UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`__________________________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`__________________________________
`
`AMAZON.COM, INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`JAWBONE INNOVATIONS, LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`
`IPR2023-00253
`U.S. Patent No. 8,019,091
`
`DECLARATION OF RICHARD M. STERN, Ph.D.
`IN SUPPORT OF PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW
`OF CLAIMS 1-20 OF U.S. PATENT NO. 8,019,091
`
`Sony v. Jawbone
`
`U.S. Patent No. 8,019,091
`
`Sony Ex. 1002
`
`
`__________________________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`__________________________________
`
`AMAZON.COM, INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`JAWBONE INNOVATIONS, LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`
`IPR2023-00253
`U.S. Patent No. 8,019,091
`
`DECLARATION OF RICHARD M. STERN, Ph.D.
`IN SUPPORT OF PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW
`OF CLAIMS 1-20 OF U.S. PATENT NO. 8,019,091
`
`Sony v. Jawbone
`
`U.S. Patent No. 8,019,091
`
`Sony Ex. 1002
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`BACKGROUND ------------------------------------------------------------------- 1
`Experience and Qualifications--------------------------------------------- 1
` Materials Considered ------------------------------------------------------- 3
`APPLICABLE LEGAL STANDARDS ----------------------------------------- 4
`Claim Construction --------------------------------------------------------- 5
`Obviousness ----------------------------------------------------------------- 6
`PERSON OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART ---------------------------- 10
` TECHNOLOGY BACKGROUND --------------------------------------------- 12
` Using Adaptive Methods to Generate Transfer Functions
`and Remove Noise --------------------------------------------------------- 12
`Tissue Vibration Sensors for Speech Detection Were Known ------- 14
`THE ’091 PATENT --------------------------------------------------------------- 15
`Summary of the ’091 Patent ---------------------------------------------- 15
`The Priority Date of the ’091 Patent ------------------------------------- 17
` CLAIMS 1-20 OF THE ’091 PATENT WOULD HAVE BEEN
`OBVIOUS -------------------------------------------------------------------------- 18
`Claims 1-8, 11-14, 16, and 18-20 Would Have Been
`Obvious in View of Ikeda and Puthuff ---------------------------------- 18
`Overview of Ikeda -------------------------------------------------- 18
`Overview of Puthuff ----------------------------------------------- 23
`Claim 11 ------------------------------------------------------------- 24
`11: Preamble ------------------------------------------------ 24
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`-i-
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`11[a]: Two-Microphone Receiver ------------------------ 25
`11[b]: Processor that Generates First and
`Second Transfer Functions -------------------------------- 27
`11[b][1]: Generating a First Transfer
`Function When Voicing Activity is
`Absent ------------------------------------------------ 30
`11[b][2]: Generating a Second Transfer
`Function When Voicing Activity is
`Present ------------------------------------------------ 37
`11[c]: Noise Removal -------------------------------------- 40
`11[d]: Vibration Sensor ------------------------------------ 42
`Motivation to Combine Ikeda and
`Puthuff ------------------------------------------------ 44
`Claim 12 ------------------------------------------------------------- 49
`Claim 13 ------------------------------------------------------------- 49
`Claim 14 ------------------------------------------------------------- 50
`Claim 16 ------------------------------------------------------------- 50
`Claim 18 ------------------------------------------------------------- 51
`18: Preamble ------------------------------------------------ 51
`18[a]: Processor Coupled Among a Receiver
`and Sensor --------------------------------------------------- 51
`18[b]: Voicing Sensor -------------------------------------- 52
`18[c]: Processor That Generates Transfer
`Functions ----------------------------------------------------- 52
`18[c][1]: First Transfer Function ------------------ 52
`18[c][2]: Second Transfer Function -------------- 53
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`-ii-
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`18[d]: Noise Removal -------------------------------------- 53
`Claim 19 ------------------------------------------------------------- 53
` Claim 20 ------------------------------------------------------------- 55
` Claim 1 -------------------------------------------------------------- 55
`1: Preamble -------------------------------------------------- 55
`1[a]: Receiving Acoustic Signals ------------------------- 56
`1[b]: Sensing Vibrations ----------------------------------- 56
`1[c]: Generating a VAD Signal --------------------------- 56
`1[d]: Generating at Least Two Transfer
`Functions ----------------------------------------------------- 58
`1[e]: Removing Noise -------------------------------------- 60
` Claim 2 -------------------------------------------------------------- 60
