Paper No. __
`Filed: July 26, 2023
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`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
`U.S. Patent No. 8,467,543
`
`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW
`OF CLAIMS 1-26 OF U.S. PATENT NO. 8,467,543
`
`
`Filed: July 26, 2023
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`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
`U.S. Patent No. 8,467,543
`
`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW
`OF CLAIMS 1-26 OF U.S. PATENT NO. 8,467,543
`
`
`
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`INTRODUCTION ..................................................................................................... 1
`
`I.
`
`BACKGROUND ............................................................................................. 2
`
`A. Noise Cancellation Systems Were Known. .......................................... 2
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`Estimating and Subtracting Noise
`From a Desired Signal Was Known. .......................................... 2
`
`Noise Canceling Communications Systems
`with Microphones Oriented Toward
`and Away From a Speaker Were Known. .................................. 3
`
`Noise Canceling Systems Operating
`in Frequency Sub-bands Were Known. ...................................... 5
`
`B. Detecting Voicing Activity With Non-Acoustic Sensors
`Was Known. .......................................................................................... 6
`
`C. Using Non-Acoustic Sensors for Voice Activity Detection
`in Noise Cancellation Systems Was Known. ........................................ 7
`
`II.
`
`THE ’543 PATENT ......................................................................................... 9
`
`A. Overview ............................................................................................... 9
`
`B.
`
`Prosecution History ............................................................................. 11
`
`III. STATEMENT OF RELIEF REQUESTED .................................................. 12
`
`A. Grounds ............................................................................................... 12
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`The References Are Prior Art. ............................................................. 12
`
`The References Are Analogous Art. ................................................... 13
`
`IV. LEVEL OF ORDINARY SKILL .................................................................. 13
`
`V.
`
`CLAIM CONSTRUCTION .......................................................................... 13
`
`- i -
`
`
`
`
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`(continued)
`
`VI. GROUNDS FOR UNPATENTABILITY ..................................................... 14
`
`A. Ground 1: Obviousness over Burnett ’919 and Hussain ..................... 14
`
`1.
`
`Claim 1 ...................................................................................... 14
`
`a.
`
`b.
`
`c.
`
`Preamble ......................................................................... 14
`
`Voice Detection Subsystem ............................................ 14
`
`Denoising Subsystem ..................................................... 17
`
`i.
`
`ii.
`
`Microphone Array ................................................ 17
`
`First Microphone .................................................. 19
`
`iii.
`
`Second Microphone .............................................. 20
`
`iv. Generating Denoised Output ................................ 22
`
`v.
`
`Using a Frequency Sub-band Method .................. 24
`
`(a) Motivation to Combine .............................. 26
`
`(b) Hussain Was Publicly Available. ............... 28
`
`d.
`
`Independent VAD Sensor ............................................... 28
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`4.
`
`5.
`
`Claim 2 ...................................................................................... 29
`
`Claim 5 ...................................................................................... 31
`
`Claim 6 ...................................................................................... 32
`
`Claim 7 ...................................................................................... 33
`
`B. Ground 2: Obviousness over Burnett ’919, Hussain,
`and Andrea .......................................................................................... 33
`
`- ii -
`
`
`
`
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`(continued)
`
`1.
`
`Claim 1 ...................................................................................... 33
`
`a.
`
`Denoising Subsystem ..................................................... 33
`
`i.
`
`ii.
`
`Microphone Array ................................................ 33
`
`First Microphone .................................................. 34
`
`iii.
`
`Second Microphone .............................................. 36
`
`b. Motivation to Combine ................................................... 38
`
`Claim 6 ...................................................................................... 41
`
`Claim 7 ...................................................................................... 43
`
`Claim 8 ...................................................................................... 43
`
`Claim 9 ...................................................................................... 45
`
`Claim 10 .................................................................................... 47
`
`Claim 11 .................................................................................... 48
`
`Claim 12 .................................................................................... 49
`
`Claim 13 .................................................................................... 50
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`4.
`
`5.
`
`6.
`
`7.
`
`8.
`
`9.
`
`10. Claim 26 .................................................................................... 52
`
`C. Ground 3: Obviousness over Grounds 1 or 2 References
`and Sasaki ............................................................................................ 52
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`Claim 14 .................................................................................... 52
`
`Claim 15 .................................................................................... 56
`
`Claim 16 .................................................................................... 57
`
`- iii -
`
`
`
`
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`(continued)
`
`4.
