UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`__________________________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`__________________________________
`
`AMAZON.COM, INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`JAWBONE INNOVATIONS, LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`
`IPR2023-00275
`U.S. Patent No. 8,467,543
`
`DECLARATION OF RICHARD M. STERN, Ph.D.
`IN SUPPORT OF PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW
`OF CLAIMS 1-26 OF U.S. PATENT NO. 8,467,543
`
`(cid:47)(cid:42)(cid:40)(cid:3)(cid:40)(cid:59)(cid:43)(cid:44)(cid:37)(cid:44)(cid:55)(cid:3)(cid:49)(cid:50)(cid:17)(cid:3)(cid:20)(cid:19)(cid:19)(cid:21)
`
`Amazon v. Jawbone
`U.S. Patent 8,467,543
`Amazon Ex. 1002
`
`
`__________________________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`__________________________________
`
`AMAZON.COM, INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`JAWBONE INNOVATIONS, LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`
`IPR2023-00275
`U.S. Patent No. 8,467,543
`
`DECLARATION OF RICHARD M. STERN, Ph.D.
`IN SUPPORT OF PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW
`OF CLAIMS 1-26 OF U.S. PATENT NO. 8,467,543
`
`(cid:47)(cid:42)(cid:40)(cid:3)(cid:40)(cid:59)(cid:43)(cid:44)(cid:37)(cid:44)(cid:55)(cid:3)(cid:49)(cid:50)(cid:17)(cid:3)(cid:20)(cid:19)(cid:19)(cid:21)
`
`Amazon v. Jawbone
`U.S. Patent 8,467,543
`Amazon Ex. 1002
`
`
`
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`
`
`BACKGROUND -------------------------------------------------------------- 1
`
`
`
`Experience and Qualifications --------------------------------------- 1
`
` Materials Considered -------------------------------------------------- 3
`
` APPLICABLE LEGAL STANDARDS ------------------------------------ 5
`
`
`
`Claim Construction ---------------------------------------------------- 5
`
` Obviousness ------------------------------------------------------------ 7
`
` PERSON OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART ---------------------- 11
`
` TECHNOLOGY BACKGROUND --------------------------------------- 12
`
` Noise Cancellation Systems Were Known ----------------------- 12
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Estimating and Subtracting Noise From a Desired
`Signal Was Known ------------------------------------------ 12
`
`Noise Canceling Communications Systems with
`Microphones Oriented Toward and Away From a
`Speaker Were Known --------------------------------------- 14
`
`Noise Canceling Systems Operating in Frequency
`Sub-bands Were Known ------------------------------------ 14
`
` Detecting Voicing Activity With Non-Acoustic Sensors
`Was Known ---------------------------------------------------------- 15
`
` Using Non-Acoustic Sensors for Voice Activity Detection
`in Noise Cancellation Systems Was Known --------------------- 16
`
`
`
`THE ’543 PATENT --------------------------------------------------------- 16
`
`
`
`Summary of the ’543 Patent ---------------------------------------- 16
`
`-i-
`
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`(cont’d)
`
`
`
`The Priority Date of the ’543 Patent ------------------------------ 18
`
` CLAIMS 1-26 OF THE ’543 PATENT WOULD HAVE BEEN
`OBVIOUS -------------------------------------------------------------------- 19
`
`
`
`Claims 1-2 and 5-7 Would Have Been Obvious in View
`of Burnett ’919 and Hussain --------------------------------------- 19
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Overview of Burnett ’919 ----------------------------------- 19
`
`Overview of Hussain ---------------------------------------- 21
`
`Claim 1 -------------------------------------------------------- 22
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1: Preamble -------------------------------------------- 22
`
`1[a]: Voice Detection Subsystem ------------------ 22
`
`1[b]: Denoising Subsystem ------------------------- 25
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1[b][1]: Microphone Array ------------------ 26
`
`1[b][2]: First Microphone ------------------- 27
`
`1[b][3]: Second Microphone ---------------- 28
`
`1[b][4]: Generating Denoised Output ------ 30
`
`1[b][5]: Using a Frequency Sub-band
`Method ----------------------------------------- 32
`
`(a) Motivation to Combine Burnett
`’919 with Hussain --------------------- 34
`
`
`
`1[c]: Independent VAD Sensor --------------------- 37
`
`Claim 2 -------------------------------------------------------- 38
`
`Claim 5 -------------------------------------------------------- 40
`
`-ii-
`
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`(cont’d)
`
`
`
`
`
`Claim 6 -------------------------------------------------------- 41
`
`Claim 7 -------------------------------------------------------- 42
`
`
`
`Claims 1-2, 5-13, and 26 Would Have Been Obvious in
`View of Burnett ’919, Hussain, and Andrea --------------------- 42
