Trials@uspto.gov
`571-272-7822
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Paper 9
`Entered: January 19, 2024
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`LG ELECTRONICS INC.,
`Petitioner,
`v.
`
`JAWBONE INNOVATIONS, LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`
`
`IPR2023-01248
`Patent 8,467,543 B2
`
`
`
`
`Before GEORGIANNA W. BRADEN, NORMAN H. BEAMER,
`and JASON M. REPKO, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`BEAMER, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`DECISION
`Granting Institution of Inter Partes Review
`35 U.S.C. § 314
`Denying Motion For Joinder
`37 C.F.R. § 42.122
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`571-272-7822
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Paper 9
`Entered: January 19, 2024
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`LG ELECTRONICS INC.,
`Petitioner,
`v.
`
`JAWBONE INNOVATIONS, LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`
`
`IPR2023-01248
`Patent 8,467,543 B2
`
`
`
`
`Before GEORGIANNA W. BRADEN, NORMAN H. BEAMER,
`and JASON M. REPKO, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`BEAMER, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`DECISION
`Granting Institution of Inter Partes Review
`35 U.S.C. § 314
`Denying Motion For Joinder
`37 C.F.R. § 42.122
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2023-01248
`Patent 8,467,543 B2
`
`
`INTRODUCTION
`I.
`On July 26, 2023, LG Electronics Inc. (“Petitioner”) filed a Petition
`(“Pet.”) pursuant to 35 U.S.C. §§ 311–319 to institute an inter partes review
`of claims 1–26 of U.S. Patent No. 8,467,543 B2 (“the ’543 patent”).
`Paper 3. On November 10, 2023, Jawbone Innovations, LLC (“Patent
`Owner”) filed a Preliminary Response (“Prelim. Resp.”). Paper 8.
`On July 26, 2023, Petitioner also filed a Motion For Joinder To And
`Consolidation With Related Inter Partes Review IPR2023-00275, which
`Patent Owner opposed on August 28, 2023. Papers 2, 7. However, on
`August 8, 2023, that Proceeding was terminated due to settlement.
`IPR2023-00275, Paper 15. Accordingly, Petitioner’s motion to join is
`denied as moot.
`The standard for instituting an inter partes review is set forth in
`35 U.S.C. § 314(a), which provides that an inter partes review may not be
`instituted unless the information presented in the Petition and any
`preliminary response 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.”
`For the reasons explained below, we determine that Petitioner has
`established a reasonable likelihood that it would prevail with respect to at
`least one challenged claim. Accordingly, we institute an inter partes review
`as to the challenged claims and grounds raised in the Petition.
`
`II. BACKGROUND
`The ’543 Patent
`A.
`The ’543 patent, titled “Microphone and Voice Activity Detection
`(VAD) Configurations for Use with Communication Systems,” was filed on
`2
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2023-01248
`Patent 8,467,543 B2
`
`March 27, 2003, issued on June 18, 2013, and lists a related provisional
`application filed March 27, 2002. 1 Ex. 1001, codes (54), (22), (45), (60).
`The ’543 patent is directed to handset and headset systems with a two-
`microphone array to receive acoustic signals and a Voice Activity Detector
`(VAD) device to provide human voicing activity information. Ex. 1001,
`code (57). The systems receive a control signal from the VAD to
`automatically select a denoising method appropriate to data of frequency
`subbands of the acoustic signals, which is applied to the acoustic signals to
`generate denoised acoustic signals when the acoustic signal includes speech
`and noise. Id. Figure 1 is reproduced below.
`
`
`Figure 1 is a block diagram of the noise removal system. Ex. 1001, 2:23–25.
`Microphones Mic 1 and Mic 2 receive acoustic information from speech
`signal source 101 and noise source 102, and the acoustic information
`received at each microphone is provided to Noise Removal system 105. Id.
`
`
`1 It is unnecessary at this stage to determine whether the ’543 patent is
`entitled to priority based on the application date of the provisional. See
`Pet. 12.