`
`5.
`
`6.
`
`7.
`
`8.
`
`9.
`
`Claim 17 .................................................................................... 57
`
`Claim 18 .................................................................................... 58
`
`Claim 19 .................................................................................... 58
`
`Claim 20 .................................................................................... 59
`
`Claim 21 .................................................................................... 59
`
`Claim 22 .................................................................................... 60
`
`10. Claim 23 .................................................................................... 60
`
`11. Claim 24 .................................................................................... 60
`
`12. Claim 25 .................................................................................... 61
`
`D. Ground 4: Obviousness over Grounds 1 or 2 References
`and Puthuff .......................................................................................... 62
`
`1.
`
`Claim 3 ...................................................................................... 62
`
`2. Motivation to Combine ............................................................. 64
`
`E.
`
`Ground 5: Obviousness over Grounds 1 or 2 References
`and Alcivar .......................................................................................... 66
`
`1.
`
`Claim 4 ...................................................................................... 66
`
`2. Motivation to Combine ............................................................. 67
`
`VII. SECONDARY CONSIDERATIONS OF NONOBVIOUSNESS ............... 69
`
`VIII. DISCRETIONARY DENIAL UNDER §314(A)
`IS NOT APPROPRIATE. .............................................................................. 70
`
`A.
`
`Co-Pending Litigation (Fintiv) ............................................................ 70
`
`- iv -
`
`
`
`
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`(continued)
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`4.
`
`5.
`
`6.
`
`Factor 1: Potential Stay ............................................................. 70
`
`Factor 2: Proximity of Trial to FWD ........................................ 71
`
`Factor 3: Investment in Parallel Proceeding ............................. 72
`
`Factor 4: Overlapping Issues .................................................... 72
`
`Factor 5: The Parties ................................................................. 73
`
`Factor 6: Other Circumstances .................................................. 73
`
`B.
`
`Prior Petitions for Inter Partes Review (General Plastic) ................... 74
`
`IX. DISCRETIONARY DENIAL UNDER §325(D)
`IS NOT APPROPRIATE. .............................................................................. 75
`
`X. MANDATORY NOTICES ........................................................................... 76
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`D.
`
`E.
`
`F.
`
`Real Parties-In-Interest (37 C.F.R. §42.8(b)(1)) ................................. 76
`
`Related Matters (37 C.F.R. §42.8(b)(2)) ............................................. 76
`
`Lead and Backup Counsel (37 C.F.R. §42.8(b)(3)) ............................ 77
`
`Service Information (37 C.F.R. §42.8(b)(4)) ...................................... 78
`
`Payment of Fees (37 C.F.R. §42.103) ................................................. 78
`
`Grounds for Standing (37 C.F.R. §42.104(a)) .................................... 78
`
`CONCLUSION ........................................................................................................ 78
`
`CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE ....................................................................... 80
`
`
`
`- v -
`
`
`
`
`
`Cases:
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`Page(s):
`
`Apple v. Fintiv,
`IPR2020-00019, Paper 11 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 20, 2020) ....................... 70, 71, 73, 74
`
`Cal. Inst. of Tech. v. Broadcom Ltd.,
`25 F.4th 976 (Fed. Cir. 2022) ............................................................................. 73
`
`GAF Materials LLC v. Kirsch Research and Dev., LLC,
`IPR2021-00192, Paper 14 (P.T.A.B. May 25, 2021) ......................................... 71
