UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`__________________________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`__________________________________
`
`AMAZON.COM, INC.,
`AMAZON.COM SERVICES LLC, and
`AMAZON WEB SERVICES, INC.,
`Petitioners,
`
`v.
`
`SOUNDCLEAR TECHNOLOGIES LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`
`Case No. IPR2025-00565
`Patent No. 11,069,337
`
`DECLARATION OF RICHARD STERN, PH.D.
`
`Amazon v. SoundClear
`US Patent 11,069,337
`Amazon Ex. 1002
`
`
`__________________________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`__________________________________
`
`AMAZON.COM, INC.,
`AMAZON.COM SERVICES LLC, and
`AMAZON WEB SERVICES, INC.,
`Petitioners,
`
`v.
`
`SOUNDCLEAR TECHNOLOGIES LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`
`Case No. IPR2025-00565
`Patent No. 11,069,337
`
`DECLARATION OF RICHARD STERN, PH.D.
`
`Amazon v. SoundClear
`US Patent 11,069,337
`Amazon Ex. 1002
`
`
`
`
`
`I.
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`BACKGROUND ........................................................................................... 1
`A.
`Experience and Qualifications ....................................................... 1
`
`B. Materials Considered ..................................................................... 3
`
`II.
`
`APPLICABLE LEGAL STANDARDS ........................................................ 4
`A.
`Claim Construction ........................................................................ 4
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`Anticipation .................................................................................... 6
`
`Obviousness ................................................................................... 7
`
`PERSON OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART ...................................... 10
`III.
`IV. TECHNOLOGY BACKGROUND ............................................................. 12
`A.
`Classifying Users Based on Proximity......................................... 13
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`Tailoring Content Based on Distance .......................................... 15
`
`Adjusting Volume Based on Distance ......................................... 17
`
`D. Adjusting Both Volume and Content Based on Distance ............ 18
`
`V.
`
`THE ’337 PATENT ..................................................................................... 21
`A. Overview ...................................................................................... 21
`
`B.
`
`Priority Date ................................................................................. 24
`
`VI. CLAIMS 1-5 OF THE ’337 PATENT ARE ANTICIPATED AND
`WOULD HAVE BEEN OBVIOUS. ........................................................... 24
`A.
`Claims 1-5 Are Anticipated by Shin. ........................................... 24
`
`1.
`
`Claim 1 ............................................................................... 24
`
`a.
`
`1[pre]: Voice-Content Control Device .................... 24
`
`-i-
`
`
`
`
`
`b.
`
`c.
`
`d.
`
`e.
`
`f.
`
`g.
`
`h.
`
`i.
`
`1[a]: Proximity Sensor ............................................. 25
`
`1[b]: Voice Classifying Unit ................................... 28
`
`1[c]: Process Executing Unit ................................... 33
`
`1[d]: Voice-Content Generating Unit ...................... 35
`
`1[e]: Output Controller ............................................ 37
`
`1[f]: Generate a First Output Sentence .................... 37
`
`1[g]: Generate a Second Output Sentence ............... 39
`
`1[h]: Output Controller Adjusts Volume of
`Voice Data ............................................................... 42
`
`2.
`
`Claim 2 ............................................................................... 44
`
`a.
`
`b.
`
`2[a]: Process Executing Unit ................................... 44
`
`2[b]: Voice-Content Generating Unit ...................... 47
`
`3.
`
`4.
`
`Claim 3 ............................................................................... 48
`
`Claims 4 and 5 ................................................................... 49
`
`B.
`
`Claims 1-5 Would Have Been Obvious in View of Shin. ........... 52
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`4.
`
`Claim 1 ............................................................................... 52
`
`Claim 2 ............................................................................... 55
`
`Claim 3 ............................................................................... 58
`
`Claims 4 and 5 ................................................................... 60
`
`C.
`
`Claims 1-5 Would Have Been Obvious in View of
`Shimomura. .................................................................................. 60
`
`1.
`
`Claim 1 ............................................................................... 60
`
`-ii-
`
`
`
`
`
`a.
`
`b.
`
`c.
`
`d.
`
`e.
`
`f.
`
`g.
`
`h.
`
`i.