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`IPR2023-01248
`Patent 8,467,543 B2
`
`at 5:18–24, 14:40–54. VAD 106 detects the presence of speech by detecting
`vibrations of the trachea, neck, cheek, and head associated with the
`production of speech, and can be an electromagnetic device, such as a
`General Electromagnetic Sensor (GEMS), an accelerometer, or a skin-
`surface microphone. Id. at 6:9–12, 11:50–60. VAD 106 provides a signal to
`Noise Removal system 105 to indicate the occurrence of speech, which is
`used to control the method of noise removal. Id. at 5:33–36, 14:51–52. The
`system processes the acoustic information in multiple subbands in the
`frequency domain, by determining the noise components in the subbands
`when speech is absent, and subtracting those noise components from the
`overall acoustic signal to generate cleaned speech 107. Id. at 14:52–56,
`16:9–12, 16:31–40.
`One arrangement of the microphones is illustrated in Figure 7A
`reproduced below.
`
`
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`IPR2023-01248
`Patent 8,467,543 B2
`
`Figure 7A shows a microphone configuration using a unidirectional speech
`microphone and a unidirectional noise microphone, in which the speech
`microphone is directed toward speech and the noise microphone is directed
`away from speech, and the microphones are at an angle “f” of 60–135
`degrees, and distances d1 and d2 of 0–15 cm. Ex. 1001, 3:4–6, 9:46–52.
`Other disclosed embodiments use a unidirectional speech microphone and an
`omnidirectional noise microphone, or an omnidirectional speech microphone
`and a unidirectional noise microphone. Id. at Figs. 3A, 5A, 2:34–37,
`2:41–43.
`The ’543 Specification asserts that, compared to the prior art, the
`disclosed invention “make[s] all the difference in terms of noise suppression
`performance, including using VAD information to control adaptation of the
`noise suppression system to the received signals, [and] using numerous
`subbands to ensure adequate convergence across the spectrum of
`interest . . . .” Ex. 1001, 16:44–52.
`Illustrative Claim
`B.
`Independent claim 1 is reproduced below.2
`1. A communications system, comprising:
`[a] a voice detection subsystem configured to receive
`voice activity signals that includes information
`associated with human voicing activity, the voice
`detection subsystem configured to automatically
`generate control signals using the voice activity
`signals; and
`[b] a denoising subsystem coupled to the voice
`detection subsystem, the denoising subsystem
`
`2 The bracketed letters and paragraph arrangement are added for
`convenience of presentation.
`
`
`
`5
`
`
`
`IPR2023-01248
`Patent 8,467,543 B2
`
`
`comprising a microphone array including a
`plurality of microphones,
`[c] wherein a first microphone of the array is fixed at
`a first position relative to a mouth, wherein the
`first position orients a front of the first
`microphone towards the mouth,
`[d] wherein a second microphone of the array is fixed
`at a second position relative to the mouth,
`wherein the second position orients a front of the
`second microphone away from the mouth such
`that the second position forms an angle relative
`to the first position, wherein the angle is greater
`than zero degrees,
`[e] the microphone array providing acoustic signals
`of an environment to components of the
`denoising subsystem,
`[f] components of the denoising subsystem
`automatically selecting at least one denoising
`method appropriate to data of at least one
`frequency subband of the acoustic signals using
`the control signals and processing the acoustic
`signals using the selected denoising method to
`generate denoised acoustic signals,
`[g] wherein the denoising method includes generating
`a noise waveform estimate associated with noise
`of the acoustic signals and subtracting the noise
`waveform estimate from the acoustic signal when
`the acoustic signal includes speech and noise,
`[h] wherein the voice detection subsystem is
`configured to receive the voice activity signals
`using a sensor independent from the microphone
`array and to output the control signals generated
`from the voice activity signals to the denoising
`system, the denoising system configured to use
`
`
`
`6
`
`
`
`IPR2023-01248
`Patent 8,467,543 B2
`
`
`the control signals to denoise the acoustic signals
`from the microphone array.
`Ex. 1001, 24:2–37.
`
`References
`C.
`Petitioner relies on the following references (Pet. 12):
`• Burnett et al., US 6,377,919 Bl, filed November 4, 1999, issued
`April 23, 2002. Ex. 1003 (“Burnett”).
`• Andrea et al., US 5,825,897, filed August 18, 1997, issued
`October 20, 1998. Ex. 1004 (“Andrea”).
`• Sasaki et al., US 5,471,538, filed May 7, 1993, issued
`November 28, 1995. Ex. 1005 (“Sasaki”).