`2[a]: Generating One Transfer Function ----------------- 60
`2[b]: Removing Noise -------------------------------------- 61
` Claim 3 -------------------------------------------------------------- 61
` Claim 4 -------------------------------------------------------------- 62
` Claim 5 -------------------------------------------------------------- 63
` Claim 6 -------------------------------------------------------------- 64
` Claim 7 -------------------------------------------------------------- 64
` Claim 8 -------------------------------------------------------------- 64
`Claims 1-8, 11-14, 16, and 18-20 Would Have Been
`Obvious in View of Ikeda and Alcivar ---------------------------------- 65
`Claim 11 ------------------------------------------------------------- 65
`11: Preamble ------------------------------------------------ 65
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`-iii-
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`11[a]: Receiver ---------------------------------------------- 65
`11[b]: Processor that Generates Transfer
`Functions ----------------------------------------------------- 65
`11[b][1]: First Transfer Function ----------------- 66
`11[b][2]: Second Transfer Function -------------- 66
`11[c]: Noise Removal -------------------------------------- 66
`11[d]: Vibration Sensor ------------------------------------ 67
`Motivation to Combine Ikeda and
`Alcivar ------------------------------------------------ 68
`Claim 12 ------------------------------------------------------------- 71
`Claim 13 ------------------------------------------------------------- 72
`Claim 14 ------------------------------------------------------------- 72
`Claim 16 ------------------------------------------------------------- 73
`Claim 18 ------------------------------------------------------------- 73
`18: Preamble ------------------------------------------------ 73
`18[a]: Processor Coupled Among a Receiver
`and Sensor --------------------------------------------------- 73
`18[b]: Voicing Sensor -------------------------------------- 74
`18[c]: Processor That Generates Transfer
`Functions ----------------------------------------------------- 74
`18[c][1]: First Transfer Function ------------------ 74
`18[c][2]: Second Transfer Function -------------- 75
`18[d]: Noise Removal -------------------------------------- 75
`Claim 19 ------------------------------------------------------------- 75
`Claim 20 ------------------------------------------------------------- 76
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`-iv-
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Claim 1 -------------------------------------------------------------- 76
`1: Preamble -------------------------------------------------- 76
`1[a]: Receiving Acoustic Signals ------------------------- 77
`1[b]: Sensing Vibrations ----------------------------------- 77
`1[c]: Generating a VAD Signal --------------------------- 77
`1[d]: Generating at Least Two Transfer
`Functions ----------------------------------------------------- 78
`1[e]: Removing Noise -------------------------------------- 79
` Claim 2 -------------------------------------------------------------- 79
` Claim 3 -------------------------------------------------------------- 80
` Claim 4 -------------------------------------------------------------- 81
` Claim 5 -------------------------------------------------------------- 81
` Claim 6 -------------------------------------------------------------- 81
` Claim 7 -------------------------------------------------------------- 82
` Claim 8 -------------------------------------------------------------- 82
`Claims 3, 9, and 15 Would Have Been Obvious in View of
`Ikeda and Either of Puthuff or Alcivar Further in View of
`Hussain ---------------------------------------------------------------------- 82
`Claim 3 -------------------------------------------------------------- 84
`Claims 9 and 15----------------------------------------------------- 86
`9[a] and 15[a]: Dividing Acoustic Data into
`Sub-bands ---------------------------------------------------- 86
`9[b] and 15[b]: Generating a Sub-band Transfer
`Function ------------------------------------------------------ 87
`9[c] and 15[c]: Removing Acoustic Noise -------------- 88
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`-v-
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`9[d] and 15[d]: Combining Sub-band Signals ---------- 88
` Motivation to Combine -------------------------------------------- 89
`Claims 10 and 17 Would Have Been Obvious in View of
`Ikeda, Puthuff or Alcivar, and Sasaki ----------------------------------- 91
`Claims 10 and 17 --------------------------------------------------- 91
` Motivation to Combine -------------------------------------------- 92
`It Would Have Been Obvious to Generate Transfer
`Functions Using a Processor in View of the References
`Discussed Above and Further in View of Bartlett --------------------- 94
` SECONDARY CONSIDERATIONS OF NONOBVIOUSNESS ---------- 97
` CONCLUSION -------------------------------------------------------------------- 97
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`-vi-
`
`
`
`Amazon.com, Inc. v. Jawbone Innovations, LLC
`Declaration of Dr. Richard M. Stern – U.S. Patent No. 8,019,091
`
`I, Richard M. Stern, Ph.D., do hereby declare:
`
`1.
