure 10 (reproduced below) depicts a block diagram of
`another two-element microphone array spatial noise suppression system:
`
`
`
`21
`
`Jawbone's Exhibit No. 2002, IPR2023-00279
`Page 021
`
`
`
`IPR2022-00888
`Patent 8,321,213 B2
`
`Figure 10 illustrates “two-element microphone array spatial noise
`suppression system 1000” including two microphones (labeled mic 1
`and mic 2) and various signal-processing components. Ex. 1002, 10:56–58,
`Fig. 10; see id. at 3:30–32. “SNS system 1000 is similar to SNS
`system 600” in Figure 6 “with analogous elements performing analogous
`functions, except that SNS system 1000 employs adaptive filtering to allow
`for self-calibration of the array and modal-angle variability (i.e., flexibility
`in the position of the desired nearfield source).” Id. at 10:58–63, code (57);
`see id. at 11:31–33, 11:65–12:4. Elko’s adaptive filtering attempts to match
`the “two microphone channel signals” by eliminating “amplitude and phase
`error.” Id. at 8:49–52.
`Specifically, SNS system 1000 includes “short-length adaptive
`filter 1020 in series with one of the microphone channels,” i.e., the channel
`from mic 1 in Figure 10. Ex. 1002, 10:64–65, Fig. 10. “To allow for a
`causal filter that accounts for sound propagation from either direction
`relative the microphone axis, the unmodified channel” from mic 2 “is
`delayed (1022) by an amount that depends on the length of filter 1020 (e.g.,
`one-half of the filter length).” Id. at 10:65–11:2, Fig. 10. “A normalized
`least-mean-square (NLMS) process 1024 is used to adaptively update the
`taps of filter 1020 to minimize the difference between the two input signals
`in a minimum least-squares way.” Id. at 11:2–6, Fig. 10. “NLMS
`process 1024 is preferably implemented with voice-activity detection (VAD)
`in order to update the filter tap values based only on suitable audio signals.”
`Id. at 11:6–8.
`
`22
`
`Jawbone's Exhibit No. 2002, IPR2023-00279
`Page 022
`
`
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
Still Working On It
This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.
Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.
A few More Minutes ... Still Working
It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.
Thank you for your continued patience.
This document could not be displayed.
We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
Set your membership
status to view this document.
With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll
get a whole lot more, including:
- Up-to-date information for this case.
- Email alerts whenever there is an update.
- Full text search for other cases.
- Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.
One Moment Please
The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.
Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.
Your document is on its way!
If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.
Sealed Document
We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.
If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.
Access Government Site