`• Hussain et al., A New Metric for Selecting Sub-Band Processing in
`Adaptive Speech Enhancement Systems, Proc. 5th European
`Conference on Speech Communication and Technology
`(Eurospeech ’97), 2611–14, published September 1997. Ex. 1006
`(“Hussain”).
`• Puthuff et al., WO 00/21194, published April 13, 2000. Ex. 1007
`(“Puthuff”).
`• Alcivar, US 3,746,789, filed October 20, 1971, issued July 17, 1973.
`Ex. 1008 (“Alcivar”).
`Petitioner also filed the Declaration of Dr. Richard M. Stern in support of the
`Petition. Ex. 1002 (“Stern Decl.”).
`
`Asserted Challenges to Patentability
`D.
`Petitioner challenges the patentability of claims 1–26 of the ’543
`patent on the following bases (Pet. 12):
`
`
`
`7
`
`
`
`IPR2023-01248
`Patent 8,467,543 B2
`
`
`Claim(s) Challenged 35 U.S.C. §3
`1–2, 5–7
`103
`1–2, 5–13, 26
`103
`14–25
`103
`
`3
`
`4
`
`103
`
`103
`
`References
`Burnett, Hussain
`Burnett, Hussain, Andrea
`Grounds 1 or 2 references,
`Sasaki
`Grounds 1 or 2 references,
`Puthuff
`Grounds 1 or 2 references,
`Alcivar
`
`Real Parties in Interest
`E.
`The parties identify themselves as real parties in interest. Pet. 76;
`Paper 6, 2.
`
`Related Proceedings
`F.
`The parties identify the following related proceedings: Jawbone
`Innovations, LLC v. Amazon.com, Inc., Case No. 5:22-cv-06727-TLT (N.D.
`Cal.); Jawbone Innovations, LLC v. Amazon.com, Inc., Case No. 2:21-cv-
`00435 (E.D. Tex.); Jawbone Innovations, LLC v. Apple Inc., Case No. 6:21-
`cv-00984-ADA (W.D. Tex.); Jawbone Innovations, LLC v. Google LLC,
`Case No. 6:21-cv-00985-ADA (W.D. Tex.); Jawbone Innovations, LLC v.
`Google LLC, Case No. 3:23-cv-00466 (N.D. Cal.); Jawbone Innovations,
`LLC v. Guangdong OPPO Mobile Telecommunications Corp., Ltd., d/b/a
`OPPO, Case No. 3:23-cv-00079 (E.D. Tex.); Jawbone Innovations, LLC v.
`HTC Corporation, Case No. 3:23-cv-00077 (E.D. Tex.); Jawbone
`
`
`3 The Leahy-Smith America Invents Act, Pub. L. No. 112-29, 125 Stat. 284
`(2011) (“AIA”), included amendments to 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 and 103 that
`became effective after the filing of the application for the ’543 patent.
`Therefore, we apply the pre-AIA versions of these sections.
`8
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2023-01248
`Patent 8,467,543 B2
`
`Innovations, LLC v. LG Electronics, Inc., Case No. 2:23-cv-00078 (E.D.
`Tex.); Jawbone Innovations, LLC v. Meta Platforms, Inc., Case No. 6:23-cv-
`00158 (W.D. Tex.); Jawbone Innovations, LLC v. Panasonic Holdings
`Corporation, Case No. 2:23-cv-00081 (E.D. Tex.); Jawbone Innovations,
`LLC v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., Case No. 2:21-cv-00186 (E.D. Tex.);
`Jawbone Innovations, LLC v. Sony Electronics Inc., Case No. 2:23-cv-01161
`(D.N.J.); Jawbone Innovations, LLC v. ZTE Corporation, Case No. 3:23-cv-
`00082 (E.D. Tex.); Google LLC v. Jawbone Innovations, LLC, IPR2022-
`01027; Samsung Electronics Co., LTD. v. Jawbone Innovations, LLC,
`IPR2022-00865; Amazon.Com, Inc. v. Jawbone Innovations, LLC, IPR2022-
`00275; Sony Electronics, Inc. v. Jawbone Innovations, LLC, IPR2023-
`01222. Pet. 76–77; Paper 6, 2–3.