`
`I am making this declaration at the request of Petitioner Amazon.com,
`
`Inc. (“Amazon”). I have been retained by Amazon as a technical expert in this
`
`matter.
`
`2.
`
`I am being compensated for my work on this case. My compensation
`
`does not depend on the content of this Declaration or the outcome of these
`
`proceedings. I do not own any stock in Amazon and, to my knowledge, I have no
`
`financial interest in Amazon.
`
`
`
`BACKGROUND
`
` Experience and Qualifications
`
`3.
`
`I am a Professor at Carnegie Mellon University in the Department of
`
`Electrical and Computer Engineering, the Department of Computer Science, and the
`
`Language Technologies Institute. I have been on the faculty of Carnegie Mellon
`
`since 1977.
`
`4.
`
`I received the S.B. degree from the Massachusetts Institute of
`
`Technology (MIT) in 1970, the M.S. from the University of California, Berkeley, in
`
`1972, and the Ph.D. from MIT in 1977, all in electrical engineering.
`
`5.
`
`I am a fellow of the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers
`
`(IEEE), the Acoustical Society of America, and the International Speech
`
`Communication Association (ISCA). I was the ISCA 2008-2009 Distinguished
`
`-1-
`
`
`
`Amazon.com, Inc. v. Jawbone Innovations, LLC
`Declaration of Dr. Richard M. Stern – U.S. Patent No. 8,019,091
`
`Lecturer, a recipient of the Allen Newell Award for Research Excellence in 1992,
`
`and I served as the General Chair of Interspeech 2006. Interspeech is the world’s
`
`largest technical conference focused on speech processing and application.
`
`6. Much of my current research is in spoken language systems, where I
`
`am particularly concerned with the development of techniques with which automatic
`
`speech recognition can be made more robust with respect to changes in environment
`
`and acoustical ambience.
`
`7.
`
`I have actively worked on the theory and application of systems using
`
`microphone arrays over a period of decades (e.g., Stern et al., 2008; Stern and
`
`Menon, 2020), and my research group has developed several array-based algorithms
`
`to improve speech recognition accuracy in difficult acoustical environments (e.g.,
`
`Seltzer et al., 2004; Stern et al., 2007; Kim et al., 2009; Moghimi and Stern, 2019).
`
`I have also actively worked on the theory and application of systems to accomplish
`
`voice activity detection for more than twenty years. Most recently, my students
`
`developed the system that provided best performance worldwide in the 2021
`
`Fearless Steps Phase-03 Speech Activity Detection (SAD) Challenge, which was
`
`organized and run by the University of Texas, Dallas (Vuong et al., 2021). My
`
`relevant publications, including those cited above, are available on Carnegie
`
`Mellon’s web site at http://www.cs.cmu.edu/afs/cs/user/robust/www/papers.html.
`
`-2-
`
`
`
`Amazon.com, Inc. v. Jawbone Innovations, LLC
`Declaration of Dr. Richard M. Stern – U.S. Patent No. 8,019,091
`
`8.
`
`I understand a copy of my current curriculum vitae, which lists my
`
`publications for the last ten years, is being submitted as Exhibit 1014.
`
` Materials Considered
`
`9.
`
`In preparing this Declaration, I have considered the following
`
`materials:
`
`Exhibit No.