`
`General Plastic Indus. Co., Ltd. v. Canon Kabushiki Kaisha,
`IPR2016-01357, Paper 19 (P.T.A.B. Sept. 6, 2017) ............................... 74, 75, 76
`
`Global Tel*Link Corp. v. HLFIP Holding, Inc.,
`IPR2021-00444, Paper 14 (P.T.A.B. Jul. 22, 2021) ........................................... 71
`
`Google LLC v. Jawbone Innovations, LLC,
`IPR2022-00630, Paper 10 (P.T.A.B. Sept. 13, 2022) ......................................... 73
`
`Huawei Techs. Co. v. WSOU Invs., LLC,
`IPR2021-00226, Paper 10 (P.T.A.B. June 10, 2021) ......................................... 72
`
`KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc.,
`550 U.S. 398 (2007) .....................................................................................passim
`
`Leapfrog Enters. v. Fisher-Price, Inc.,
`485 F.3d 1157 (Fed. Cir. 2007) .......................................................................... 70
`
`Micron Tech., Inc. v. Lone Star Silicon Innovations, LLC,
`IPR2017-01560, Paper 41 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 12, 2018) ......................................... 20
`
`In re Mraz,
`455 F.2d 1069 (C.C.P.A. 1972) .......................................................................... 20
`
`NetNut Ltd. v. Bright Data Ltd.,
`IPR2021-00465, Paper 11 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 12, 2021) ......................................... 75
`
`- vi -
`
`
`
`
`
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`(continued)
`
`Newell Cos. v. Kenney Mfg. Co.,
`864 F.2d 757 (Fed. Cir. 1988) ............................................................................ 69
`
`Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co. Ltd.,
`868 F.3d 1013 (Fed. Cir. 2017) .......................................................................... 14
`
`Qualcomm Inc. v. Monterey Research, LLC,
`IPR2020-01491, Paper 36 (P.T.A.B. March 4, 2022) ........................................ 20
`
`Samsung Elecs. Am. Inc. v. Snik LLC,
`IPR2020-01428, Paper 10 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 9, 2021) ........................................... 72
`
`Sand Revolution II, LLC v. Cont’l Intermodal Grp.-Trucking LLC,
`IPR2019-01393, Paper 24 (P.T.A.B. June 16, 2020) ......................................... 72
`
`Skechers U.S.A., Inc. v. Nike, Inc.,
`IPR2021-00160, Paper 10 (P.T.A.B. May 19, 2021) ......................................... 71
`
`Toshiba Am. Info. Sys., Inc. v. Walletex Microelecs. Ltd.,
`IPR2018-01538, Paper 11 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 5, 2019) ........................................... 74
`
`Uniloc 2017 LLC v. Samsung Elecs. Am., Inc.,
`No. 2:19-cv-00259-JRG-RSP, 2020 WL 1433960
`(E.D. Tex. Mar. 24, 2020) ................................................................................... 71
`
`Unwired Planet, LLC v. Google Inc.,
`841 F.3d 995 (Fed. Cir. 2016) ............................................................................ 13
`
`Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc.,
`200 F.3d 795 (Fed. Cir. 1999) ............................................................................ 14
`
`Statutes and Rules:
`
`35 U.S.C. §102 ......................................................................................................... 12
`
`35 U.S.C. §112 ......................................................................................................... 14
`
`35 U.S.C. §314 ......................................................................................................... 70
`
`- vii -
`
`
`
`
`
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`(continued)
`
`35 U.S.C. §325 ......................................................................................................... 75
`
`- ii -
`
`
`
`Exhibit
`No.
`1001
`1002
`1003
`1004
`1005
`1006
`
`1007
`1008
`1009
`1010
`1011
`
`1012
`
`1013
`1014
`1015
`1016
`1017
`1018
`1019
`
`1020
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,467,543
`
`TABLE OF EXHIBITS
`
`Description
`U.S. Patent No. 8,467,543 (“the ’543 patent”)
`Declaration of Richard M. Stern, Ph.D.
`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
`Processing 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”)
`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 (“Viswanathan 1985”)
`
`Table of Exhibits, Page 1
`
`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,467,543
`
`Exhibit
`No.