`
`III. ANALYSIS OF PETITIONER’S CHALLENGE
`Legal Standards
`A.
`To prevail in its challenge, Petitioner must demonstrate by a
`preponderance of the evidence that the claims are unpatentable. 35 U.S.C.
`§ 316(e) (2018); 37 C.F.R. § 42.1(d) (2022). “In an IPR, the petitioner has
`the burden from the onset to show with particularity why the patent it
`challenges is unpatentable.” Harmonic Inc. v. Avid Tech., Inc., 815 F.3d
`1356, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (citing 35 U.S.C. § 312(a)(3) (2012) (requiring
`inter partes review petitions to identify “with particularity . . . the evidence
`that supports the grounds for the challenge to each claim”)). This burden of
`persuasion never shifts to the patent owner. See Dynamic Drinkware, LLC
`v. Nat’l Graphics, Inc., 800 F.3d 1375, 1378 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (discussing the
`burden of proof in inter partes review).
`
`
`
`9
`
`
`
`IPR2023-01248
`Patent 8,467,543 B2
`
`
`A patent claim is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103 if the
`differences between the claimed subject matter 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. KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 406
`(2007). The question of obviousness is resolved on the basis of underlying
`factual determinations including: (1) the scope and content of the prior art;
`(2) any differences between the claimed subject matter and the prior art;
`(3) the level of ordinary skill in the art; and (4) when in evidence, objective
`indicia of non-obviousness (also called secondary considerations), such as
`commercial success, long-felt but unsolved needs, and failure of others.4
`Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 17–18 (1966). We analyze grounds
`based on obviousness in accordance with the above-stated principles.
`
`Level of Skill in the Art
`B.
`In determining whether an invention would have been obvious at the
`time it was made, 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) requires us to resolve the level of
`ordinary skill in the pertinent art at the time of the invention. Graham, 383
`U.S. at 17. The person of ordinary skill in the art is a hypothetical person
`who is presumed to have known the relevant art at the time of the invention.
`In re GPAC Inc., 57 F.3d 1573, 1579 (Fed. Cir. 1995). Factors that may be
`considered in determining the level of ordinary skill in the art include, but
`are not limited to, the types of problems encountered in the art, the
`
`
`4 The record does not include evidence or argument regarding objective
`indicia of nonobviousness.
`
`
`
`10
`
`
`
`IPR2023-01248
`Patent 8,467,543 B2
`
`sophistication of the technology, and educational level of active workers in
`the field. Id. In a given case, one or more factors may predominate. Id.
`Petitioner asserts that a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of
`the alleged invention of the ’543 patent:
`[W]ould 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 can substitute for formal
`education and additional formal education can substitute for
`work experience. . . .
`Pet. 13 (citing Stern Decl. ¶ 28). Patent Owner utilizes Petitioner’s proposal
`at this stage of the proceeding. Prelim. Resp. 9.
`Petitioner’s proposal is consistent with the level of ordinary skill in
`the art reflected by the asserted prior art. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261
`F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001); GPAC, 57 F.3d at 1579. On this record,
`the level of ordinary skill is neither in dispute nor dispositive of any
`challenge. For purposes of this Decision, we apply Petitioner’s articulation.
`
`C. Claim Construction
`The Petition was accorded a filing date of July 26, 2023. Paper 4. In
`an inter partes review for a petition filed on or after November 13, 2018, a
`claim “shall be construed using the same claim construction standard that
`would be used to construe the claim in a civil action under 35 U.S.C. 282(b).”
`37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b). We apply the claim construction standard from
`Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1312–13 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc).
`
`
`
`11
`
`
`
`IPR2023-01248
`Patent 8,467,543 B2
`
`
`Claim terms need only be construed to the extent necessary to resolve
`the controversy. Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co.,
`868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017).
`The parties submit that no claim construction is necessary for present
`purposes. Pet. 13–14; Prelim. Resp. 9. 5
`
`D.
`
`Alleged Obviousness of Claims 1–2 and 5–7 over Burnett and Hussain
`Petitioner challenges claims 1–2 and 5–7 as obvious over the
`combination of Burnett and Hussain. Pet. 14–33.
`
`1. Burnett
`Burnett, titled “System and Method for Characterizing Voiced
`Excitations of Speech and Acoustic Signals, Removing Acoustic Noise from
`Speech, and Synthesizing Speech,” issued April 23, 2002, from an
`application filed November 4, 1999. Ex. 1003, codes (54), (45), (22).
