Paper No. 58
`Trials@uspto.gov
`
`571-272-7822
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`______________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`______________
`
`SHURE INCORPORATED,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`CLEARONE, INC.,
`Patent Owner.
`______________
`
`PGR2020-00079
`Patent 10,728,653 B2
`______________
`
`Record of Oral Hearing
`Held Virtually: Tuesday, December 14, 2021
`______________
`
`
`
`Before KALYAN K. DESHPANDE, JONI Y. CHANG, and
`DAVID C. MCKONE, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Trials@uspto.gov
`
`571-272-7822
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`______________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`______________
`
`SHURE INCORPORATED,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`CLEARONE, INC.,
`Patent Owner.
`______________
`
`PGR2020-00079
`Patent 10,728,653 B2
`______________
`
`Record of Oral Hearing
`Held Virtually: Tuesday, December 14, 2021
`______________
`
`
`
`Before KALYAN K. DESHPANDE, JONI Y. CHANG, and
`DAVID C. MCKONE, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`PGR2020-00079
`Patent 10,728,653 B2
`
`
`
`APPEARANCES:
`
`ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER:
`
`
`Elliot Cook
`Robert High
`Daniel Klodowski
`FINNEGAN, HENDERSON, FARABOW, GARRETT AND DUNNER,
`LLP
`elliot.cook@finnegan.com
`robert.high@finnegan.com
`daniel.klodowski@finnegan.com
`
`
`
`ON BEHALF OF THE PATENT OWNER:
`
`
`Matthew Phillips
`Derek Meeker
`Kevin Laurence
`LAURENCE & PHILLIPS IP LAW
`mphillips@lpiplaw.com
`dmeeker@lpiplaw.com
`klaurence@lpiplaw.com
`
`
`
`
`The above-entitled matter came on for hearing on Thursday, December
`14, 2021, commencing at 1:00 p.m. EST, by video/by telephone.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`
`PGR2020-00079
`Patent 10,728,653 B2
`
`
`P R O C E E D I N G S
` JUDGE MCKONE: -- So
`we'll now go on the record. Good afternoon and welcome. We
`are here for a final hearing and post-grant review, PGR2020-
`00079, caption Shure Inc v. ClearOne, Inc. I'll introduce the
`panel. I am Judge McKone. With me are Judges Des- --
`Deshpande and Chang.
` Now we can get the -- the parties' appearances. Who
`do we have appearing on behalf of Petitioner?
` MR. COOK: Hi. Good afternoon. This is Elliott Cook
`on behalf of Petitioner and with me, Judge McKone, we have
`Robert High, also from Finnegan, my co-counsel on the case,
`and Daniel Klodowski also from Finnegan on behalf of the
`Petitioner and also on the line with us Vladimir Arezina,
`counsel but not in this case, but counsel for Shure.
` JUDGE MCKONE: Okay. And the first three people you
`mentioned, yourself, Mr. High and Klodowski, you'll be
`speaking today at some point?
` MR. COOK: Yes, Your Honor.
` JUDGE MCKONE: Okay. Who do we have here on behalf
`of Patent Owner?
` MR. PHILLIPS: You have Matthew Phillips, that's me,
`Your Honor, and Derek Meeker, we're from the law firm
`Laurence & Phillips IP Law.
` JUDGE MCKONE: And who will be doing the speaking
`today for -- for Patent Owner?
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
`3
`
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`
`PGR2020-00079
`Patent 10,728,653 B2
` MR. PHILLIPS: Both myself and Mr. Meeker will.
` JUDGE MCKONE: Okay. All right. We set forth a
`procedure for today's hearing in our oral argument order. As
`a reminder, Patent Owner will have 60 minutes of total
`argument time to present its argument. Petitioner has been
`granted an extra 15 minutes as part of our legal experience
`and advancement program.
` So Petitioner will have a total of 75 minutes to
`present its argument. We re- -- remind Petitioner that it
`must give each of the approved le- -- LEAP practitioners, Mr.
`Klodowski and Mr. High, a meaningful and substantive
`opportunity to argue. Petitioner has the burden of proof and
`will go first. Patent Owner will then present opposition
`argument, also Motion to Amend and its Motion to Exclude.