`1021
`
`1022
`1023
`1024
`
`1025
`
`1026
`
`1027
`
`1028
`
`Description
`Vishu R. Viswanathan & Claudia M. Henry, Noise-Immune
`Multisensor Speech Input: Formal Subjective Testing in Operational
`Conditions, Proc. 1989 Int’l Conf. on Acoustics, Speech, and Signal
`Processing (ICASSP ’89) 373-76 (“Viswanathan 1989”)
`Excerpts from the ’543 patent’s file history
`Declaration of Carol S. Peterson
`Eurospeech ’97 Index Page, Internet Archive,
`https://web.archive.org/web/19971211204358/http://www.cti.gr/~ee-
`www/ Index.htm (archived Dec. 11, 1997)
`Eurospeech ’97 Table of Contents and Abstracts from “Session
`ThAA Noise Mitigation, Speech Enhancement II”, Internet Archive,
`https://web.archive.org/web/20000311093614/http://www.wcl2.ee.up
`atras.gr/eurthaa.html (archived Oct. 21, 1999)
`International Speech Communication Association, Proceedings
`Order Form, Internet Archive,
`https://web.archive.org/web/20000607171217/http://www.isca-
`speech.org/proc_order.html (archived June 7, 2000)
`Eurospeech ’97 Technical Programme, Internet Archive,
`https://web.archive.org/web/19971211205519/
`http://www.cti.gr/~ee-www/Progr.htm (archived Dec. 11, 1997)
`Curriculum Vitae of Richard M. Stern, Ph.D.
`
`
`Table of Exhibits, Page 2
`
`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,467,543
`
`Petitioner LG Electronics Inc. (“LGE” or “Petitioner”) requests inter partes
`
`review (“IPR”) of claims 1-26 (“challenged claims”) of U.S. Patent 8,467,543 (“the
`
`’543 patent”).
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`The challenged claims recite basic systems for processing acoustic signals,
`
`such as human speech, to reduce noise. The claimed systems comprise two
`
`conventional subsystems: a voice detection subsystem and a denoising subsystem.
`
`The voice detection subsystem includes a sensor and determines whether a
`
`user is talking. That subsystem outputs a control signal to the denoising subsystem.
`
`The denoising subsystem comprises a microphone array having two
`
`microphones in a conventional configuration: the first microphone is oriented
`
`towards the user’s mouth (to capture primarily speech) while the second microphone
`
`is oriented away from the user’s mouth (to capture primarily noise). The denoising
`
`subsystem uses well-known adaptive signal processing techniques to reduce the
`
`noise in the speech signal. For example, it estimates the noise and subtracts that noise
`
`estimate from the acoustic signal. The denoising subsystem uses the control signal
`
`from the voice detection subsystem to determine when speech is present.
`
`Such systems were not new. Removing noise by subtracting a noise estimate
`
`from an acoustic signal when a voice activity detector indicates that speech is present
`
`was widely known. Orienting one microphone towards the mouth and a second
`
`- 1 -
`
`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,467,543
`
`microphone away from the mouth was also well known. The challenged claims
`
`merely combine these well-known signal processing features in a conventional
`
`manner. Thus, they contribute nothing new to the field. Instead, they impermissibly
`
`remove from the public store of knowledge known and conventional methods for
`
`denoising speech signals using conventional voice activity detectors. The Board
`
`should cancel the challenged claims.
`
`I.
`
`BACKGROUND1
`A. Noise Cancellation Systems Were Known.
`1.
`
`Estimating and Subtracting Noise From a Desired
`Signal Was Known.
`
`Adaptive noise reduction systems that estimate noise and subtract it from
`
`speech signals have been used for decades. 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, Abstract.) Ten years later, Widrow published a textbook on adaptive
`
`
`1 Sections I-VII of this petition are substantively identical to the corresponding
`
`sections in Amazon.com, Inc. v. Jawbone Innovations, LLC, IPR2023-00275, Paper
`
`1 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 28, 2022), which Petitioner seeks to join pursuant to the motion
`
`for joinder and consolidation filed herewith.
`
`- 2 -
`
`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,467,543
`
`signal processing that described various systems capable of such adaptive noise
`
`reduction. (Ex. 1012, 303-16; Ex. 1002 ¶31.)
`
`Many similar methods for estimating a noise signal and removing it from a
`
`primary signal were known long before the ’543 patent was filed. (Ex. 1002 ¶32;
`
`E.g., Ex. 1013, Abstract, 2:60-3:27; Ex. 1014, Abstract, 1:36-57; Ex. 1015, 6:4-7,
`
`5:36-68.) The ’543 patent admits this and shows a “classical ANC (adaptive noise
`
`cancellation)” device. (Ex. 1001, 16:44-46, Fig. 1B (“Prior Art”); Ex. 1002 ¶32.)
`
`2.
`
`Noise Canceling Communications Systems with
`Microphones Oriented Toward and Away From a
`Speaker Were Known.