`
`1001
`
`1003
`
`1004
`
`1005
`
`1006
`
`1007
`
`1008
`
`1009
`
`1010
`
`1011
`
`Description
`
`U.S. Patent No. 8,019,091 (“the ’091 patent”)
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,978,824 (“Ikeda”)
`
`International Patent Publication No. WO2000/021194
`(“Puthuff”)
`
`U.S. Patent No. 3,746,789 (“Alcivar”)
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,473,684 (“Bartlett”)
`
`Amir Hussain et al., A New Metric for Selecting Sub-Band
`Processing in Adaptive Speech Enhancement Systems, Proc. 5th
`Eur. Conf. on Speech Comm’n and Tech. (Eurospeech ’97)
`2611-14 (“Hussain”)
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,471,538 (“Sasaki”)
`
`U.S. Provisional Patent Application No. 60/219,297
`
`Bernard Widrow et al., Adaptive Noise Cancelling: Principles
`and Applications, 63 Proc. IEEE 12 (1975) (“Widrow 1975”)
`
`Bernard Widrow et al., Adaptive Signal Processing (1985)
`(“Widrow 1985”)
`
`-3-
`
`
`
`Amazon.com, Inc. v. Jawbone Innovations, LLC
`Declaration of Dr. Richard M. Stern – U.S. Patent No. 8,019,091
`
`Exhibit No.
`
`1012
`
`1013
`
`
`
`Description
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,349,197 (“Oestreich”)
`
`Excerpts from the ’091 patent’s file history
`
`10.
`
`I have also relied on my education, training, and experience, and my
`
`knowledge of pertinent literature in the field of the ’091 patent.
`
` APPLICABLE LEGAL STANDARDS
`
`11.
`
`I have been asked to provide my opinion as to whether the claims of the
`
`’091 patent would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the
`
`time of the alleged invention, in view of the prior art.
`
`12.
`
`I am an electrical engineer by training and profession. The opinions I
`
`am expressing in this report involve the application of my training and technical
`
`knowledge and experience to the evaluation of certain prior art with respect to the
`
`’091 patent.
`
`13. Although I have been involved as a technical expert in patent matters
`
`before, I am not an expert in patent law. Therefore, the attorneys from Knobbe,
`
`Martens, Olson & Bear, LLP have provided me with guidance as to the applicable
`
`patent law in this matter. The paragraphs below express my understanding of how I
`
`must apply current principles related to patent validity to my analysis.
`
`-4-
`
`
`
`Amazon.com, Inc. v. Jawbone Innovations, LLC
`Declaration of Dr. Richard M. Stern – U.S. Patent No. 8,019,091
`
` Claim Construction
`
`14.
`
`It is my understanding that in determining whether a patent claim is
`
`obvious in view of the prior art, the Patent Office construes the claim by giving the
`
`claim terms their plain and ordinary meaning, as they would have been understood
`
`by a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention in view of the
`
`intrinsic record (patent specification and file history). For the purposes of this
`
`review, and to the extent necessary, I have interpreted each claim term in accordance
`
`with its plain and ordinary meaning as it would have been understood by a person of
`
`ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention, in view of the intrinsic record. I
`
`have been instructed that the time of the invention is July 19, 2000, which I
`
`understand to be the earliest claimed priority date of the ’091 patent.
`
`15.
`
`I understand that a patent and its prosecution history are considered
`
`“intrinsic evidence” and are the most important sources for interpreting claim
`
`language in a patent. I also understand that in reading the claim, I must not import
`
`limitations from the specification into the claim terms; in other words, I must not
`
`narrow the scope of the claim terms by implicitly adding disclosed limitations that
`
`have no express basis in the claims. The prosecution history of related patents and
`
`applications can also be relevant.
`
`16.
`
`I understand that sources extrinsic to a patent and its prosecution history
`
`(such as dictionary definitions and technical publications) may also be used to help
`
`-5-
`
`
`
`Amazon.com, Inc. v. Jawbone Innovations, LLC
`Declaration of Dr. Richard M. Stern – U.S. Patent No. 8,019,091
`
`interpret the claim language, but that such extrinsic sources cannot be used to
`
`contradict the unambiguous meaning of the claim language that is evident from the
`
`intrinsic evidence.