`Burnett uses electromagnetic (EM) sensors to detect voiced speech to
`provide speech production information to enable noise removal from human
`speech. Id. at code (57). Figure 12 is reproduced below.
`
`
`5 In IPR2023-00275, we construed the terms “voice detection subsystem,”
`“voice activity signals,” and “human voicing activity” to refer to
`subsystems, signals, and activity, respectively, that relate to voiced speech,
`unvoiced speech, or a combination of voiced and unvoiced speech. IPR275,
`Paper 10, 13. This construction is not dispositive of any challenge in this
`Proceeding.
`
`
`
`
`12
`
`
`
`IPR2023-01248
`Patent 8,467,543 B2
`
`
`
`Figure 12 is a diagram of a noise cancelling system, using EM sensor 1240
`to determine “no-speech” time periods, and microphones 1 and 2
`(elements 1210 and 1220) to receive acoustic signals, including speech 1204
`and background noise 1202. Ex. 1003, 5:37–38, 17:49– 61. Processor 1250
`compares output signals from the two microphones 1210 and 1220 and
`adjusts a gain and phase of output signal 1230, using amplifier and filter
`circuit 1224, so as to minimize a residual signal level in all frequency bands
`of signal 1260 output from summation stage 1238. Id. at 17:61–66. In
`summation stage 1238 the amplified and filtered background microphone
`signal 1230 is set equal and opposite in sign to a speaker’s microphone
`signal by the processor 1250, using feedback 1239 from output signal 1260.
`Id. at 17:66–18:3. The determination of the “no-speech” time periods by
`EM sensor 1240 is used by the circuitry to accurately remove background
`acoustic noise from speech. Id. at 18:4–13.
`
`
`
`13
`
`
`
`IPR2023-01248
`Patent 8,467,543 B2
`
`
`Burnett incorporates by reference several related patents, including
`Holzrichter, U.S. Patent 6,006,175 (Ex. 1009, hereafter “Holzrichter ’175”),
`and Holzrichter U.S. Patent No. 5,729,694 (Ex. 1010, hereafter
`“Holzrichter ’694”). Ex. 1003, 1:24–32, 11:65–12:3. Petitioner relies on
`disclosures in these incorporated patents for several requirements of the
`challenged claims. Pet. 16–17, 30–32, 39, 41–42, 44, 46, 51, 63.
`
`2. Hussain
`Hussain is a conference submission titled “A New Metric for
`Selecting Sub-Band Processing in Adaptive Speech Enhancement Systems.”
`Ex. 1006. Petitioner offers evidence that Hussain was publicly available at a
`“Speech Communication and Technology” conference held September 22–
`25, 1997, and catalogued at a number of libraries prior to the earliest claimed
`priority date for the ’543 patent. Pet. 12, 28. Patent Owner raises no issue
`as to the prior-art status of this reference, and we treat it as prior art pursuant
`to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) for purposes of this Decision.
`Hussain discloses an “adaptive noise cancellation scheme” that
`improves performance in reverberant environments by processing acoustic
`signals as separate sub-bands to produce a denoised signal. Ex. 1006,
`10–11, 13. Figure 1 is reproduced below.
`
`
`
`14
`
`
`
`IPR2023-01248
`Patent 8,467,543 B2
`
`
`
`Figure 1 is a block diagram of a “Multi-Microphone sub-band Adaptive
`(MMSBA) speech enhancement system” including primary channel
`microphone mic 1 and reference channel microphone mic 2, a “speech/noise
`only” component that is an “effective voice activity detector (VAD),” and a
`dual M-channel bandpass filter bank. Ex. 1006, 10–11. The filter bank
`transforms the acoustic signals into M sub-bands in the frequency domain,
`which are provided to sub-band processing (SBP) circuits to perform
`adaptive intermittent noise cancellation, and reconstructed to provide
`enhanced speech output. Id.