`
`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. (Ex. 1002 ¶33.) For example, Andrea, a patent that issued in 1998,
`
`disclosed a telephone handset that implements an “active noise reduction system.”
`
`(Ex. 1004, 1:19-22.) The handset, which could be wired or wireless, contains a
`
`receiver 42 that includes “first and second microphones 12 and 14.” (Id., 12:31-43.)
`
`
`
`- 3 -
`
`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,467,543
`
`(Id., Figs. 1, 3A.)2 In this embodiment, the angle (yellow) between the first (blue)
`
`and second (green) microphones (12, 14) is “in a range between 30° and 60°”:
`
`(Id., Figs. 3A-3B, 14:5-32; Ex. 1002 ¶93.)
`
`Andrea also disclosed a headset having a microphone boom 440 that includes
`
`first and second microphones 300 and 302. (Ex. 1004, 19:63-64, 20:1-3.)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`2 Figures have been highlighted for clarity.
`
`- 4 -
`
`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,467,543
`
`(Id., Figs. 9A, 9C.) The microphones were arranged “substantially 180° apart from
`
`each other.” (Id., 19:11-16, Fig. 9A.) Thus, in each of Andrea’s embodiments, one
`
`microphone is oriented toward the user’s mouth, while the other is oriented away
`
`from the user’s mouth. (Ex. 1002 ¶94.) Such configurations were well known. (E.g.,
`
`Ex. 1005; Ex. 1002 ¶¶94, 158.)
`
`Andrea’s system subtracted the second microphone’s noise signal from the
`
`first microphone’s signal to output a denoised signal “representing substantially the
`
`speech to the telephone unit.” (Ex. 1004, 12:46-64.) Andrea thus disclosed in 1998
`
`orienting one microphone toward the speaker’s mouth to capture the target signal
`
`plus noise, orienting a second microphone away from the speaker’s mouth to
`
`generate a noise estimate, and subtracting the noise estimate from the target-plus-
`
`noise signal to output the target signal with less noise.
`
`3.
`
`Noise Canceling Systems Operating in Frequency
`Sub-bands Were Known.
`
`It was also widely known in the art that denoising could be performed on
`
`frequency sub-bands. Published in 1997, Hussain disclosed an adaptive noise
`
`canceling system that improved performance in reverberant environments by
`
`processing acoustic signals in separate sub-bands before recombining them to
`
`produce a denoised signal. (Ex. 1006, 2611-12.) When no voice activity is detected,
`
`Hussain’s adaptive filter determines a “differential acoustic-path transfer function”
`
`for individual sub-bands. (Id., 2612.) Then, when voice is detected, the transfer
`
`- 5 -
`
`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,467,543
`
`function is used “to process the noisy speech signal” and output a denoised speech
`
`signal. (Id.) The system applies sub-band processing (“SBP”) to each sub-band,
`
`reconstructs the processed signals, and outputs the denoised processed signal, as
`
`shown:
`
`
`(Id., Fig. 1; Ex. 1002 ¶46.) Many other prior art references similarly described
`
`sub-band processing in noise cancellation systems. (Ex. 1015, 5:36-6:7; Ex. 1016,
`
`Abstract, Fig. 3; Ex. 1017, 1:46-57; Ex. 1018, 2:15-38; Ex. 1002 ¶34.)
`
`B. Detecting Voicing Activity With Non-Acoustic Sensors Was
`Known.
`
`Voice activity detectors, including sensors for detecting voice through tissue
`
`vibrations, were also known and used in the art well before the ’543 patent’s priority
`
`date. (Ex. 1019, 1; Ex. 1020, 712; Ex. 1021, 373; Ex. 1002 ¶35.) In 1973, Alcivar
`
`described a “tissue conduction microphone” that detects speech through “tissue
`
`- 6 -
`
`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,467,543
`
`vibrations due to modulation of the vocal chords.” (Ex. 1008, 4:65-5:54, Abstract.)
`
`Filed in 1998, Puthuff disclosed using “a motion transducer comprising a vibration
`
`sensor, and specifically, in a preferred embodiment, an accelerometer” to detect
`
`speech. (Ex. 1007, 5:1-3.) Puthuff explained that devices such as “vibration
`
`transducers,” “accelerometers [used] to detect bone vibration,” and “throat
`
`microphones [that] pick[] up vibrations at the talker’s throat” had been known for
`
`decades. (Id., 3:19-25; Ex. 1002 ¶36.) Indeed, the ’543 patent admits that non-
`
`acoustic VAD sensors, including accelerometers and skin surface microphones
`
`(“SSMs”) were “well known and understood.” (Ex. 1001, 12:20-31.)