`
`1[pre]: Voice-Content Control Device .................... 60
`
`1[a]: Proximity Sensor ............................................. 63
`
`1[b]: Voice Classifying Unit ................................... 64
`
`1[c]: Process Executing Unit ................................... 67
`
`1[d]: Voice-Content Generating Unit ...................... 69
`
`1[e]: Output Controller ............................................ 70
`
`1[f]: Generate a First Output Sentence .................... 72
`
`1[g]: Generate a Second Output Sentence ............... 75
`
`1[h]: Output Controller Adjusts Volume of
`Voice Data ............................................................... 78
`
`2.
`
`Claim 2 ............................................................................... 85
`
`a.
`
`b.
`
`2[a]: Process Executing Unit ................................... 86
`
`2[b]: Voice-Content Generating Unit ...................... 89
`
`3.
`
`4.
`
`Claim 3 ............................................................................... 90
`
`Claims 4 and 5 ................................................................... 92
`
`D.
`
`Claims 1-5 Would Have Been Obvious in View of
`Shimomura and Shin. ................................................................... 93
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`4.
`
`Claim 1 ............................................................................... 93
`
`Claim 2 ............................................................................... 96
`
`Claim 3 ............................................................................... 96
`
`Claims 4 and 5 ................................................................... 99
`
`E.
`
`Claims 1-5 Would Have Been Obvious in View of Shin
`and/or Shimomura and Further in View of Kristjansson. ............ 99
`
`-iii-
`
`
`
`
`
`VII. SECONDARY CONSIDERATIONS OF NONOBVIOUSNESS ........... 102
`VIII. CONCLUSION .......................................................................................... 103
`
`
`
`
`-iv-
`
`
`
`
`
`I, Richard Stern, Ph.D., do hereby declare:
`
`1.
`
`I am making this declaration at the request of Petitioners Amazon.com,
`
`Inc., Amazon.com Services LLC, and Amazon Web Services, Inc. (collectively,
`
`“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 proceed-
`
`ings. I do not own any stock in Amazon and, to my knowledge, I have no financial
`
`interest in Amazon.
`
`I.
`
`BACKGROUND
`A. 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 Tech-
`
`nology (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. While I was a graduate student, I worked as a Teaching and Research
`
`Assistant in the Department of Electrical Engineering at MIT, from 1973 to 1976.
`
`-1-
`
`
`
`Amazon.com, Inc. v. SoundClear Technologies LLC
`Declaration of Richard Stern, Ph.D. – Patent 11,069,337
`My teaching experience was in the areas of signal processing and acoustics. My
`
`research at MIT had been in the area of auditory processing and perception.
`
`6.
`
`I am a fellow of the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers
`
`(IEEE), the Acoustical Society of America, and the International Speech Communi-
`
`cation Association (ISCA). I was the ISCA 2008-2009 Distinguished 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.
`
`7. 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. Among my longstanding work on speech processing are
`
`several projects involving speaker identification. Furthermore, as a Professor, I have
`
`taught 15 courses, many of which are at the graduate level, in the general areas of
`
`signal processing, communication theory, and acoustics.
`
`8. My relevant publications are available on Carnegie Mellon’s web site
`
`at http://www.cs.cmu.edu/afs/cs/user/robust/www/papers.html.
`
`9.
`
`I understand a copy of my current curriculum vitae, which lists my pub-
`
`lications for the last ten years, is being submitted as Exhibit 1006.
`
`-2-
`
`
`
`Amazon.com, Inc. v. SoundClear Technologies LLC
`Declaration of Richard Stern, Ph.D. – Patent 11,069,337
`B. Materials Considered
`
`10.
`
`In preparing this Declaration, I have considered the following materi-
`
`als:
`
`Exhibit No.
`1001
`1003
`
`Description
`U.S. Patent No. 11,069,337
`U.S. Patent App. Publ. No. 2017/0083281 (“Shin”)
`
`1004
`
`English Translation of Shimomura from Ex. 1005
`
`1005
`
`1007
`1009
`
`1010
`1011
`
`1012
`
`1013
`
`1015
`
`Declaration of Gwen Snorteland for Translation of Jap. Unex-
`amined Patent App. Publ. 2005/202076 (“Shimomura”)
`
`Excerpts from File History of U.S. Patent No. 11,069,337
`U.S. Patent App. Publ. No. 2017/0154626 (“Kim”)
`
`U.S. Patent App. Publ. No. 2017/0337921 (“Aoyama”)
`U.S. Patent App. Publ. No. 2016/0284351 (“Ha”)
`
`U.S. Patent No. 9,489,172 (“Iyer”)
`
`U.S. Patent No. 10, 147,439 (“Kristjansson”)
`Nicolae Duta, Natural Language Understanding and Prediction:
`From Formal Grammars to Large Scale Machine Learning, 131
`Fundamenta Informaticae 425 (2014) (“Duta”)
`
`
`
`11.