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Overview of Andrea ----------------------------------------- 42
`
`Claim 1 -------------------------------------------------------- 45
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1: Preamble -------------------------------------------- 45
`
`1[a]: Voice Detection Subsystem ------------------ 45
`
`1[b]: Denoising Subsystem ------------------------- 46
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1[b][1]: Microphone Array ------------------ 46
`
`1[b][2]: First Microphone ------------------- 47
`
`1[b][3]: Second Microphone ---------------- 50
`
`1[b][4]: Generating Denoised Output ------ 52
`
`1[b][5]: Using a Frequency Sub-band
`Method ----------------------------------------- 53
`
`
`
`1[c]: Independent VAD Sensor --------------------- 53
`
` Motivation to Combine Burnett ’919 with
`Andrea ------------------------------------------------- 54
`
`Claim 2 -------------------------------------------------------- 57
`
`Claim 5 -------------------------------------------------------- 57
`
`Claim 6 -------------------------------------------------------- 57
`
`-iii-
`
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`(cont’d)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Claim 7 -------------------------------------------------------- 60
`
`Claim 8 -------------------------------------------------------- 60
`
`Claim 9 -------------------------------------------------------- 63
`
`Claim 10 ------------------------------------------------------- 65
`
` Claim 11 ------------------------------------------------------- 65
`
` Claim 12 ------------------------------------------------------- 67
`
` Claim 13 ------------------------------------------------------- 68
`
` Claim 26 ------------------------------------------------------- 70
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`26: Preamble ------------------------------------------ 70
`
`26[a]: Voice Detection Subsystem ----------------- 70
`
`26[b]: Denoising Subsystem ------------------------ 70
`
`
`
`
`
`26[b][1]-[3]: Microphone Array, First
`Microphone, and Second Microphone ----- 71
`
`26[b][4]-[5]: Generating Denoised
`Output and Using a Frequency Sub-
`band Method ---------------------------------- 71
`
`26[c]: Independent VAD Sensor ------------------- 72
`
`26[d]: Portable Headset ------------------------------ 72
`
`
`
`Claims 14-25 Would Have Been Obvious in View of
`Burnett ’919, Hussain, Optionally Andrea, and Sasaki --------- 73
`
`
`
`
`
`Claim 14 ------------------------------------------------------- 73
`
`Claim 15 ------------------------------------------------------- 77
`
`-iv-
`
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`(cont’d)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Claim 16 ------------------------------------------------------- 78
`
`Claim 17 ------------------------------------------------------- 79
`
`Claim 18 ------------------------------------------------------- 79
`
`Claim 19 ------------------------------------------------------- 80
`
`Claim 20 ------------------------------------------------------- 81
`
`Claim 21 ------------------------------------------------------- 81
`
`Claim 22 ------------------------------------------------------- 82
`
` Claim 23 ------------------------------------------------------- 82
`
` Claim 24 ------------------------------------------------------- 82
`
` Claim 25 ------------------------------------------------------- 84
`
`
`
`
`
`Claim 3 Would Have Been Obvious in View of Burnett
`’919, Hussain, Optionally Andrea, and Puthuff ----------------- 84
`
`
`
`Claim 3 -------------------------------------------------------- 84
`
` Motivation to Combine Burnett ’919 with Puthuff ------ 86
`
`Claim 4 Would Have Been Obvious in View of Burnett
`’919, Hussain, Optionally Andrea, and Alcivar ----------------- 88
`
`
`
`Claim 4 -------------------------------------------------------- 89
`
` Motivation to Combine Burnett ’919 with Alcivar ------ 90
`
` SECONDARY CONSIDERATIONS OF NONOBVIOUSNESS ---- 92
`
` CONCLUSION -------------------------------------------------------------- 92
`
`-v-
`
`
`
`Amazon.com, Inc. v. Jawbone Innovations, LLC
`Declaration of Dr. Richard M. Stern – U.S. Patent No. 8,467,543
`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. 8,467,543
`
`
`
`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. 8,467,543
`
`
`
`8.
`
`I understand a copy of my current curriculum vitae, which lists my
`
`publications for the last ten years, is being submitted as Exhibit 1028.
`
` 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. 8,467,543 (“the ‘543 patent”)
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,377,919 (“Burnett ’919”)
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,825,897 (“Andrea”)
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,471,538 (“Sasaki”)
`
`Amir Hussain et al., A New Metric for Selecting Sub-Band Pro-
`cessing in Adaptive Speech Enhancement Systems, Proc. 5th Eur.
