Case 6:21-cv-00984-ADA Document 55-16 Filed 05/25/22 Page 1 of 56
`Case 6:21-cv-00984-ADA Document 55-16 Filed 05/25/22 Page 1 of 56
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`EXHIBIT 18
`EXHIBIT 18
`
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00984-ADA Document 55-16 Filed 05/25/22 Page 2 of 56
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
`WACO DIVISION
`
`
`Case No. 6:21-CV-00984-ADA
`
`PATENT CASE
`
`JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`
`JAWBONE INNOVATIONS, LLC,
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`APPLE INC.,
`
`Defendant.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`DECLARATION OF CLIFF READER, Ph.D.
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00984-ADA Document 55-16 Filed 05/25/22 Page 3 of 56
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`1.
`
`My name is Cliff Reader, Ph.D. I am over 18 years of age and, if I am called
`
`upon to do so, I would be competent to testify as to the matters set forth herein.
`
`2.
`
`I have prepared this declaration at the request of Defendants Apple Inc. and
`
`Google LLC (collectively, “Defendants”). I understand that the parties will be asking the Court
`
`to construe certain claim terms in U.S. Patent Nos. 7,246,058 (“the ’058 patent”), 8,019,091 (the
`
`“’091 patent”), 8,280,072 (“the ’072 patent”), 8,321,213 (the “’213 patent”), 8,326,611 (the
`
`“’611 patent”), 8,467,543 (the “’543 patent”), 8.503,691 (“the ’691 patent”), 10,779,080 (“the
`
`’080 patent”), and 11,122,357 (“the ’357 patent”) (collectively, the “Asserted Patents”).
`
`3.
`
`In this declaration, I give my opinions regarding the view of a person of ordinary
`
`skill in the art of certain terms in the claims of the Asserted Patents. This declaration is based on
`
`information currently available to me, and I am willing to testify on the topics addressed below.
`
`This case is ongoing, and I may supplement or amend these opinions based on the results of
`
`further analysis and in rebuttal to positions taken by the Plaintiff. Because this declaration is
`
`based on information currently available to me, I reserve the right to continue my investigation,
`
`to review documents and information that may be produced, and to consider declarations,
`
`briefing, and deposition testimony from future depositions in this case. Therefore, I reserve the
`
`right to supplement, expand, and/or modify my opinions as my investigation continues and in
`
`response to any additional information that comes to my attention, including matters raised by
`
`the Plaintiff and other opinions provided by the Plaintiff’s expert(s).
`
`II. QUALIFICATIONS
`
`4.
`
`Information concerning my professional qualifications, experience, and
`
`publications, and the matters in which I have served as an expert, are set forth in my current
`
`curriculum vitae, attached as Exhibit A. I highlight certain relevant experience below.
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00984-ADA Document 55-16 Filed 05/25/22 Page 4 of 56
`
`5.
`
`I am currently an independent consultant and I provide technical and marketing
`
`consulting services in the areas of digital imaging and digital video, including, for example,
`
`image and video & audio compression, audio/video transmission, and real-time processing and
`
`display. I have worked in this capacity since 2001. I have over forty-five years of work
`
`experience in digital video, audio, and imaging. My career includes technical work in areas of
`
`algorithm design, system design, and semiconductor chip design.
`
`6.
`
`I received my Bachelor of Engineering degree with Honors in 1970 from the
`
`University of Liverpool, England. I received my Doctoral degree in 1974 from University of
`
`Sussex, England. My Ph.D. thesis was on “Orthogonal Transform Coding of Still and Moving
`
`Pictures.” The research for my thesis was performed in residence at the Image Processing
`
`Institute, University of Southern California, Los Angeles. From 1970 to 1973, I performed my
`
`graduate research in video compression. I was one of the first to perform adaptive block
`
`transform coding and the first to apply this type of coding to video. This is described in my
`
`thesis and summarized in a 1975 SPIE paper. See Reader C, Intraframe and Interframe Adaptive
`
`Transform Coding, SPIE Vol. 66, 1975. These techniques underlie the audiovisual coding
`
`standards known as “MPEG” (Moving Picture Experts Group), and virtually all other video
`
`compression schemes today.
`
`7.