`
`17. Unless expressly stated herein, I have applied the plain and ordinary
`
`meaning of the claim terms, which I understand is the meaning that a person of
`
`ordinary skill in the art would have given to terms in July 2000 based on a review of
`
`the intrinsic evidence.
`
` Obviousness
`
`18.
`
`It is my understanding that a claim is “obvious” if the claimed subject
`
`matter as a whole would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at
`
`the time of the alleged invention. I understand that an obviousness analysis involves
`
`a number of considerations. I understand that the following factors must be
`
`evaluated to determine whether a claim would have been obvious: (i) the scope and
`
`content of the prior art; (ii) the differences, if any, between each claim of the ’091
`
`patent and the prior art; (iii) the level of ordinary skill in the art in July 2000; and
`
`(iv) additional considerations, if any, that indicate that the invention was obvious or
`
`not obvious. I understand that these “additional considerations” are often referred
`
`to as “secondary considerations” of non-obviousness or obviousness.
`
`19.
`
`I also understand that the frame of reference when evaluating
`
`obviousness is what a hypothetical person of ordinary skill in the pertinent art would
`
`-6-
`
`
`
`Amazon.com, Inc. v. Jawbone Innovations, LLC
`Declaration of Dr. Richard M. Stern – U.S. Patent No. 8,019,091
`
`have known in July 2000. I understand that the hypothetical person of ordinary skill
`
`is presumed to have knowledge of all pertinent prior art references.
`
`20.
`
`I understand that a prior art reference may be a pertinent prior art
`
`reference (or “analogous art”) if it is in the same field of endeavor as the patent or if
`
`it is pertinent to the problem that the inventors were trying to solve. A reference is
`
`reasonably pertinent if it logically would have commended itself to an inventor’s
`
`attention in considering the problem at hand. If a reference relates to the same
`
`problem as the claimed invention, that supports use of the reference as prior art in
`
`an obviousness analysis. Here, all of the references relied on in my obviousness
`
`analysis below are in the same field of endeavor as the ’091 patent, e.g., signal
`
`capture and processing for speech or audio applications. The references are also
`
`pertinent to a particular problem the inventor was focused on, e.g., noise reduction.
`
`21.
`
`It is my understanding that the law recognizes several rationales for
`
`combining references or modifying a reference to show obviousness of claimed
`
`subject matter. Some of these rationales include:
`
`• combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield
`
`predictable results;
`
`• simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain
`
`predictable results;
`
`-7-
`
`
`
`Amazon.com, Inc. v. Jawbone Innovations, LLC
`Declaration of Dr. Richard M. Stern – U.S. Patent No. 8,019,091
`
`• a predictable use of prior art elements according to their established
`
`functions;
`
`• using known techniques to improve similar devices (methods, or
`
`products) in the same way;
`
`• applying a known technique to a known device (method, or product)
`
`ready for improvement to yield predictable results;
`
`• choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with
`
`a reasonable expectation of success (in which case a claim would have
`
`been obvious to try);
`
`• known work in one field of endeavor may prompt variations of it for
`
`use in either the same field or a different one based on design incentives
`
`or other market forces if the variations would have been predictable to
`
`one of ordinary skill in the art; and
`
`• some teaching, suggestion, or motivation in the prior art that would
`
`have led one of ordinary skill to modify the prior art reference or to
`
`combine prior art reference teachings to arrive at the claimed invention.
`
`22.