`
`3. The Combination of Burnett and Hussain
`Petitioner argues that one of ordinary skill would have been motivated
`to combine Burnett’s noise cancellation system with its EM VAD, and
`Hussain’s sub-band processing, because of the known advantages of
`Hussain’s ability to adaptively select the best form of processing for
`15
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2023-01248
`Patent 8,467,543 B2
`
`individual frequency sub-bands to combat reverberation effects and improve
`noise cancellation, and one of ordinary skill would have reasonably expected
`to succeed in making such a combination. Pet. 26–27 (citing Stern Decl.
`¶¶ 34, 74–78). For example, Hussain explains that sub-band processing “is
`capable of outperforming conventional noise cancellation schemes.”
`Ex. 1006, 10, 12.
`Patent Owner does not specifically challenge the motivation for
`combining Burnett and Hussain. See generally Prelim. Resp. At this stage,
`we credit the testimony of Petitioner’s declarant that one of ordinary skill
`would have been motivated to make the combination because using adaptive
`noise cancellation methods on individual sub-bands rather than full-band
`processing is advantageous as compared to full-band processing because it
`provides, inter alia, improved performance in reverberant environments.
`Stern Decl. ¶ 76.
`Accordingly, for purposes of this Decision, we determine that
`Petitioner has provided sufficiently articulated reasoning with rational
`underpinnings for the proffered combined teachings of Burnett and Hussain.
`
`4. Independent Claim 1
`For the “communications system” preamble of independent claim 1,
`Petitioner generally relies on the disclosures in Burnett of “public address
`systems, telephone conference systems, telephone networks” and similar
`communications systems. Pet. 14 (citing Ex. 1003, 14:47–50, 15:55–59;
`Stern Decl. ¶ 47).6
`
`
`6 Based on the present record, we make no determination at this stage of the
`proceeding that the preamble of claim 1 (or of claim 26) is limiting.
`16
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2023-01248
`Patent 8,467,543 B2
`
`
`For the claim 1 requirement 1[a] of a voice detection subsystem that
`generates control signals,7 Petitioner relies on EM sensor 1240 and
`processor 1250 of Burnett, which together generate control signals to
`indicate “no-speech time periods.” Pet. 14–17 (citing Ex. 1003, Fig. 12,
`2:62–3:9, 3:35–58, 17:49–18:17; Stern Decl. ¶¶ 49–50).
`For the claim 1 requirements [1b] and [1e] of a denoising subsystem
`including a microphone array that provides acoustic signals, Petitioner relies
`on the circuitry of Figure 12 of Burnett, including microphones 1210
`and 1220. Pet. 17–18 (citing Ex. 1003, Fig. 12, 12:37–39, 17:58–66; Stern
`Decl. ¶¶ 53–58).
`For the claim 1 requirement 1[c] of a first microphone, Petitioner
`relies on the disclosure in Burnett of microphone 1210, which is pointed
`towards the mouth. Pet. 19–20 (citing Ex. 1003, Fig. 12, 17:58–61,
`18:13–17; Stern Decl. ¶¶ 59–61).
`For the claim 1 requirement 1[d] of a second microphone, Petitioner
`relies on the disclosure in Burnett of microphone 1220, which is pointed
`away from the mouth at an angle greater than zero degrees — viz., 180
`degrees. Pet. 20–21 (citing Ex. 1003, Fig. 12, 17:58–61, 18:13–17; Stern
`Decl. ¶¶ 62–64).
`For the claim 1 requirement 1[f] of automatically selecting a
`denoising method appropriate to data of at least one frequency sub-band,
`Petitioner relies on the Hussain disclosure that noise is subtracted from the
`speech/noise acoustic signal by dividing the signals into multiple sub-bands
`and processing each sub-band by performing adaptive intermittent noise
`
`7 For economy of presentation, we refer to the portions of claim 1 identified
`by bracketed letters at Section II.B above.
`17
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2023-01248
`Patent 8,467,543 B2
`
`cancellation using a VAD, and detecting “noise alone” periods, when
`differential acoustic-path transfer functions for each sub-band are
`determined, and “speech plus noise” periods, when the transfer functions are
`used to denoise the speech. Pet. 24–26 (citing Ex. 1006, Fig. 1, 10–12; Stern
`Decl. ¶¶ 71–73).