`
`I understand that Shimomura published as a Japanese Patent Applica-
`
`tion, and that it has been translated by a certified translator. (See Ex. 1005.) In
`
`performing my analysis, I relied on the certified English translation provided by the
`
`translator, which I understand will be submitted as Exhibit 1004.
`
`-3-
`
`
`
`Amazon.com, Inc. v. SoundClear Technologies LLC
`Declaration of Richard Stern, Ph.D. – Patent 11,069,337
`I have also relied on my education, training, and experience, and my
`12.
`
`knowledge of pertinent literature in the field of the ’337 patent.
`
`II. APPLICABLE LEGAL STANDARDS
`I have been asked to provide my opinion as to whether the claims of the
`13.
`
`’337 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.
`
`14.
`
`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
`
`’337 patent.
`
`15. 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.
`
`A. Claim Construction
`
`16.
`
`It is my understanding that in determining whether a patent claim is
`
`anticipated by or 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
`
`-4-
`
`
`
`Amazon.com, Inc. v. SoundClear Technologies LLC
`Declaration of Richard Stern, Ph.D. – Patent 11,069,337
`have been understood by a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the inven-
`
`tion in view of the intrinsic record (patent specification and file history). For the
`
`purposes of this review, and to the extent necessary, I have interpreted each claim
`
`term in accordance with its plain and ordinary meaning as it would have been un-
`
`derstood 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
`
`6, 2018, which I understand to be the earliest claimed priority date of the ’337 patent.
`
`17.
`
`I understand that a patent and its prosecution history are considered “in-
`
`trinsic 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 ex-
`
`press basis in the claims. The prosecution history of related patents and applications
`
`can also be relevant.
`
`18.
`
`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 con-
`
`tradict the unambiguous meaning of the claim language that is evident from the in-
`
`trinsic evidence.
`
`-5-
`
`
`
`Amazon.com, Inc. v. SoundClear Technologies LLC
`Declaration of Richard Stern, Ph.D. – Patent 11,069,337
`19. 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 or-
`
`dinary skill in the art would have given to terms in March 2018 based on a review
`
`of the intrinsic evidence.
`
`B. Anticipation
`
`20.
`
`It is my understanding that documents and materials that qualify as
`
`prior art can render a patent claim unpatentable as anticipated. I understand that all
`
`prior art references are to be looked at from the viewpoint of a person of ordinary
`
`skill in the art.
`
`21.
`
`It is my understanding that a challenged claim is unpatentable as “an-
`
`ticipated” under 35 U.S.C. § 102 if all the limitations of the claim are described in a
`
`single prior art reference. It is my understanding that, to anticipate a claim, a prior
`
`art reference must disclose, either expressly or inherently, each and every limitation
`
`of that claim and enable one of ordinary skill in the art to make and use the invention.
`
`22.
`
`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 charac-
`
`teristic is necessarily present based upon the explicit disclosure in the prior art, it is
`
`inherent in the prior art and is therefore disclosed.
`
`-6-
`
`
`
`Amazon.com, Inc. v. SoundClear Technologies LLC
`Declaration of Richard Stern, Ph.D. – Patent 11,069,337
`C. Obviousness
`
`23.
`
`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 ’337 patent and
`
`the prior art; (iii) the level of ordinary skill in the art in March 2018; and (iv) addi-
`
`tional considerations, if any, that indicate that the invention was obvious or not ob-
`
`vious. I understand that these “additional considerations” are often referred to as
`
`“secondary considerations” of non-obviousness or obviousness.
`
`24.
`
`I also understand that the frame of reference when evaluating obvious-
`
`ness is what a hypothetical person of ordinary skill in the pertinent art would have
`
`known in March 2018. I understand that the hypothetical person of ordinary skill is
`
`presumed to have knowledge of all pertinent prior art references.
`
`25.
`
`I understand that a prior art reference may be a pertinent prior art refer-
`
`ence (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 rea-
`
`sonably pertinent if it logically would have commended itself to an inventor’s atten-
`
`tion in considering the problem at hand. If a reference relates to the same problem
`
`-7-
`
`
`
`Amazon.com, Inc. v. SoundClear Technologies LLC
`Declaration of Richard Stern, Ph.D. – Patent 11,069,337
`as the claimed invention, that supports use of the reference as prior art in an obvi-
`
`ousness analysis. Here, all of the references relied on in my obviousness analysis
`
`below are in the same field of endeavor as the ’337 patent, e.g., controlling a device’s
`
`voice output. The references are also pertinent to a particular problem the inventor
`
`was focused on, e.g., adjusting voice output to improve user interaction.