` Then to the extent that Petitioner has reserved --
`re- -- reserved rebuttal time, Petitioner will present
`arguments in rebuttal. Thereafter, to the extent Patent Owner
`has reserved through rebuttal time, Patent Owner may present
`its surrebuttal.
` Now, for clarity in the transcript and since all of
`the judges and counsel are appearing remotely, when you refer
`to an exhibit on the screen, please identify the exhibit
`number and page number and when you refer to one of your de-
`-- demonstrative slides, please provide the slide number.
` Please don't assume that we can see what you're
`presenting on the screen, but we are able to follow along in
`the documents that -- that you have filed. Counsel should
`4
`
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`
`PGR2020-00079
`Patent 10,728,653 B2
`unmute only when speaking, I know that's -- that's difficult
`to do even on the judge side. The remote nature of the
`hearing may also result in -- in audio lag and thus, the
`parties are advised to observe a -- a pause prior to speaking
`to -- to avoid speaking over each other.
` If, at anytime during the hearing, you encounter
`technical or other difficulties, please let the panel know
`immediately so that we can make adjustments. There is techni-
`-- technical support listening in and they've probably given
`you some instructions as to what to do if you have technical
`issues and we will try to keep our eyes open for technical
`problems as well.
` As we noted in the hearing order, although we are
`all appearing remotely and there is no physical courtroom,
`members of the public do have the option to attend remotely.
`In the oral hearing order, we requested that if there were
`any concerns about the disclosure of confidential information
`at this hearing, you are to contact the Board.
` I don't believe we received any notice of any
`issues. Petitioner, could you confirm that you do not intend
`to discuss any confidential information today?
` MR. COOK: That is correct, Your Honor. Thank you.
` JUDGE MCKONE: And Patent Owner, could you also
`please confirm?
` MR. PHILLIPS: Confirmed.
` JUDGE MCKONE: Okay. Are there any questions on
`behalf of Patent Owner at this time?
`5
`
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`
`PGR2020-00079
`Patent 10,728,653 B2
` MR. PHILLIPS: No, Your Honor.
` JUDGE MCKONE: Are there any questions on behalf of
`Petitioner at this time?
` MR. COOK: No, Your Honor. We appreciate it. Thank
`you.
` JUDGE MCKONE: Okay. Petitioner, would you like to
`reserve a certain amount of time for rebuttal?
` MR. COOK: Yes, Your Honor. What we'd like to do, if
`the Board agrees, is reserve 30 minutes for rebuttal on the
`issue of the Revised Motion to Amend.
` JUDGE MCKONE: Okay. All right. Petitioner, you can
`begin when you're ready.
` MR. COOK: Great. Thank you, Your Honor. What we'd
`like to do, if the Board agrees, is to divide up the argument
`in terms of Mr. Klo- -- Klodowski addressing the -- the
`Section 112 issues and Mr. High addressing the -- the
`obviousness 103 issues and if -- if that works, I'll -- I'll
`turn it over to my colleagues to -- to begin our
`presentation.
` JUDGE MCKONE: Okay. Thank you.
` MR. HIGH: Good afternoon, Your Honors. As my
`colleague, Mr. Cook, said, I'm Mr. High and I'm here today to
`address Petitioner's arguments with respect to the
`obviousness positions. So I'll go ahead and share our
`demonstratives, get those on the screen. I'd like to start
`with slide six.
` In the parties' papers, you've seen ClearOne make
`6
`
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`
`PGR2020-00079
`Patent 10,728,653 B2
`several arguments related to the beamforming technology. This
`slide contains two excerpts from the ’653 Patent, which is the
`patent at issue in this proceeding. First, even though most of
`ClearOne's arguments against grounds 6 and 7 from the
`Petition are centered around aspects of beamforming
`technology.
` There's no dispute here that the ’653 Patent did not
`invent beamforming or was not focused, in any way, on an
`improvement to beamforming technology, the ’653 Patent, which
`is Exhibit 1001, includes a section called background art
`where it discusses a traditional beamforming microphone array
`and it even discusses a -- a ceiling-mounted beamforming
`microphone array.