`Conf. on Speech Comm’n and Tech. (Eurospeech ’97) 2611-14
`(“Hussain”)
`
`International Patent Publication No. WO2000/021194 (“Puthuff”)
`
`U.S. Patent No. 3,746,789 (“Alcivar”)
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,006,175 (“Holzrichter ’175”)
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,729,694 (“Holzrichter ’694”)
`
`Bernard Widrow et al., Adaptive Noise Cancelling: Principles and
`Applications, 63 Proc. IEEE 12 (1975) (“Widrow 1975”)
`
`-3-
`
`
`
`Amazon.com, Inc. v. Jawbone Innovations, LLC
`Declaration of Dr. Richard M. Stern – U.S. Patent No. 8,467,543
`
`
`
`Exhibit No.
`
`Description
`
`Bernard Widrow et al., Adaptive Signal Processing (1985)
`(“Widrow 1985”)
`
`U.S. Patent No. 4,177,430 (“Paul”)
`
`U.S. Patent No. 4,589,137 (“Miller”)
`
`U.S. Patent No. 4,912,767 (“Chang”)
`
`U.S. Patent No. 4,956,838 (“Gilloire”)
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,566,167 (“Duttweiler”)
`
`European Patent No. EP0615340B1 (“Dennis”)
`
`Kenneth N. Stevens et al., The Use of Miniature Accelerometer
`for Detecting Glottal Waveforms and Nasality (1974) (“Stevens”)
`
`Vishu R. Viswanathan et al., Noise-Immune Speech Transduction
`Using Multiple Sensors, Proc. 1985 Int’l Conf. on Acoustics,
`Speech, and Signal Processing (ICASSP ’85) 712-15 (“Viswana-
`than 1985”)
`
`Vishu R. Viswanathan & Claudia M. Henry, Noise-Immune Multi-
`sensor Speech Input: Formal Subjective Testing in Operational
`Conditions, Proc. 1989 Int’l Conf. on Acoustics, Speech, and Sig-
`nal Processing (ICASSP ’89) 373-76 (“Viswanathan 1989”)
`
`Excerpts from the ’543 patent’s file history
`
`1012
`
`1013
`
`1014
`
`1015
`
`1016
`
`1017
`
`1018
`
`1019
`
`1020
`
`1021
`
`1022
`
`
`10.
`
`I have also relied on my education, training, and experience, and my
`
`knowledge of pertinent literature in the field of the ’543 patent.
`
`-4-
`
`
`
`Amazon.com, Inc. v. Jawbone Innovations, LLC
`Declaration of Dr. Richard M. Stern – U.S. Patent No. 8,467,543
`
`
`
` APPLICABLE LEGAL STANDARDS
`
`11.
`
`I have been asked to provide my opinion as to whether the claims of the
`
`’543 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
`
`’543 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.
`
` 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
`
`-5-
`
`
`
`Amazon.com, Inc. v. Jawbone Innovations, LLC
`Declaration of Dr. Richard M. Stern – U.S. Patent No. 8,467,543
`
`
`
`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 March 27, 2002, which I
`
`understand to be the earliest claimed priority date of the ’543 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
`
`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 March 2002, based on a review
`
`of the intrinsic evidence.
`
`-6-
`
`
`
`Amazon.com, Inc. v. Jawbone Innovations, LLC
`Declaration of Dr. Richard M. Stern – U.S. Patent No. 8,467,543
`
`
`
` 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 ’543
`
`patent and the prior art; (iii) the level of ordinary skill in the art in March 2002; 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
`
`have known in March 2002. 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
`
`-7-
`
`
`
`Amazon.com, Inc. v. Jawbone Innovations, LLC
`Declaration of Dr. Richard M. Stern – U.S. Patent No. 8,467,543
`
`
`
`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 ’543 patent, e.g., signal
`
`capture and processing in 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;
`
`• 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 rea-
`
`sonable expectation of success (in which case a claim would have been obvi-
`
`ous to try);
`
`-8-
`
`
`
`Amazon.com, Inc. v. Jawbone Innovations, LLC
`Declaration of Dr. Richard M. Stern – U.S. Patent No. 8,467,543
`
`
`
`• 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;
`
`(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 March 2002. I am not
`
`aware of any evidence of secondary considerations that would suggest that the
`
`claims of the ’543 patent would have been nonobvious in March 2002.
`
`-9-
`
`
`
`Amazon.com, Inc. v. Jawbone Innovations, LLC
`Declaration of Dr. Richard M. Stern – U.S. Patent No. 8,467,543
`
`
`
`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—March 2002 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
`
`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.