`
`26.
`
`It is my understanding that the law recognizes several rationales for
`
`combining references or modifying a reference to show obviousness of claimed sub-
`
`ject matter. Some of these rationales include:
`
`•
`
`•
`
`•
`
`•
`
`•
`
`combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield pre-
`
`dictable results;
`
`simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predict-
`
`able results;
`
`a predictable use of prior art elements according to their established
`
`functions;
`
`using known techniques to improve similar devices (methods, or prod-
`
`ucts) in the same way;
`
`applying a known technique to a known device (method, or product)
`
`ready for improvement to yield predictable results;
`
`-8-
`
`
`
`Amazon.com, Inc. v. SoundClear Technologies LLC
`Declaration of Richard Stern, Ph.D. – Patent 11,069,337
`
`•
`
`choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with
`
`a reasonable expectation of success (in which case a claim would have
`
`been obvious to try);
`
`•
`
`known work in one field of endeavor may prompt variations of it for
`
`use in either the same field or a different one based on design incentives
`
`or other market forces if the variations would have been predictable to
`
`one of ordinary skill in the art; and
`
`•
`
`some teaching, suggestion, or motivation in the prior art that would
`
`have led one of ordinary skill to modify the prior art reference or to
`
`combine prior art reference teachings to arrive at the claimed invention.
`
`27.
`
`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 under-
`
`stand that evidence of the independent and nearly simultaneous “invention” of the
`
`claimed subject matter by others is a secondary consideration supporting an obvi-
`
`ousness determination and may support a conclusion that a claimed invention was
`
`-9-
`
`
`
`Amazon.com, Inc. v. SoundClear Technologies LLC
`Declaration of Richard Stern, Ph.D. – Patent 11,069,337
`within the knowledge of a person of ordinary skill as of March 2018. I am not aware
`
`of any evidence of secondary considerations that would suggest that the claims of
`
`the ’337 patent would have been nonobvious in March 2018.
`
`28.
`
`I understand that when assessing obviousness, using hindsight is im-
`
`permissible; 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 2018 in this case.
`
`29.
`
`I also understand that an obviousness analysis must consider the inven-
`
`tion 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.
`
`III. PERSON OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART
`It is my understanding that when interpreting the claims of the ’337
`30.
`
`patent and evaluating whether a claim is anticipated or would have been obvious, I
`
`must do so based on the perspective of a person of ordinary skill in the art at the
`
`-10-
`
`
`
`Amazon.com, Inc. v. SoundClear Technologies LLC
`Declaration of Richard Stern, Ph.D. – Patent 11,069,337
`relevant priority date. I have been instructed to assume for the purposes of my opin-
`
`ions that the relevant priority date of the ’337 patent is March 6, 2018.
`
`31.
`
`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.
`
`32. Based on my review of the specification and claims of the ’337 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 engi-
`
`neering, or a similar field, and approximately two years of industry or academic ex-
`
`perience in a field related to controlling the audio output of electronic devices. Work
`
`experience could substitute for formal education and additional formal education
`
`could substitute for work experience.
`
`33. My conclusions below that the claims of the ’337 patent are anticipated
`
`and would have been obvious would remain the same even if the priority date, field
`
`of endeavor, or level of ordinary skill were slightly different.
`
`34.
`
`I meet the above definition of a person of ordinary skill in the art, and
`
`-11-
`
`
`
`Amazon.com, Inc. v. SoundClear Technologies LLC
`Declaration of Richard Stern, Ph.D. – Patent 11,069,337
`did so as of March 2018. 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 2018.
`
`IV. TECHNOLOGY BACKGROUND
`
`35. The ’337 patent describes an electronic device, such as a speaker or
`
`phone, that receives and processes a user’s voice input and outputs a voice response.