`
`From 1975 to 1989, I worked in the engineering field of real-time, interactive
`
`image and video processing and display. Applications included military imaging,
`
`reconnaissance imaging, medical imaging and earth resources imaging.
`
`8.
`
`In the early 1980s I taught “early bird” classes at Santa Clara University in the
`
`fundamentals of digital signal processing.
`
`
`
`2
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00984-ADA Document 55-16 Filed 05/25/22 Page 5 of 56
`
`9.
`
`In the 1990 timeframe, semiconductor technology passed a critical threshold that
`
`supported logic chips and attendant DRAM capable of processing digital video at real-time rates
`
`and costs for consumer devices. While employed by Cypress Semiconductor, I began
`
`developing a semiconductor chip to implement an audio, video and systems decoder for the
`
`emerging MPEG-1 standard. I designed a hierarchical architecture with an embedded ARM
`
`microprocessor running a real-time OS, controlling a programmable “video DSP” and dedicated
`
`hardware modules. My work included writing a software implementation of a complete MPEG-
`
`1 encoder and decoder. The encoder and decoder included a video encoder and decoder, an
`
`audio encoder and decoder, and a “systems” component for multiplexing, buffering and
`
`synchronizing the video and audio components. Subsequently, I worked on a similar project for
`
`the MPEG-2 standard at Samsung Semiconductor. Both projects included the videoconferencing
`
`application, which included the ITU series of speech codecs.
`
`10.
`
`I became an accredited member of the Moving Picture Experts Group (MPEG) in
`
`1990. From 1991 to 1992, I was the head of the US delegation to MPEG. I chaired the US
`
`ANSI subcommittee, and led the formation of US positions on the emerging video and audio
`
`standards. I was the chief editor of the MPEG1 standard, and wrote and edited all three parts of
`
`the standard (video, audio and systems).
`
`11.
`
`From 1990 to 1995, I was deeply involved in the development of the MPEG1 and
`
`MPEG2 audio coding standards. I participated in the development of what became the mp3
`
`audio standard, fostered the involvement of Dolby in the standardization process, and drove the
`
`MPEG2 audio standards development that led to the adoption of the AAC family of digital audio
`
`coding standards. The audio standards are based on a perceptual model of the human hearing
`
`process, and employ transform domain techniques to mask audio noise.
`
`
`
`3
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00984-ADA Document 55-16 Filed 05/25/22 Page 6 of 56
`
`12.
`
`I chaired the ITU implementation subcommittee that analyzed MPEG1 Audio
`
`(aka MUSICAM), Dolby AC3 and other proposed algorithms for cost of implementation.
`
`13.
`
`From 1992 to 1993, I was hired by CableLabs to be the technical expert for
`
`establishing the MPEG Patent Pool (now MPEGLA). In the course of creating a list of essential
`
`intellectual property to practice the standard, I reviewed approximately ten thousand abstracts
`
`and one thousand patents.
`
`14.
`
`In the early 2000s, I was an invited expert to the joint ISO-MPEG/ITU-VCEG
`
`committee developing the H.264/AVC video standard for videoconferencing and consumer
`
`video applications.
`
`15.
`
`In 2003, I was invited to chair the IPR Subgroup of the Audio Video coding
`
`Standard Workgroup of China (AVS). I was invited to lead formation of the AVS Patent Pool,
`
`for which I drafted the formal legal agreements and led negotiations with evaluated essential
`
`patent holders that led to the AVS1 and AVS2 patent pools. I am co-director of the AVS patent
`
`pools.
`
`16.
`
`In 2013, I was retained to analyze the contributions to the H.265/HEVC standard
`
`that were adopted into the final standard.
`
`17.
`
`I am an independent expert in this case. All of my opinions stated in this
`
`declaration are based on my own personal knowledge and professional judgment. In forming my
`
`opinions, I have relied on my education, experience, and knowledge regarding engineering,
`
`video/audio compression, audio/video transmission, signal and audio processing, real-time
`
`processing and display, system and algorithm design, and communications. I am being
`
`compensated $750 per hour for my work in connection with this case regardless of the outcome.
`
`III. MATERIALS AND OTHER INFORMATION CONSIDERED
`
`
`
`4
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00984-ADA Document 55-16 Filed 05/25/22 Page 7 of 56
`
`18.