`
`-10-
`
`
`
`Amazon.com, Inc. v. Jawbone Innovations, LLC
`Declaration of Dr. Richard M. Stern – U.S. Patent No. 8,467,543
`
`
`
` PERSON OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART
`
`26.
`
`It is my understanding that when interpreting the claims of the ’543
`
`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 ’543 patent is March 27, 2002. However, my opinions would not
`
`change even if the ’543 patent were entitled to a priority date in July 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
`
`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 ’543 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
`
`-11-
`
`
`
`Amazon.com, Inc. v. Jawbone Innovations, LLC
`Declaration of Dr. Richard M. Stern – U.S. Patent No. 8,467,543
`
`
`
`substitute for formal education and additional formal education could substitute for
`
`work experience.
`
`29. My conclusions below that the claims of the ’543 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 March 2002 (and as of 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 March 2002.
`
` TECHNOLOGY BACKGROUND
`
` Noise Cancellation Systems Were Known.
`
`
`
`Estimating and Subtracting Noise From a De-
`sired Signal Was Known.
`
`31. Adaptive noise reduction systems that estimate noise and then subtract
`
`it from a speech signal have been used for decades. For example, in 1975, Widrow
`
`described using a dual-microphone noise-reduction system in which a signal
`
`containing noise is “adaptively filtered and subtracted from the primary input” to
`
`obtain a denoised signal. (Ex. 1011 (Widrow 1975), Abstract.) That article
`
`explained that noise could be reduced in a signal by “subtracting noise from a
`
`received signal” if “filtering and subtraction are controlled by an appropriate
`
`adaptive process.” (Id., 1693.) Ten years later, in 1985, Widrow authored a textbook
`
`-12-
`
`
`
`Amazon.com, Inc. v. Jawbone Innovations, LLC
`Declaration of Dr. Richard M. Stern – U.S. Patent No. 8,467,543
`
`
`
`on adaptive signal processing that described various systems capable of such
`
`adaptive noise reduction. (Ex. 1012 (Widrow 1985), 303-316.)
`
`32. Many similar methods for estimating a noise signal and removing it
`
`from a primary signal were also known long before the ’543 patent was filed. For
`
`example, U.S. Patent No. 4,177,430 to Paul, which issued in 1979, disclosed using
`
`an “adaptive transversal filter” that generated an estimate of noise and “subtract[ed]
`
`[the noise estimate] from the combination of the desired audio signal and the first
`
`broadband noise signal” to remove noise. (Ex. 1013 (Paul), Abstract; id., 2:60-3:27.)
`
`U.S. Patent No. 4,589,137 to Miller, which issued in 1986, disclosed another
`
`“adaptive filter system [that] subtracts the noise in the reference channel from the
`
`signal-plus-noise in the primary channel,” thereby producing an output with the
`
`noise removed. (Ex. 1014 (Miller), Abstract; id., 1:36-57.) As another example,
`
`U.S. Patent No. 4,912,767 to Chang, which issued in 1990, disclosed using adaptive
`
`filters to process noise signals and then subtracting the noise “from the voice-plus-
`
`noise signal . . . to provide the substantially noise-free voice signal.” (Ex. 1015
`
`(Chang), 6:4-7; id., 5:36-68.) The ’543 patent also explicitly admits that such
`
`systems were well known and provides a drawing of a “classical ANC (adaptive
`
`noise cancellation)” device labelled as “prior art.” (Ex. 1001 (the ’543 patent),
`
`16:44-46, Fig. 1B (“Prior Art”).)
`
`-13-
`
`
`
`Amazon.com, Inc. v. Jawbone Innovations, LLC
`Declaration of Dr. Richard M. Stern – U.S. Patent No. 8,467,543
`
`
`
`
`
`Noise Canceling Communications Systems with
`Microphones Oriented Toward and Away From
`a Speaker Were Known.
`
`33. By the mid-1990s, it was widely known that orienting microphones in
`
`certain directions improves noise removal in communications devices such as
`
`handsets and headsets. For example, Andrea, which I discuss in detail below,
`
`described a telephone handset and headset that implemented an active noise
`
`cancellation system using two microphones oriented in different directions. (Ex.
`
`1004 (Andrea), 1:19-22, 12:31-43; ¶¶93-95 (overview of Andrea), below.)
`
`
`
`Noise Canceling Systems Operating in Fre-
`quency Sub-bands Were Known.