`
`(Ex. 1001 (’337 patent), Fig. 1, 2:62-3:1.) The patent claims priority to March 2018,
`
`years after Apple launched Siri in its iPhones (2011), Amazon launched Alexa-ena-
`
`bled devices (2014), and Google launched its voice assistant (2016). The patent
`
`admits that devices that detect voice, perform processing according to the user’s in-
`
`tent, and provide a voice output were known. (Id., 1:21-28.) Public reporting con-
`
`firms that both Siri- and Alexa-enabled devices performed these functions. (E.g.,
`
`Amazon Just Surprised Everyone with a Crazy Speaker that Talks to You,
`
`https://www.theverge.com/2014/11/6/7167793/amazon-echo-speaker-announced
`
`(Echo “will provide information, music, news, weather, and more whenever you ask
`
`for it,” “can hear users from across the room,” and can be used for “telling you the
`
`local weather” or asking “general questions and get[ting] answers from Wikipe-
`
`dia”); iPhone 4S: a Siri-ously Slick, Speedy Smartphone, https://arstech-
`
`nica.com/gadgets/2011/10/iphone-4s-a-siri-ously-slick-speedy-smartphone/
`
`(“Siri
`
`-12-
`
`
`
`Amazon.com, Inc. v. SoundClear Technologies LLC
`Declaration of Richard Stern, Ph.D. – Patent 11,069,337
`offers iPhone 4S users a way to interact with their devices, apps, and data with nat-
`
`ural language voice commands. Users can send and receive texts or e-mails simply
`
`by talking to Siri, find out whether there will be rain today, create new Reminders
`
`and calendar items, ask for directions, move appointments, and more.”.)
`
`A. Classifying Users Based on Proximity
`
`36. Many devices that classified users based on their proximity to the de-
`
`vice were known in the art. For example, Kim, which was published in 2017, dis-
`
`closed a device with this functionality. Kim disclosed that its device “collects con-
`
`text information associated with the user” after the device receives a user’s voice
`
`input. (Ex. 1009 (Kim) ¶¶[0045], [0163] (“If the voice is collected, … the processor
`
`120 may collect context information. If a user voice signal is received, the processor
`
`120 … may collect user related information, using a sensor[.]”).) The device can
`
`obtain user information using a variety of sensors, but notably, it can use a “proxim-
`
`ity sensor” to detect “distance information” (i.e. the distance between a user and the
`
`device). (Id. ¶[0068] (“The sensor 180 may include … a proximity sensor … Ac-
`
`cording to an example embodiment, the sensor 180 may collect … distance infor-
`
`mation from [the user]”).) The device can determine whether a user is a “first spec-
`
`ified user” based on the “context information.” (Id. ¶[0169] (“the processor 120 …
`
`may determine whether the context information meets a first specified condition …
`
`The first specified condition may include a condition in which a user who asks is a
`
`-13-
`
`
`
`Amazon.com, Inc. v. SoundClear Technologies LLC
`Declaration of Richard Stern, Ph.D. – Patent 11,069,337
`first specified user.”); see also id. ¶[0244] (“the electronic device 1500 may use a
`
`sensor … for identifying at least one user”).)
`
`37. Aoyama, which also published in 2017, provides another example of
`
`an “information processing device” which classified users based on proximity. (Ex.
`
`1010 (Aoyama), Abstract.) Aoyama discloses a device that determines a “user state”
`
`based on analysis of “image” and “sound input.” (Id. ¶[0114] (“the user state esti-
`
`mation unit 15 mainly estimates the user state on the basis of the analysis results of
`
`an image and the sound input has been described above”).) The device can deter-
`
`mine various “user states,” such as whether a user is “stopped,” “walking,” or “run-
`
`ning.” (Id. ¶[0106].) Based on this determination, the device may classify users as
`
`“calm” or “hurried.” (Id.) A person of ordinary skill in the art would have under-
`
`stood that, in order to make the determination that a user is either “stopped” or “run-
`
`ning,” the device necessarily must calculate its proximity to the user at sequential
`
`time intervals. Further, Aoyama notes that “the type of information used to estimate
`
`the user state is not particularly limited as long as the information is information
`
`such as an image, a sound input, or detection results by various sensors.” (Id.
`
`¶[0114]; see also id. ¶[0107] (“the estimation method is not particularly limited as
`
`long as the user state estimation unit 15 can estimate … a motion of the user”).)
`
`-14-
`
`
`
`Amazon.com, Inc. v. SoundClear Technologies LLC
`Declaration of Richard Stern, Ph.D. – Patent 11,069,337
`Tailoring Content Based on Distance
`B.