`
`I have reviewed each of the Asserted Patents along with their file histories, the
`
`parties’ exchange of terms and proposed constructions, and the evidence identified therein. I
`
`have also considered the sources cited below as well as my over 45 years of educational and
`
`professional experience in research and development in the areas of engineering, video/audio
`
`compression, audio/video transmission, signal and audio processing, real-time processing and
`
`display, system and algorithm design, and communications. In addition to the documents cited
`
`within this declaration, materials I considered are listed in Exhibit B.
`
`IV. LEGAL FRAMEWORK FOR CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
`
`19.
`
`I am not an attorney or a legal expert, and I offer no opinions on the law. In
`
`preparation for forming the opinions set forth in this declaration, I have been informed of the
`
`relevant legal principles. I have used my understanding of those principles in forming the
`
`opinions stated in this declaration. Below I provide those principles relevant to this declaration
`
`as explained to me by counsel for Defendants and as I understand them.
`
`A. Plain and Ordinary Meaning
`
`20.
`
`I understand that the appropriate starting point for claim construction is the
`
`language of the claim, i.e., the numbered paragraphs toward the end of a patent. I understand
`
`that the claims define the patented invention and that claim construction must always remain
`
`centered on the language of the claim itself.
`
`21.
`
`I understand that claim terms are generally given their ordinary and customary
`
`meaning to a person of ordinary skill in the art (“POSITA”) in the relevant field and that the
`
`ordinary and customary meaning is determined, depending on the patent, at the time the patent-
`
`in-suit was filed or at the time of the invention.
`
`B. Intrinsic Evidence
`
`
`
`5
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00984-ADA Document 55-16 Filed 05/25/22 Page 8 of 56
`
`22.
`
`I understand intrinsic evidence to include the language of the claims, the
`
`specification of the patent (including the drawings), and the prosecution history of the patent and
`
`its family members (including the references cited and/or considered in the prosecution history).
`
`I understand the intrinsic evidence is the primary guide in determining the meaning of claims.
`
`For example, if there are two potential plain and ordinary meanings, the intrinsic evidence may
`
`confirm which of the two may be best applied to the term in question.
`
`23.
`
`I understand that there are two exceptions to the general rule that claim terms are
`
`construed according to their plain and ordinary meaning: 1) when a patentee sets out a definition
`
`and acts as his own lexicographer, or 2) when the patentee disavows the full scope of the claim
`
`term either in the specification or during prosecution.
`
`C. Extrinsic Evidence
`
`24.
`
`I understand that although the intrinsic evidence is the most important evidence in
`
`claim construction, extrinsic evidence may also be helpful in understanding the meaning of a
`
`claim term. I understand extrinsic evidence is all evidence other than intrinsic evidence,
`
`including, for example, inventor testimony, dictionaries, expert testimony, and learned treatises.
`
`While extrinsic evidence can shed useful light on the relevant term, it is less significant than the
`
`intrinsic record, and extrinsic evidence may be considered if it is consistent with (and not
`
`contradictory to) the intrinsic evidence.
`
`25.
`
`Because dictionaries, and especially technical dictionaries, endeavor to collect the
`
`accepted meanings of terms used in various fields of science and technology, I understand that
`
`they may be useful as a resource in determining the meaning of a particular term to a POSITA.
`
`D. Indefiniteness
`
`26.
`
`I understand that although absolute precision in claim language is not required, a
`
`claim term can be “indefinite” if its scope is not reasonably certain in light of the specification
`
`
`
`6
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00984-ADA Document 55-16 Filed 05/25/22 Page 9 of 56
`
`and prosecution history, meaning that it fails to provide sufficient clarity about the bounds of the
`
`term to a POSITA. I further understand that if a claim term can have multiple meanings, and the
`
`proper meaning depends solely on a person’s subjective opinion, it is indefinite.
`
`V. LEVEL OF SKILL OF ONE OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART
`
`27.
`
`I have been advised that a person of ordinary skill in the art is a hypothetical
`
`person to which the claimed subject matter pertains with the capability of understanding the
`
`scientific and engineering principles applicable to the pertinent art. I understand that the
`
`following factors may be considered in determining the level of ordinary skill: the type of
`
`problems encountered in the art; prior art solutions to those problems; the speed with which
`
`innovations are made; the sophistication of the technology; and the educational level of active
`
`workers in the field. I also understand that not every factor may be present and that one or more
`
`factors may predominate.