` This section on the slide here, specifically up top,
`includes a heading called problems with the prior art where
`the inventors explained that the traditional approach for
`installing a ceiling-mounted beamforming microphone array
`results in the array being visible to people in the
`conference room and later on in the patent, which is the --
`the passage at the bottom of the screen here, the ’653 Patent
`refers to various beamforming algorithms by name that were,
`"known in the art."
` So the ’653 Patent was not focused on inventing a
`beamforming microphone array. It was not even focused on
`improving the beamforming technology and a beamforming
`microphone array to allow it to be mounted on a ceiling. The
`’653 Patent admits that various beamforming algorithms were
`7
`
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`
`PGR2020-00079
`Patent 10,728,653 B2
`known and that ceiling-mounted beamforming microphone array
`is [inaudible].
` So the focus of the ’653 Patent was to try to
`disguise the ceiling-mounted beamforming microphone array in
`a way so that it isn't as noticeable in the room. It's --
`it's purely an aesthetic invention, if you will.
` And in turning to slide 7 now, Dr. Begault, who was
`ClearOne's expert in this proceeding during his deposition,
`Exhibit 1038, admitted that the concept of beamforming was
`known before the filing date of the ’653 Patent and that its
`application to [inaudible] of ways, which is what we did on
`here, had been known since at least the 1990s.
` So there's no dispute here that beamforming was a
`well-known te- -- technology as of 2013. Going back to slide
`two I want to start talking about grounds six and seven in
`the complaint, which are the two obviousness grounds that
`rely on the CTG System. Ground six is the obviousness ground
`based on the CTG System in Levit and ground seven is the
`obviousness ground based on the CTG System, Beaucoup and
`Levit.
` So for ground six, most of the issues are
`undisputed. For example, it's undisputed that CTG had been
`selling microphones designed to be installed in ceiling tiles
`long before the priority date of the ’653 Patent and that the
`CTG System includes acoustic echo cancellation and adaptive
`acoustic process.
` It's also undisputed that Levit discloses the
`8
`
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`
`PGR2020-00079
`Patent 10,728,653 B2
`ceiling tile within an acoustically transparent outer surface
`and that it would've been obvious to combine the CTG
`microphones with ceiling tiles like those disclosed in Levit.
`ClearOne has three main and -- and somewhat related arguments
`attacking ground six.
` First, it argues that the FS Series mixers in the
`CTG System do not include beamforming. Second, ClearOne
`argues, based on its construction of a ceiling tile, that the
`CTG System does not include a microphone array combined with
`a single ceiling tile. And third, it argues that the type of
`alleged beamforming performed by the FS Series mixers is a
`secret, meaning the beamforming aspect of the product is not
`prior art.
` For ground seven, the asserted combination relies on
`Beaucoup's teaching of a microphone array -- array and it
`asserts that it would've been obvious to combine a single
`ceiling tile with Beaucoup's circular beamforming microphone
`array similar to how each microphone in the CTG System is
`combined with a single ceiling tile.
` ClearOne does not dispute that Beaucoup discloses a
`beamforming microphone array, that -- that includes
`beamforming, as well as all the other beamforming related
`terms in -- in the claims. ClearOne's focus here is on a lack
`of motivation to combine. Turning to slide four now, I'm
`going to go through where each disputed feature is disclosed
`by the prior art.
` I'm happy to discuss other features as well, but
`9
`
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`
`PGR2020-00079
`Patent 10,728,653 B2
`today I'm going to focus just on those that are disputed by
`ClearOne. Also going to discuss the reasons to combine and
`why ClearOne's arguments against the combinations fail.
`Beginning on slide five with where each one feature is
`disclosed or taught in prior art. I'm going to skip ahead now
`to slide eight, which is beamforming microphone array that
`includes beamforming.
` The CTG System includes an FS Series mixer, either
`the FS-400 or FS-800. The product itself is stamped with a
`statement that it includes beamforming technology and the
`sell sheet that accompanies the mixer states that the mixers
`use multiple microphones to measure the difference in time
`and intensity of speech and effectively forms a beam, aims at
`the person speaking and adaptably follows that person as they
`move about the room.
` And Shure's expert, Dr. Vipperman explained that
`this disclosure is consistent with beamforming.