`
`38. Devices that tailor content based on the distance between the device
`
`and the user were also known in the art. In 2016, Ha described an electronic device
`
`that “provides content in response to [] voice input.” (Ex. 1011 (Ha), Abstract.) The
`
`device can provide either “abstract” or “detailed” information to a user. (Id. ¶[0042]
`
`(“the processor 120 may determine to control the audio output module 150 to output
`
`abstract information of content”); see also id. ¶¶[0044], [0048], [0050], [0052].)
`
`Ha’s device may determine which type of content to provide to a user based on “a
`
`video of the vicinity of the electronic device 100 shot by the camera 170.” (Id.
`
`¶[0050].) Ha discloses that the device may determine if “a user is present in the
`
`vicinity of the electronic device.” (Id. ¶[0114].) When the device makes the deter-
`
`mination that a user is in its vicinity, it can provide “detailed information.” (Id.)
`
`Ha’s Figure 9 illustrates this process:
`
`-15-
`
`
`
`Amazon.com, Inc. v. SoundClear Technologies LLC
`Declaration of Richard Stern, Ph.D. – Patent 11,069,337
`
`
`
`(Id., Fig. 9.) If the device’s camera registers a user after receiving voice input, it
`
`would “output detailed information.” (Id.) Alternatively, if the camera did not reg-
`
`ister a user (e.g. because the user was too far from the camera), or alternatively, if it
`
`registered multiple users, it would output “abstract information.” (Id.; see also id.
`
`¶¶[0109]-[0116].) Ha’s claims provide further support for this functionality. Spe-
`
`cifically, claim 14 states that the device comprises “a camera configured to shoot a
`
`video of a vicinity of the electronic device” and a “processor [] further configured to
`
`-16-
`
`
`
`Amazon.com, Inc. v. SoundClear Technologies LLC
`Declaration of Richard Stern, Ph.D. – Patent 11,069,337
`determine the output scheme of the content to be outputted through the audio output
`
`module or the display based on the video of the vicinity of the electronic device.”
`
`(Id., claim 14.)
`
`C. Adjusting Volume Based on Distance
`
`39. Devices that adjust volume based on the distance between the device
`
`and the user were known in the art. For example, Iyer, which issued in 2016, de-
`
`scribes an “electronic device includ[ing] a voice control interface.” (Ex. 1012 (Iyer),
`
`Abstract). When the device receives a “speech command” from a “first distance,” it
`
`produces “an audible output at a first output level.” (Id.) If a user gives a speech
`
`command from a “second distance [that] is less than the first distance” (i.e. the dis-
`
`tance between the user and the device has decreased), the device produces audible
`
`output at a “second output level less than the first level.” (Id.; see also, e.g., id.,
`
`3:30-36 (in the “first mode,” the device produces, “through a loudspeaker and in
`
`response to the speech command, an audible output at a first output level”), 3:19-27
`
`(the device is also capable of a secondary “‘discreet’ mode of operation”), 3:58-61
`
`(in the discreet mode, the device generates audible “responses at a level that others
`
`will not overhear”), 7:47-8:3, 12:6-17.)
`
`40. Kristjansson, which issued in 2017, provides a further example in its
`
`“speech-capturing device.” (Ex. 1013 (Kristjansson), Abstract.) The device first
`
`-17-
`
`
`
`Amazon.com, Inc. v. SoundClear Technologies LLC
`Declaration of Richard Stern, Ph.D. – Patent 11,069,337
`detects a user’s “spoken utterance.” (Id.; see also id., 3:3-4.) The device then “de-
`
`termines the distance of the user from the device.” (Id.; see also id., 3:8-10 (deter-
`
`mining the user’s “location relative to the device” through “range finding”), 15:57-
`
`16:5 (the system can use a “proximity/distance detector” to calculate a user’s posi-
`
`tion), claims 1, 5, 12.) Based on the calculated distance, the device then “adjust[s]
`
`the gain for output audio (such as a spoken response to the utterance) to ensure that
`
`the output audio is at a certain desired sound pressure when it reaches the location
`
`of the user.” (Id., Abstract; see also id., 3:16-19 (calculating “a gain for output audio
`
`data to ensure a desired volume of the output audio when it reaches the user's loca-
`
`tion”), 14:43-15:16 (describing the calculations used to determine the “appropriate
`
`volume for output audio” based on the distance to the user); see generally id., Figs.
`
`6-9.)
`
`D. Adjusting Both Volume and Content Based on Distance
`
`41. Using a proximity sensor to determine a user’s distance from a device
`
`and then tailoring the information provided and the volume based on that dista
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