`
`I understand that “secondary considerations” must be considered as part
`
`of the obviousness analysis when present. I further understand that the secondary
`
`considerations may include: (1) a long-felt but unmet need in the prior art that was
`
`satisfied by the claimed invention; (2) the failure of others; (3) skepticism by experts;
`
`-8-
`
`
`
`Amazon.com, Inc. v. Jawbone Innovations, LLC
`Declaration of Dr. Richard M. Stern – U.S. Patent No. 8,019,091
`
`(4) commercial success of a product covered by the patent; (5) unexpected results
`
`achieved by the claimed invention; (6) industry praise of the claimed invention; (7)
`
`deliberate copying of the invention; and (8) teaching away by others. I also
`
`understand that evidence of the independent and nearly simultaneous “invention” of
`
`the claimed subject matter by others is a secondary consideration supporting an
`
`obviousness determination and may support a conclusion that a claimed invention
`
`was within the knowledge of a person of ordinary skill as of July 2000. I am not
`
`aware of any evidence of secondary considerations that would suggest that the
`
`claims of the ’091 patent would have been nonobvious in July 2000.
`
`23.
`
`I understand that when assessing obviousness, using hindsight is
`
`impermissible; that is, what is known today or what was learned from the teachings
`
`of the patent should not be considered. The patent should not be used as a road map
`
`for selecting and combining items of prior art. Rather, obviousness must be
`
`considered from the perspective of a person of ordinary skill at the time the alleged
`
`invention was made – July 2000 in this case.
`
`24.
`
`I also understand that an obviousness analysis must consider the
`
`invention as a whole, as opposed to just a part or element of the invention. I
`
`understand this “as a whole” assessment to require showing that one of ordinary skill
`
`in the art at the time of invention, confronted by the same problems as the inventor
`
`-9-
`
`
`
`Amazon.com, Inc. v. Jawbone Innovations, LLC
`Declaration of Dr. Richard M. Stern – U.S. Patent No. 8,019,091
`
`and with no knowledge of the claimed invention, would have selected the elements
`
`from the prior art and combined them in the claimed manner.
`
`25.
`
`It is my understanding that something is “inherent in,” and therefore
`
`taught by, the prior art, if it necessarily flows from the explicit disclosure of the prior
`
`art. I understand that the fact that a certain result or characteristic may be present in
`
`the prior art is not sufficient to establish inherency. However, if the result or
`
`characteristic is necessarily present based upon the explicit disclosure in the prior
`
`art, it is inherent in the prior art and is therefore disclosed.
`
` PERSON OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART
`
`26.
`
`It is my understanding that when interpreting the claims of the ’091
`
`patent and evaluating whether a claim would have been obvious, I must do so based
`
`on the perspective of a person of ordinary skill in the art at the relevant priority date.
`
`I have been instructed to assume for the purposes of my opinions that the relevant
`
`priority date of the ’091 patent is July 19, 2000.
`
`27.
`
`I understand that in determining the level of ordinary skill in the art,
`
`several factors are considered. Those factors may include: (i) the type of problems
`
`encountered in the art; (ii) prior art solutions to those problems; (iii) the rapidity with
`
`which innovations are made; (iv) the sophistication of the technology; and (v) the
`
`educational level of active workers in the field. A person of ordinary skill in the art
`
`-10-
`
`
`
`Amazon.com, Inc. v. Jawbone Innovations, LLC
`Declaration of Dr. Richard M. Stern – U.S. Patent No. 8,019,091
`
`must have the capability of understanding the scientific and engineering principles
`
`applicable to the pertinent art.
`
`28. Based on my review of the specification and claims of the ’091 patent,
`
`it is my opinion that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had a minimum
`
`of a bachelor’s degree in computer engineering, computer science, electrical
`
`engineering, mechanical engineering, or a similar field, and approximately three
`
`years of industry or academic experience in a field related to acoustics, speech
`
`recognition, speech detection, or signal processing. Work experience could
`
`substitute for formal education and additional formal education could substitute for
`
`work experience.
`
`29. My conclusions below that the claims of the ’091 patent would have
`
`been obvious would remain the same even if the priority date, field of endeavor, or
`
`level of ordinary skill were slightly different.
`
`30.
`
`I meet the above definition of a person of ordinary skill in the art, and
`
`did so as of July 2000. Also, I have worked with persons of ordinary skill in the art
`
`through my professional and academic experiences, and I have an understanding of
`
`their skill level around July 2000.