` JUDGE MCKONE: All right. So you're get- -- I have a
`-- a few questions here on -- on that. You seem to be -- be
`relying here on marketing literature to show that in fact a
`system performs beamforming; is that correct?
` MR. HIGH: If you want to characterize this as
`marketing literature, yes, that is correct, as well as Dr.
`Vipperman's analysis of the descriptions of the technology
`that are included within the sell sheet.
` JUDGE MCKONE: Okay. If -- if you prefer sales
`literature, I mean, that's -- that's fine too, I don't want
`10
`
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`
`PGR2020-00079
`Patent 10,728,653 B2
`to mischaracterize the document.
` MR. HIGH: Right. And -- and we've been --
` JUDGE MCKONE: However --
` MR. HIGH: -- [inaudible] the sell sheet
`[inaudible], Your Honor.
` JUDGE MCKONE: Okay.
` MR. HIGH: I didn't mean to interrupt you.
` JUDGE MCKONE: But this -- but this isn't a -- a
`document that's supposed to be describing at a technical
`level, the -- the features of this system; correct, this is
`something that's designed to -- to market or sell the system?
` MR. HIGH: It -- it is designed to market or sell
`the system. I -- I think it also describes the technology
`that's included in the system itself. I -- I'm not sure the
`two are -- are mutually exclusive here.
` JUDGE MCKONE: Okay. D- -- now, Dr. Vipperman, did
`he rely on more than just the -- the statement in the -- the
`-- the sales literature?
` MR. HIGH: For the beamforming disclosures, he
`relied on the -- the sales literature and the -- the CTG
`manual, I believe.
` JUDGE MCKONE: Okay. He didn't --
` MR. HIGH: So he -- he did not specifically analyze
`the product. No.
` JUDGE MCKONE: Okay.
` MR. HIGH: He -- he didn't --
` JUDGE MCKONE: He didn't [inaudible]?
`11
`
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`
`PGR2020-00079
`Patent 10,728,653 B2
` MR. HIGH: -- he didn't perform any testing on it.
` JUDGE MCKONE: Okay. So he didn't -- so what does
`his testimony add to the -- the sales literature?
` MR. HIGH: His testimony is interpreting what the
`sales literature is saying to a -- a person of ordinary skill
`in the art and -- and applying what those disclosures are to
`the -- the challenged claims in this proceeding.
` JUDGE MCKONE: You can go ahead.
` MR. HIGH: Okay. So moving on to slide nine, the
`same limitation here is undisputedly disclosed by Beaucoup
`and this is for ground seven, Beaucoup discloses a body that
`includes a circular microphone array and a Digital Signal
`Processer, which is DSP here on this slide, that is
`programmed to perform beamforming and for the record here,
`we're -- we're referring to Exhibit 1017.
` Next, skipping ahead to slide 12, which is the
`plurality of microphones positioned at predetermined
`locations. Slide 12 shows how the CTG System positions a
`plurality of microphones at predetermined locations. And the
`image on the left, the triangle, is referred to microphones
`combined with ceiling tiles throughout the room.
` These positions are predetermined to provide
`coverage throughout the room. Slide 13 is specifically --
` JUDGE MCKONE: Before you -- before you move on,
`does -- does the CTG System -- is -- is it your position that
`the CTG System, the mixers know where the -- the -- the
`microphones are placed and -- and use that as part of their -
`12
`
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`
`PGR2020-00079
`Patent 10,728,653 B2
`- their calculations for beamforming?
` MR. HIGH: So our understanding of the technology,
`which is based on the literature we have, it doesn't
`specifically say that the mixers know the precise distances
`between each microphone, the predetermined locations are --
`are more focused on making sure that there -- there's
`coverage throughout the room, however, Dr. Vipperman's second
`declaration in this proceeding explained how you don't need
`to know the precise distances between the microphones to be
`able to do beamforming.
` JUDGE MCKONE: I remember that he said
`that in his -- his reply declaration, but I'm trying to
`reconcile that with the statements that he made in his
`opening declaration, for example, at paragraph 180, where he
`says, in -- in this sentence, the meaning of predetermined
`locations collapses into the meaning of beamforming, as
`discussed above, such that the spacing between the microphones
`can be known and used in order to perform beam- --
`beamforming.