`
`C. Using Non-Acoustic Sensors for Voice Activity Detection in
`Noise Cancellation Systems Was Known.
`
`By the late 1990s, it was also known to use noise reduction systems that
`
`subtract noise from received signals together with non-acoustic VADs. (Ex. 1002
`
`¶37.) For example, in 1999, a group at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory
`
`(“LLNL”) filed a patent application (later issued in 2002) describing exactly this
`
`combination. Mr. Burnett, one of the co-inventors of the ’543 patent, worked at
`
`LLNL and was the first-named inventor on the LLNL patent (“Burnett ’919”).
`
`Burnett ’919 disclosed a “noise canceling microphone system” comprising an
`
`EM sensor to “remove[] background acoustic noise from unvoiced and voiced
`
`speech.” (Ex. 1003, 17:49-52.) The system used two microphones (“user
`
`- 7 -
`
`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,467,543
`
`microphone 1210 and microphone 1220”, blue and green) and a voicing sensor (EM
`
`sensor 1240, pink) to “determine no-speech time periods.” (Id., 17:56-61.)
`
`
`
`(Id., Fig. 12.)
`
`Based in part on the output signal from EM sensor 1240, processor 1250
`
`outputs a control signal to amplifier and filter circuit 1224 so that “[c]ancellation
`
`values determined by circuit 1224 are defined during periods of no-speech, and
`
`frozen during periods of speech production.” (Id., 17:48-18:17.) By controlling when
`
`the amplifier and filter circuit adapts, the noise canceler generates an “amplified and
`
`filtered background microphone signal 1230” that estimates the noise portion of the
`
`signal received by user microphone 1210. (Id., 17:48-18:17.) Using this noise
`
`estimate, the system minimizes noise in the output signal. (Id.; Ex. 1002 ¶45.)
`
`- 8 -
`
`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,467,543
`
`Burnett later joined AliphCom, Inc., the original assignee of the ’543 patent.
`
`There, he filed patent applications claiming trivial variations of the technology
`
`developed at LLNL.
`
`II. THE ’543 PATENT
`A. Overview
`
`The ’543 patent relates to systems “for detecting and processing a desired
`
`acoustic signal in the presence of acoustic noise.” (Ex. 1001, 1:28-30.) The patent
`
`states that prior art systems generally used a “single-microphone Voice Activity
`
`Detector (VAD) to determine the background noise characteristics” and describes
`
`limitations of these single-microphone VAD systems. (Id., 1:46-49, 1:60-2:2.)
`
`The ’543 patent purports to improve upon the prior art by using a non-acoustic
`
`VAD. (Id., 2:7-13.) The patent’s system includes two microphones (103, 104), a
`
`noise removal system 105, and a VAD 106:
`
`
`
`- 9 -
`
`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,467,543
`
`(Id., Fig. 1; id., 5:28-34, 14:40-50.) The microphones receive signals from speech
`
`source 101 and noise source 102. (Id.) VAD 106 detects and indicates whether
`
`speech is occurring. (Id., 4:52-57; Ex. 1002 ¶39.)
`
`The patent explains various known VADs that can be used, including EM
`
`sensors (Ex. 1001, 11:51-12:12), accelerometers, SSMs, two-microphone acoustic
`
`VADs, and single-microphone VADs (id., 11:40-14:39). A VAD signal is used to
`
`“control the method of noise removal.” (Id., 4:52-57, 14:51-15:35; Ex. 1002 ¶40.)
`
`The patent also describes using two conventional unidirectional or
`
`omnidirectional microphones in various configurations, including one facing toward
`
`the speaker and one facing away. (Ex. 1001, 6:44-11:39, Figs. 3A-9C.) These
`
`configurations purportedly allow the microphones to be “placed very close together”
`
`(id., 6:58-63), although the patent also describes placing the microphones “15
`
`centimeters or more away” from each other (id., 8:13-15). (Ex. 1002 ¶41.)