`
`34. Sub-band processing in adaptive noise cancellation systems was well
`
`known and was described in Hussain, as I discuss below. (¶46 (overview of
`
`Hussain), below). Many other references also described noise cancellation systems
`
`that implemented sub-band processing. For example, U.S. Patent No. 4,956,838 to
`
`Gilloire, which issued in 1990, described an “echo cancelling device” that processed
`
`“successive mutually adjacent sub-bands” using “an adaptive filter delivering an
`
`estimated echo value in the sub-band to the subtractive input of the subtractor” in
`
`order to output a denoised signal. (Ex. 1016 (Gilloire), Abstract; id., Fig. 3.) Similar
`
`systems using sub-band processing for noise removal were disclosed in other
`
`references as well. (Ex. 1015 (Chang), 5:36-6:7; Ex. 1017 (Duttweiler), 1:46-57
`
`-14-
`
`
`
`Amazon.com, Inc. v. Jawbone Innovations, LLC
`Declaration of Dr. Richard M. Stern – U.S. Patent No. 8,467,543
`
`
`
`(describing an improved sub-band echo canceler); Ex. 1018 (Dennis), 2:15-38
`
`(describing an adaptive noise canceler that filters signals into “a plurality of
`
`subband[s]”).)
`
` Detecting Voicing Activity With Non-Acoustic
`Sensors Was Known.
`
`35. Voice activity detectors, including sensors for detecting voice through
`
`tissue vibrations, were also known and used in the art for decades before the ’543
`
`patent’s priority date. For example, as early as 1973, Alcivar described a “tissue
`
`conduction microphone” that detects speech through “tissue vibrations due to
`
`modulation of the vocal chords.” (Ex. 1008 (Alcivar), 4:65-5:54.) The next year,
`
`another reference published describing the use of an accelerometer “to produce a
`
`waveform related to the glottal acoustic output when attached to the throat of a
`
`speaker” as early as 1974. (Ex. 1019 (Stevens), 1.) Detecting voice through tissue
`
`vibrations was also disclosed in multiple references by Viswanathan in the 1980s.
`
`(Ex. 1020 (Viswanathan 1985), 712 (using “an accelerometer that measures the skin
`
`vibrations”); Ex. 1021 (Viswanathan 1989), 373 (“we collected speech in acoustic
`
`background noise using the neckstrrap-mounted accelerometer”).)
`
`36. Puthuff, which was filed in 1998, disclosed using “a motion transducer
`
`comprising a vibration sensor, and specifically, in a preferred embodiment, an
`
`accelerometer” to detect voice. (Ex. 1007 (Puthuff), 5:1-3.) Puthuff explained that
`
`-15-
`
`
`
`Amazon.com, Inc. v. Jawbone Innovations, LLC
`Declaration of Dr. Richard M. Stern – U.S. Patent No. 8,467,543
`
`
`
`devices such as “vibration transducers,” “accelerometers [used] to detect bone
`
`vibration,” and “throat microphones [that] pick[] up vibrations at the talker’s throat”
`
`were known for decades. (Id., 3:19-25.) Puthuff disclosed that such sensor-based
`
`VADs could be used to control other devices. (Id., 3:12-20.)
`
` Using Non-Acoustic Sensors for Voice Activity
`Detection in Noise Cancellation Systems Was Known.
`
`37. By the late 1990s, systems including both a noise reduction system that
`
`subtracts noise from the received signal and a non-acoustic VAD to indicate when
`
`voicing activity is present were known. For example, engineers at the Lawrence
`
`Livermore National Laboratory (“LLNL”) filed a patent application in 1999
`
`describing exactly this combination. That patent issued in 2002 as Burnett ’919,
`
`which is described in detail below. (¶45 (overview of Burnett ’919), below.)
`
` THE ’543 PATENT
`
`
`
`Summary of the ’543 Patent
`
`38. The ’543 patent relates to systems “for detecting and processing a
`
`desired acoustic signal in the presence of acoustic noise.” (Ex. 1001 (the ’543
`
`patent), 1:28-30.) The specification states that prior art systems generally used a
`
`“single-microphone Voice Activity Detector (VAD) to determine the background
`
`noise characteristics.” (Id., 1:45-49.) The ’543 patent also explains that these single-
`
`microphone VAD systems had limitations. (Id., 1:60-2:2.)
`
`-16-
`
`
`
`Amazon.com, Inc. v. Jawbone Innovations, LLC
`Declaration of Dr. Richard M. Stern – U.S. Patent No. 8,467,543
`
`
`
`39. The ’543 patent purports to improve upon such prior art systems by
`
`using a non-acoustic VAD (106, pink) along with two microphones (103, 104, blue
`
`and green, respectively), and a noise removal system 105:
`
`
`
`(Ex. 1001 (the
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