` Here it looks like he's testifying that -- that the
`-- in the CTG System, it knows where the locations of the
`-- of the microphones are.
` MR. HIGH: So that's -- that's one common technique
`to perform beamforming. So again, you know, Dr. Vipperman
`didn't specifically get a chance to look under the hood and
`analyze the algorithms itself to understand how it's working,
`he was going off of the description of the beamforming, for
`13
`
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`
`PGR2020-00079
`Patent 10,728,653 B2
`example, from the sell sheet here.
` So it -- it's possible that that's how the -- the
`CTG System actually works and his understanding of how it
`works, based on this description here, I -- I think, is
`consistent with that possibility.
` So like we don't -- we don't specifically know the -
`- the source code to the -- the FS Series mixers. So I -- I
`think what Dr. Vipperman was saying, in his opening report,
`is that, you know, if you know the -- the precise distances
`between the microphones, then it collapses into beamforming.
` However, even if you don't know the precise
`distances, that doesn't mean you can't do beamforming,
`because you can have geometry agnostic beamforming microphone
`array.
` JUDGE MCKONE: But Dr. Vipperman doesn't know
`whether CTG System is position agnostic or not;
`correct?
` MR. HIGH: He does not. What -- what he knows is
`that what the -- the literature that he relied on, as
`describing the technology, is describing beamforming and I
`believe in his second declaration, he -- he said somewhere
`that it doesn't describe the exact manner in terms of how it
`-- it calculates its -- its beamforming algorithm, but -- but
`he said that what it's describing, in Exhibit 1013 here and
`elsewhere, is consistent with beamforming and that there's no
`specific type of beamforming that's required by the claims.
` JUDGE MCKONE: Okay. Thank you.
`14
`
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`
`PGR2020-00079
`Patent 10,728,653 B2
` MR. HIGH: Okay. So moving, slide 13, again, the
`same limitation is indisputably disclosed by Beaucoup.
`Beaucoup discloses a circular microphone array that includes
`six equally-spaced directional microphones. So skipping ahead
`now to slide 17, a ceiling tile combined with a beamforming
`microphone array, the CTG System includes a ceiling tile
`combined with a microphone array.
` The image on the left, from the CTG manual, shows
`how one of the CM-01 microphones from CTG is installed in a
`ceiling tile and the image on the right shows 2 of these
`microphones combined into the ceiling tile.
` Slide 18 now, for ground -- ground 7, the asserted
`combination relies on Beaucoup's disclosure of a beamforming
`microphone array and based on how the CTG System teaches
`combining its microphones with a single ceiling tile a person
`of ordinary skill would've found it obvious to combine a body
`with a beamforming microphone array and a DSP that is
`disclosed in Beaucoup with a single ceiling tile. Skipping
`ahead to slide 21 now --
` JUDGE MCKONE: [inaudible] --
` MR. HIGH: Sorry.
` JUDGE MCKONE: -- but I -- I will note that there is
`a dispute as to what you presented in the Petition as far as
`what your combination with CTG System and Beaucoup actually
`was. I -- I -- I will let you proceed, but I -- I do want to
`note that -- that by doing so, I'm not acknowledging that
`that is -- what -- what you're presenting now is in fact what
`15
`
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`
`PGR2020-00079
`Patent 10,728,653 B2
`you presented in the Petition.
` MR. HIGH: Un- -- understood. I -- I think our
`Petitioner Reply lays out why we think the argument that
`we're presenting here is consistent with what we stated in
`our Reply and I would note just to get in front of that
`argument, which I'm sure Patent Owner is going to make, that
`there is Federal Circuit case law that is consistent with the
`idea that, you know, a -- a reply brief that further expands
`on explaining an obviousness ground that was included in a --
`in a Petition is not untimely evidence here.
` And the Petition, I -- I think, is consistent with
`the arguments that we're making, both in our Petitioner Reply
`as well as here today. I'm happy to answer any questions you
`have about that, but --
` JUDGE MCKONE: No. I'm -- I'm -- I'm not sure that
`the Federal Circuit would -- their case law would extend to a
`-- a case not properly presented in the Petition and fixed in
`the Reply, but -- but we can -- I -- I can let you proceed
`here and -- and we'll see where it goes.