`
`-11-
`
`
`
`Amazon.com, Inc. v. Jawbone Innovations, LLC
`Declaration of Dr. Richard M. Stern – U.S. Patent No. 8,019,091
`
` TECHNOLOGY BACKGROUND
` Using Adaptive Methods to Generate Transfer
`Functions and Remove Noise
`
`31. Two-microphone systems that adaptively remove noise using transfer
`
`functions have been used for decades. For example, in 1975, Widrow described a
`
`dual-microphone noise-reduction system that used an adaptive filter for generating
`
`a “transfer function” to remove noise from acoustic signals such as speech. (Ex.
`
`1010 (Widrow 1975), 1695-1701, 1704-1705, Figs. 3-6, 18-19.) Widrow described
`
`similar systems and various adaptive methods in a 1985 textbook. (Ex. 1011
`
`(Widrow 1985).) Widrow 1985 disclosed the general operation of adaptive systems
`
`(id., ch. 1), a common adaptive algorithm (id., ch. 6 (describing the “LMS
`
`Algorithm”)), and the use of adaptive algorithms to generate transfer functions
`
`which can be used to remove noise from acoustic signals (id., ch. 12).
`
`32.
`
`Ikeda, as discussed in more detail below, describes a noise canceler that
`
`receives acoustic signals from a signal and noise source and uses adaptive filters to
`
`generate transfer functions and remove noise from the desired signal. The system
`
`includes two microphones and adaptive filters for generating transfer functions. (Ex.
`
`1003 (Ikeda), 4:49-53.) The system uses two adaptive filters (3 and 6) with
`
`respective first and second transfer functions W1(z) and W2(z) as shown by Ikeda’s
`
`Figure 1:
`
`-12-
`
`
`
`Amazon.com, Inc. v. Jawbone Innovations, LLC
`Declaration of Dr. Richard M. Stern – U.S. Patent No. 8,019,091
`
`
`
`(Id., Fig. 1, 5:17-23.)1 Ikeda’s first transfer function is calculated when the desired
`
`speech signal is absent or negligible. (Id., 3:32-45.) In contrast, Ikeda’s second
`
`transfer function is calculated when speech is present and noise is ideally absent.
`
`(Id., 3:32-45.)
`
`33. After generating the transfer functions, Ikeda’s noise canceler uses
`
`them to produce an output “from which noise has been cancelled.” (Ex. 1003
`
`(Ikeda), 5:62-63; see also id. 5:17-62.)
`
`
`1 Figures herein have been annotated for clarity.
`
`-13-
`
`
`
`Amazon.com, Inc. v. Jawbone Innovations, LLC
`Declaration of Dr. Richard M. Stern – U.S. Patent No. 8,019,091
`
`
`
`Tissue Vibration Sensors for Speech Detection Were
`Known.
`
`34. Many non-acoustic methods of determining when speech is present or
`
`absent were known in the art. For example, determining periods when voicing
`
`activity is present or absent using a sensor that detects tissue vibrations was known
`
`for decades before the ’091 patent’s application was filed. For example, Alcivar,
`
`which issued in 1973, disclosed controlling a “voice-activated transmit switch
`
`(VOX) for high noise environment voice communication systems” using a “tissue-
`
`conduction microphone [] positioned in contact with the user’s neck tissue in the
`
`vicinity of the larynx.” (Ex. 1005 (Alcivar), Abstract.) Alcivar’s “tissue conduction
`
`microphone” detects voice through “tissue vibrations due to the modulation of the
`
`vocal chords.” (Id., 4:65-5:54, Abstract.)
`
`35. Voice activity detectors were widely used with microphones to produce
`
`a signal with reduced noise. Puthuff, which published in 2000, similarly disclosed
`
`a noise suppression system using a “motion transducer [80] comprising a vibration
`
`sensor” such as an accelerometer to “adaptively sense[] sound through bone
`
`conduction” and therefore detect when a user is speaking. (Ex. 1004 (Puthuff), 5:1-
`
`3, 4:13-21; id., 6:6-10.) The vibration sensor is placed against a talker’s head (e.g.,
`
`in a handset or hearing aid) to detect “speech-induced vibrations.” (Id., 8:16-19; id.,
`
`3:19-23, 2:20-3:5.)