`
`28.
`
`I understand that the parties may have a dispute over the relevant timeframe for
`
`determining who is a POSITA. I understand that the timeframe for determining a POSITA could
`
`be as early as May 2001 to as late as October 2008 across the patents I have reviewed. In my
`
`opinion, this approximate seven-year difference in the timeframe does not materially change the
`
`qualifications of a POSITA, and based on the nature of the terms at issue, my opinions in this
`
`declaration would be the same regardless of the outcome of that dispute.
`
`29.
`
`In my opinion, a person of ordinary skill in the art at the relevant time would be a
`
`person with at least the equivalent of a bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering, computer
`
`science, audio engineering or a similar field and two years of experience in a relevant field, such
`
`as, acoustics, speech recognition, speech detection, signal processing, and/or designing
`
`microphone arrays. During the relevant time from May 2001 to as late as October 2008, I was at
`
`least a person of ordinary skill in the art.
`
`
`
`7
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00984-ADA Document 55-16 Filed 05/25/22 Page 10 of 56
`
`VI. OVERVIEW OF THE PATENTS
`E. The ’058 Patent
`
`30.
`
`The ’058 patent relates to speech recognition systems and methods for detecting
`
`voiced and unvoiced speech in acoustic signals having varying levels of background noise. ’058
`
`patent at Abstract. The speech recognition system in the ’058 patent includes a Non-Acoustic
`
`Sensor Voiced Speech Activity Detection (NAVSAD) system and a Pathfinder Speech Activity
`
`Detection (PSAD) system, collectively the Pathfinder system. Id. at 2:20-3:9. The NAVSAD
`
`and PSAD systems together include: (1) at least two microphones; (2) a voicing sensor that
`
`receives physiological information associated with human voicing activity; (3) and a processor
`
`coupled to the microphones and voicing sensor which identifies voiced and unvoiced speech, and
`
`noise. Id. at cl. 1.
`
`F. The ’072 Patent
`
`31.
`
`The ’072 patent claims methods for noise suppression using “microphone arrays
`
`and associated processing components.” ’072 patent at 2:38-40. Figure 4 illustrates one
`
`embodiment wherein the microphone array 410 comprises three physical omnidirectional
`
`microphones. A first virtual microphone is formed by combining signals from the first and third
`
`microphones. Id. at Fig. 15; 14:11-14. A second virtual microphone is formed by combining
`
`signals from the second and third microphones. Id. at Fig. 15; 14:13-16. The output signals
`
`from the first and second virtual microphones are combined to generate “denoised output
`
`signals.” Id. at Fig. 15; 14:19-23.
`
`
`
`8
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00984-ADA Document 55-16 Filed 05/25/22 Page 11 of 56
`
`
`
`32.
`
`The ’072 patent specification explains that the term “noise” means “unwanted
`
`environmental acoustic noise.” ’072 patent at 3:36-37. The specification also explains that the
`
`term “denoising” means “removing unwanted noise” from MIC 1, which the specification
`
`explains is a “general designation for a microphone that is more sensitive to speech than noise.”
`
`Id. at 3:34-42. “Denoising” also refers to the “amount of reduction of noise energy in a signal in
`
`decibels (dB).” Id. at 3:38-40. Figure 3 shows the results of an experiment using an
`
`embodiment. ’072 patent at 10:31-43. According to the specification, the results show that
`
`“clearly the technique is adept at removing the unwanted noise from the desired signal.” Id. at
`
`10:41-43. The “experiment” was carried out in a “sound room” with a live subject speaking “in
`
`the presence of complex babble noise.” Id. at 10:31-35. The top plot 302 is “the original noisy
`
`signal” and the bottom plot 302 is the “denoised signal . . . after adaptive Pathfinder denoising of
`
`approximately 8 dB and additional single-channel spectral subtraction of approximately 12 dB.”
`
`Id. at 10:35-43.
`
`
`
`9
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00984-ADA Document 55-16 Filed 05/25/22 Page 12 of 56
`
`
`
`G. The ’213 and ’611 Patents
`
`33.