` MR. HIGH: Okay. Yes, Your Honor. So moving to slide
`21 now, I'll -- I'll add- -- address the -- the reasons to
`combine here and as I mentioned earlier, Clear- -- ClearOne
`doesn't dispute that it would've been obvious to combine the
`CTG System and Levit. So I'm just going to focus on the CTG
`System and Beaucoup combination here with respect to the
`combining a ceiling tile and a beamforming microphone array.
` In slide 22, Dr. Vipperman explained that a person
`16
`
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`
`PGR2020-00079
`Patent 10,728,653 B2
`of ordinary skill would've been motivated to combine the CTG
`System and Beaucoup to rely on Beaucoup's digital signal
`processer with a beamforming acoustic echo cancellation and
`noise cancellation or de-reverberation functionality and
`Beaucoup's arrangement of microphones in a single body.
` And again, this is a -- a familiar combination here
`that the patent admits that beamforming was known and even
`beamforming microphone arrays on the ceiling [inaudible] and
`Beaucoup discloses that its DSP executes a beamforming
`algorithm to steer the omnidirectional microphone toward the
`top. Slide 23 --
` JUDGE MCKONE: All right. So the -- the -- I -- I'm
`not -- I'm not sure that -- that -- that this paragraph 207
`provides the -- the why that we might be looking for for
`combining. I mean, you -- you have highlighted ease of
`installation and reduction and potential noise, but that --
`that seems likely the feature in CTG System to begin with.
` At the bottom, you have highlighted a person of
`ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that this
`functionally could efficiently and compactly be implemented,
`but we're looking for why it would have. Could you give us
`some -- some insight into why the skilled artisan would've made
`this combination?
` MR. HIGH: Sure. And -- and I can skip ahead to --
`to slide 24 here, this is Dr. Vipperman's first declaration,
`Exhibit 1002, where he's quoting a -- a CTG white paper that
`was available before the -- the priority date of the ’653
`17
`
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`
`PGR2020-00079
`Patent 10,728,653 B2
`Patent, that's undisputed, where this white paper lays out
`several benefits to incorporating microphones on the ceiling
`here. And so Beaucoup's system is -- is --
` JUDGE MCKONE: So these -- the- -- these are
`benefits that are already present in the CTG System. Why is
`this a reason to modify the CTG System with a different
`microphone or a different array of microphones or however you
`want to phrase it?
` MR. HIGH: So Your Honor, I -- I don't think that
`ClearOne can have it both ways here. They're arguing that the
`CTG System doesn't do beamforming.
` They're arguing that the CTG System does what's
`called source tracking and Dr. Begault, in his dec- -- or
`sorry, in his deposition, which is Exhibit 1038 in this
`proceeding, he identifies several advantages that a
`beamforming microphone array would have to a source tracking
`system here, specifically, that it can create a very
`directional beam and control the direction and width of the
`beam and -- and this is from Page 175 starting at line
`17, Page 176, line 20.
` And he identifies three advantages there that a
`beamforming microphone array has over source tracking. So,
`you know, we don't agree that -- that ClearOne is correct,
`that CTG doesn't do beamforming, but if ClearOne is correct
`that CTG does not do beamforming, there is many reasons why
`you would modify that system so that you would have that
`beamforming capability within a ceiling tile.
`18
`
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`
`PGR2020-00079
`Patent 10,728,653 B2
` And going back to slide 23, all -- all of these
`technologies are well known and the advantages to beamforming
`are well known. And -- and so I think that the technologies
`are -- are easily combinable. The patent itself admits that -
`- that ceiling-mounted beamforming microphone arrays were
`known in the prior art.
` And so the question of -- of whether there was a --
`a motivation to combine here, I think, is answered by -- by
`the admission from the patent itself, that these technologies
`were known and -- and [inaudible].
` JUDGE MCKONE: No. We're --
`we're looking at evidence here that was presented with the
`Petition and if I remember correctly, Beaucoup was not added
`for the -- the situation where CTG might be found not to
`perform beamforming, rather, Beaucoup was added, in one way,
`shape or form, to show that multiple microphones would be
`positioned in the same housing.