`
`-14-
`
`
`
`Amazon.com, Inc. v. Jawbone Innovations, LLC
`Declaration of Dr. Richard M. Stern – U.S. Patent No. 8,019,091
`
` THE ’091 PATENT
`Summary of the ’091 Patent
`
`
`36. The ’091 patent relates to “systems and methods for detecting and
`
`processing a desired signal in the presence of acoustic noise” in devices such as a
`
`telephone. (Ex. 1001 (the ’091 patent), 1:16-18; id., 2:55-56.) Figure 2 of the ’091
`
`patent shows an embodiment with two microphones (102 and 103, both highlighted
`
`green) that receive acoustic signals from a signal source 100 (e.g., speech,
`
`highlighted yellow) and a noise source 101 (highlighted grey):
`
`
`
`(Id., Fig. 2, 3:20-50.) As was known in the art, a first transfer function, H1(z), exists
`
`between the noise source and Mic 1, and a second transfer function, H2(z), exists
`
`between the speech source and Mic 2. (Id., Fig. 2, 3:53-55.) The transfer functions
`
`are approximated at the appropriate time periods, described below, using a VAD that
`
`“uses physiological information to determine when a speaker is speaking” through
`
`use of a sensor such as “an accelerometer [or] a skin surface microphone in physical
`
`-15-
`
`
`
`Amazon.com, Inc. v. Jawbone Innovations, LLC
`Declaration of Dr. Richard M. Stern – U.S. Patent No. 8,019,091
`
`contact with skin of a user.” (Id., 3:39-50.) The approximated transfer functions
`
`can be used to remove noise from the speech signal. (Id., 5:28-31.)
`
`37. As in the prior art, the denoising system approximates one transfer
`
`function during periods when speech is absent from the acoustic signals and
`
`approximates a second transfer function during periods when speech is present in
`
`the acoustic signals, as determined by the VAD. (Ex. 1001 (the ’091 patent), 4:29-
`
`5:6, 7:50-56.) The ’091 patent’s specification provides the conventional
`
`mathematical equations associated with this system. For example, when the VAD
`
`indicates that voicing information is absent, the speech signal is assumed to be zero
`
`and H1(z) is approximated as:
`𝐻𝐻1(𝑧𝑧)=𝑀𝑀1𝑛𝑛(𝑧𝑧)
`𝑀𝑀2𝑛𝑛(𝑧𝑧)
`
`where subscript “n” indicates “that only noise is being received.” (Id., 4:28-45; id.,
`
`7:50-53, Eq. 2.) M1(z) and M2(z) are the frequency (“z”) domain representations of
`
`the acoustic signals received at signal microphone 102 and noise microphone 103,
`
`respectively. (Id., 4:5-8, 4:29-51, 7:50-53.)
`
`38. Similarly, when the VAD indicates that voicing information is present,
`
`noise is assumed to be negligible or zero and H2(z) is approximated as:
`
`𝐻𝐻2(𝑧𝑧)=𝑀𝑀2𝑠𝑠(𝑧𝑧)𝑀𝑀1𝑠𝑠(𝑧𝑧)
`
`-16-
`
`
`
`Amazon.com, Inc. v. Jawbone Innovations, LLC
`Declaration of Dr. Richard M. Stern – U.S. Patent No. 8,019,091
`
`where subscript “s” indicates that only speech is occurring. (Ex. 1001 (the ’091
`
`patent), 4:53-5:5, 7:53-56.)
`
`39. The approximated transfer functions H1(z) and H2(z) are then used to
`
`“remove the noise from the [speech] signal” resulting in a denoised output signal
`
`S(z):
`
`𝑆𝑆(𝑧𝑧)=𝑀𝑀1(𝑧𝑧)−𝑀𝑀2(𝑧𝑧)𝐻𝐻1(𝑧𝑧)
`1−𝐻𝐻2(𝑧𝑧)𝐻𝐻1(𝑧𝑧)
`
`
`
`(Ex. 1001 (the ’091 pat
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