`Patent Owner argues that the combination of Burnett and Hussain
`does not render obvious “components of the denoising subsystem
`automatically selecting at least one denoising method appropriate to data of
`at least one frequency subband of the acoustic signals using the control
`signals.” Prelim. Resp. 12–16. In particular, Patent Owner argues that the
`VAD control signals are not used to select the denoising method, as required
`by claim 1. Id. Patent Owner explains that Hussain uses “a modified MSC
`[Magnitude Squared Coherence]” value to select the denoising method. Id.
`at 7–9, 14–16. Patent Owner argues that there is no support in the record for
`Petitioner’s reliance on the VAD control signal being used for the selection.
`Id. at 13, 15–16.
`Patent Owner fails to acknowledge, however, that the MSC values
`used to select the denoising method are calculated “during the noise alone
`period,” and that period is determined by an “effective voice activity
`detector.” Ex. 1006, 11. Thus, the control signal of the VAD (which
`indicates when the “noise alone period” occurs) is indeed used to select the
`denoising method. As Petitioner argues, “Hussain discloses that the decision
`of which method is best for each sub-band is determined, at least in part, by
`the output of a VAD.” Pet. 25 (citing Ex. 1006, 11).
`For the claim 1 requirement 1[g] of subtracting noise waveform
`estimates from the acoustic signals, Petitioner relies on the disclosure in
`
`
`
`18
`
`
`
`IPR2023-01248
`Patent 8,467,543 B2
`
`Burnett of processing acoustic signals from microphones 1210 and 1220 to
`generate denoised acoustic signals using adaptively adjusted amplifier and
`filter circuit 1224, which produces signal 1230 as a noise waveform estimate
`associated with noise of the acoustic signals. Pet. 22–23 (citing Ex. 1003,
`Fig. 12, 17:49–18:17; Stern Decl. ¶¶ 66–67). Petitioner further relies on the
`disclosure in Burnett that the noise estimate 1230 “is set equal and opposite
`in sign to a speaker’s microphone signal 1218,” with which it is then
`summed, thus subtracting the noise estimate from the acoustic signal when
`the acoustic signal contains speech and noise. Id. at 23–24 (citing Ex. 1003,
`Fig. 12, 11:61–12:49, 17:49–18:17; Stern Decl. ¶¶ 67–68).
`For the claim 1 requirement 1[h] of using a voice activity sensor
`independent from the microphone array, Petitioner relies on EM sensor 1240
`of Burnett. Pet. 28–29 (citing Stern Decl. ¶¶ 79–80).
`Other than as discussed above, Patent Owner does not specifically
`respond to any other of Petitioner’s arguments regarding the requirements of
`independent claim 1. Nonetheless, the burden remains on Petitioner to
`demonstrate unpatentability. See Dynamic Drinkware, 800 F.3d at 1378.
`We determine, on the current record and for purposes of this Decision, that
`the information presented in the Petition demonstrates a reasonable
`likelihood that Petitioner will prevail in establishing that claim 1 is
`unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over the combination of Burnett and
`Hussain.
`
`5. Dependent Claims 2 and 5–7
`Claim 2 requires the voice detection subsystem of claim 1 to further
`comprise:
`
`
`
`19
`
`
`
`IPR2023-01248
`Patent 8,467,543 B2
`
`
`at least one glottal electromagnetic micropower sensor
`(GEMS) including at least one antenna for receiving the
`voice activity signals; and
`at least one voice activity detector (VAD) algorithm for
`processing the GEMS voice activity signals and generating
`the control signals.
`Ex. 1001, 24:38–45. For the claim 2 requirements, Petitioner relies on the
`EM sensor of Burnett, which is described in Burnett as a GEMS, and which
`also is described as including an antenna. Pet. 29–31 (citing Ex. 1003,
`2:62–65, 3:7–9, 18:38–41; Stern Decl. ¶¶ 83–85).
`Claim 5 requires the voice detection subsystem of claim 1 to further
`comprise “at least one manually activated voice activity detector (VAD) for
`generating the voice activity signals.” Ex. 1001, 24:60–63. For the claim 5
`requirement, Petitioner relies on the disclosure in Holzrichter ’175
`(incorporated by reference in Burnett) of “[using] a finger or other body part
`to actuate a button or similar sensor device to start the operation of the EM
`sensor system.” Pet. 31 (citing Ex. 1009, 17:43–48; Stern Decl.
`¶¶ 87–88).