` So how -- how does Dr. Vipperman's testimony, you
`put it on -- on slide 24 -- how does that -- how can that be
`characterized as testimony that -- that shows that in the
`alternative, if we do not find CTG System shows beamforming,
`there would be reasons to add beamforming to it? It sounds
`like that is what the argument you're making now is. How is
`that supported by what was presented in the Petition?
` MR. HIGH: So if you look at the Petition as we're
`doing our limitation by limitation analysis, we specifically
`state alternatively to rely on Beaucoup's disclosures of
`19
`
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`
`PGR2020-00079
`Patent 10,728,653 B2
`beamforming there. So I -- I think what -- what we're saying
`there is ground seven is an alternative ground that -- that
`is the line in Beaucoup's disclosures of beamforming and
`CTG's disclosures of combining a microphone with a single
`ceiling tile.
` So I don't want to conflate grounds six and seven
`here. You know, we had an alternate argument in ground six
`where, you know, we said, you know, alternatively it would be
`obvious to place multiple microphones in a single ceiling
`tile. Ground seven was different. Ground seven was
`specifically relying on the beamforming microphone array
`that's disclosed in Beaucoup to -- to provide that
`beamforming microphone array that includes beamforming.
` JUDGE MCKONE: Okay.
` MR. HIGH: So I'll -- I'll skip ahead now and I want
`to jump quickly to start addressing ClearOne's arguments.
`ClearOne makes this argument that a single -- a ceiling tile
`should be construed to mean a single ceiling tile.
` We think that's inconsistent, both with the general
`rule that “a”, it means one or more and it's inconsistent with
`the Federal Circuit case law that says excluding embodiments
`from the specification or it is favored and we'll rest on our
`-- our papers explaining why we think both of these figures,
`from the -- the ’653 Patent that are presented on slide 26
`here, are -- are both fairly characterized as a -- a
`beamforming microphone array combined with a ceiling tile.
` Slide 27, we've addressed this. So I'll skip ahead
`20
`
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`
`PGR2020-00079
`Patent 10,728,653 B2
`and go to -- to slide 28 and I just want to point out that
`Dr. Begault's original declaration, he -- he stated that his
`position was CTG System does not do beamforming because
`essentially, we don't know the distances between the
`microphones and in Dr. Vipperman's explained, it explained
`why that's wrong.
` We included several paragraphs explaining how you
`could do what -- what he referred to as blind or geometry
`agnostic beamforming.
` JUDGE MCKONE: So D- -- Dr. Vipperman doesn't know
`if that's what CTG System is actually doing; correct?
` MR. HIGH: Correct.
` JUDGE MCKONE: Okay. Thank you.
` MR. HIGH: Okay. So I want to point out that slide
`29 here, a beamforming microphone, is -- is included in the -
`- in the specification as a -- an -- this nonlimiting
`definition here that says it's used in its broadest sense
`where a beamforming microphone may refer to, but it says one
`or more omnidirectional microphones coupled together that are
`used with a digital signal processing algorithm to form a
`directional pickup pattern it could be different from the
`directional pickup pattern of any individual omnidirectional
`microphone in the array.
` An -- an omnidirectional microphone has an
`omnidirectional pickup pattern, which basically means that it
`-- it has equal sensitivity in all directions.
` And so as long as the pickup pattern is different
`21
`
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`
`PGR2020-00079
`Patent 10,728,653 B2
`from that, it -- it meets the -- the broad description of
`beamforming in the patent and we explained in our papers here
`why this -- in -- in slide 3, this figure on the left, we
`think, is a fairly characterized, based on Dr. Begault's
`description, of how it works as being con- -- being
`consistent with that broad description of beamforming.
` Turning to slide 31 now, ClearOne also makes this
`argument that the beamforming portion -- just the beamforming
`portion of the CTG System is secret and therefore, not prior
`art and -- and we just want to point out that, you know,
`there's no requirement that the algorithm itself be public
`for the on-sale bar to apply as well as there's no
`concealment from CTG here that its FS Series mixers included
`beamforming, because it's stamped on the product and -- and
`described in the correspond
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