`
`The ’543 patent concludes by describing a noise cancellation system that is
`
`“very similar” to prior art systems. (Ex. 1001, 16:44-54, 14:39-19:22.) The patent
`
`asserts the disclosed system is different because (a) it uses a VAD to control the
`
`noise cancellation system; (b) it processes the signals in “subbands”; and (c) the
`
`microphone configurations allow the secondary microphone to capture some speech
`
`signal. (Id.; see also id., 16:55-17:34.) But using a VAD, sub-band processing, and
`
`the claimed microphone configurations were all well known. (Ex. 1002 ¶42.)
`
`- 10 -
`
`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,467,543
`
`B.
`
`Prosecution History
`
`The ’543’s application was filed on March 27, 2003, but the patent did not
`
`issue until June 18, 2013. (Ex. 1001.) During prosecution, the Examiner consistently
`
`rejected the claims, finding that “it was well known in the art at the time of invention
`
`to use glottal electromagnetic sensors and skin microphones to generate voice
`
`signals,” and that “[i]t would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at
`
`the time of invention to modify the combination of [cited references] to use such
`
`sensors.” (E.g., Ex. 1022, 102.) The Examiner also found that “a headset having two
`
`microphones was well known in the art at the time of invention” and that it “would
`
`have been obvious to modify [the cited reference] so that the headset includes the
`
`microphones in order to improve voice detection.” (Id., 188.)
`
`The Examiner eventually allowed the claims after Applicants amended the
`
`independent claims to recite “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.” (Id., 484-93, 535-41.) But, as shown herein,
`
`using an independent sensor to detect voice activity was not new. The Examiner
`
`never considered the references in this Petition or any similar references.
`
`- 11 -
`
`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,467,543
`
`III. STATEMENT OF RELIEF REQUESTED
`A. Grounds
`
`The Board should cancel the claims under §103 as follows:
`
`Ground Claims Challenged
`1
`1-2, 5-7
`2
`1-2, 5-13, 26
`3
`14-25
`4
`3
`5
`4
`
`References
`Burnett ’919 and Hussain
`Burnett ’919, Hussain, and Andrea
`Grounds 1 or 2 References and Sasaki
`Grounds 1 or 2 References and Puthuff
`Grounds 1 or 2 References and Alcivar
`
`The References Are Prior Art.
`
`B.
`
`The ’543 patent’s priority date is no earlier than March 27, 2002. (Ex. 1001.)
`
`Thus, the references are prior art under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. §102(b) because they
`
`published more than one year earlier:
`
`(i) Andrea published October 20, 1998 (Ex. 1004);
`
`(ii) Sasaki issued November 28, 1995 (Ex. 1005);
`
`(iii) Hussain published no later than September 25, 1997 (Ex. 1006;
`
`Ex. 1023);
`
`(iv) Puthuff published April 13, 2000 (Ex. 1007); and
`
`(v) Alcivar issued July 17, 1973 (Ex. 1008).
`
`Burnett ’919 is prior art under at least 35 U.S.C. §102(e) because it was filed
`
`November 4, 1999, and issued April 23, 2002. (Ex. 1003.)
`
`- 12 -
`
`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,467,543
`
`C. The References Are Analogous Art.
`
`The references are analogous art because they are from the same field as the
`
`’543 patent, e.g., signal capture and processing for speech or audio applications.
`
`Unwired Planet, LLC v. Google Inc., 841 F.3d 995, 1000 (Fed. Cir. 2016). They are
`
`also pertinent to a problem the inventor was focused on, e.g., noise reduction.
`
`(Ex. 1002 ¶20.)
`
`IV. LEVEL OF ORDINARY SKILL
`
`A person of ordinary skill in the art (“POSITA”) would have had a minimum
`
`of a bachelor’s degree in computer engineering, computer science, electrical
`
`engineering, mechanical engineering, or a similar field, and approximately three
`
`years of industry or academic experience in a field related to acoustics, speech
`
`recognition, speech detection, or signal processing. (Ex. 1002 ¶28.) Work
`
`experience can substitute for formal education and additional formal education can
`
`substitute for work experience. (Id.)
`
`V. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
`
`On February 28, 2023, PO sued Petitioner for infringement of 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