`Claim 6 adds to claim 1 the requirement of
`a portable handset that includes the microphones, wherein the
`portable handset includes at least one of cellular telephones,
`satellite telephones, portable telephones, wireline telephones,
`Internet telephones, wireless transceivers, wireless communica-
`tion radios, personal digital assistants (PDAs), and personal
`computers (PCs).
`Ex. 1001, 24:64–25:3. Claim 7 adds to claim 6 the requirement that “the
`portable handset includes at least one of the voice detection subsystem and
`the denoising subsystem.” Id. at 25:4–6. For these requirements, Petitioner
`relies on the disclosure in Burnett that its system “can be especially useful
`20
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2023-01248
`Patent 8,467,543 B2
`
`for telephone and conference calls . . . .,” and the disclosure in incorporated
`Holzrichter ’694 “devices [that] can be used … for a variety of user chosen
`speech related applications” including a “[t]elephone receiver/transmitter
`unit with EM sensors.” Pet. 32–33 (citing Ex. 1003, 1:24–32, 15:55–56;
`Ex. 1010, 11:17–32; Stern Decl. ¶¶ 89–91).
`Other than its arguments directed to independent claim 1, which we
`find unavailing on the current record, Patent Owner does not specifically
`respond to Petitioner’s arguments regarding dependent claims 2 and 5–7.
`See generally Prelim. Resp. Nonetheless, the burden remains on Petitioner
`to demonstrate unpatentability. See Dynamic Drinkware, 800 F.3d at 1378.
`We determine, on the current record and for purposes of this Decision, that
`the information presented in the Petition demonstrates a reasonable
`likelihood that Petitioner will prevail in establishing that claims 2 and 5–7
`are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over the combination of Burnett
`and Hussain.
`
`E.
`
`Alleged Obviousness of Claims 1–2, 5–13, and 26 over Burnett,
`Hussain, and Andrea
`Petitioner challenges claims 1–2, 5–13, and 26 as obvious over the
`combination of Burnett, Hussain, and Andrea. Pet. 33–52.
`
`1. Andrea
`Andrea, titled “Noise Cancellation Apparatus,” issued Oct, 20, 1998,
`from an application filed August 18,1997. Ex. 1004, codes (54), (45), (22).
`Andrea describes techniques to reduce ambient noise, using signal
`processing circuitry to cancel background noise signals detected at a sensor
`microphone. Id. at code (57). Figure 2 is reproduced below.
`
`
`
`21
`
`
`
`IPR2023-01248
`Patent 8,467,543 B2
`
`
`
`
`Figure 2 is a block diagram of a noise cancellation apparatus, including
`microphone 12, which receives speech and background noise,
`microphone 14, which receives background noise, and operational
`amplifier 16, which subtracts the noise signal from microphone 14 from the
`speech and noise signal from microphone 12, thus supplying an electrical
`signal representing substantially the speech. Ex. 1004, 12:41–66.
`Embodiments are disclosed for use in handsets and headsets, with the
`microphones positioned so that one receives speech and noise, and the other
`primarily receives noise. Ex. 1004, Figs. 1, 3A, 3B, 9A, 9B, 9C, 13:65–
`14:34, 14:49–53, 19:11–43, 19:65–20:14.
`An “enhancement” of the noise cancellation system includes a “talk-
`thru” capability with a “VOX [voice activated transmission] circuit” that
`senses speech based on the microphone inputs, which allows audio
`transmission of voice to be heard in an earphone speaker without removal of
`a headset. Ex. 1004, Fig. 28, 33:44–34:61.
`
`
`
`22
`
`
`
`IPR2023-01248
`Patent 8,467,543 B2
`
`
`2. The Combination of Burnett, Hussain, and Andrea
`Petitioner argues that one of ordinary skill would have been motivated
`to use the microphone configurations taught by Andrea in the
`Burnett/Hussain combination because Andrea and Burnett both address the
`problem of denoising speech, because Burnett’s Figure 12 schematically
`suggests the configurations of the microphones, leading one of ordinary skill
`to look to Andrea for specific configuration details, including the disclosure
`in Andrea of the importance of positioning microphones so that they are
`phased properly to avoid canceling out speech, and because including
`Andrea in the combination would have been in accord with well-known
`techniques that would have led one of or
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