`
`The ’213 patent is generally directed to “Acoustic Voice Activity Detection
`
`(AVAD) methods and systems” that “use microphones to generate virtual directional
`
`microphones which have very similar noise responses and very dissimilar speech responses.”
`
`’213 patent at Abstract. According to the ’213 patent, “[t]he ratio of the energies of the virtual
`
`microphones is then calculated over a given window size and the ratio can then be used with a
`
`variety of methods to generate a VAD signal.” Id.
`
`34.
`
`Specifically, the ’213 patent describes an AVAD system that “uses two physical
`
`microphones [] to form two virtual microphones,” where the physical microphones “include
`
`omnidirectional microphones.” Id. at 4:14-21. The ’213 patent also describes “the use of an
`
`adaptive filter to further minimize the speech response” of one virtual microphone, “thereby
`
`
`
`10
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00984-ADA Document 55-16 Filed 05/25/22 Page 13 of 56
`
`increasing the speech energy ratio used in PSAD and resulting in better overall performance of
`
`the AVAD.” Id. at 4:27-31.
`
`35.
`
`The ’611 patent shares a specification with the ’213 patent.
`
`H. The ’691, ’357 and ’080 Patents
`
`36.
`
`The ’691 patent is generally directed to “noise suppression systems, devices, and
`
`methods for use in acoustic applications.” ’691 patent at 1:15–17. Specifically, the ’691 patent
`
`discloses “dual omnidirectional microphone array devices, systems, and methods.” Id. at 3:38–
`
`39. According to the ’691 patent, “[c]onventional adaptive noise suppression algorithms . . .
`
`have used two or more microphones to sample both an (unwanted) acoustic noise field and the
`
`(desired) speech of the user,” which “have not been very successful for a variety of reasons, the
`
`most compelling being poor noise cancellation performance and/or significant speech
`
`distortion.” Id. at 1:21-46.
`
`37.
`
`The ’691 patent discloses “a dual omnidirectional microphone array (DOMA) that
`
`provides improved noise suppression.” Id. at 4:61–62. According to the ’691 patent,
`
`“[c]ompared to conventional arrays and algorithms, which seek to reduce noise by nulling out
`
`noise sources, the array of an embodiment is used to form two distinct virtual directional
`
`microphones which are configured to have very similar noise responses and very dissimilar
`
`speech responses.” Id. at 4:63–67. The ’691 patent discloses creating two virtual directional
`
`microphones using the combination of two physical omnidirectional microphones and associated
`
`signal processing.
`
`38.
`
`The ’357 patent is a continuation of the ’691 patent and shares a specification. The
`
`’080 patent has a specification that is similar to the ’691 with respect to the description above.
`
`VII. DISPUTED TERMS
`
`11
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00984-ADA Document 55-16 Filed 05/25/22 Page 14 of 56
`
`39.
`
`In this section, I give my opinions regarding the view of a POSITA of certain
`
`terms in the asserted claims of the Asserted Patents.
`
`A.
`
`The ’058 patent: The terms “the one receiver” and “the two receivers” in
`claim 1 are indefinite.
`
`40.
`
`Claim 1 of the ’058 patent recites:
`
`A system for detecting voiced and unvoiced speech in acoustic signals
`having varying levels of background noise, comprising:
`
`at least two microphones that receive the acoustic signals;
`
`at least one voicing sensor that receives physiological information associated
`with human voicing activity; and
`
`at least one processor coupled among the microphones and the voicing
`sensor, wherein the at least one processor;
`
`generates cross correlation data between the physiological information and an
`acoustic signal received at one of the two microphones;
`
`identifies information of the acoustic signals as voiced speech when the cross
`correlation data corresponding to a portion of the acoustic signal received at
`the one receiver exceeds a correlation threshold;
`
`generates difference parameters between the acoustic signals received at each
`of the two receivers, wherein the difference parameters are representative of
`the relative difference in signal gain between portions of the received acoustic signals; ….
`
`41.
`
`A person of ordinary skill in the art would not have known what was meant by the
`
`terms “the one receiver” and “the two receivers.” These terms lack an antecedent basis as there
`
`is no recitation of the term “receiver” in any earlier elements of the claim. It would not be
`
`evident to a person of ordinary skill in the art whether the term “the one receiver” refers to one of
`
`the microphones, the voicing sensor, or the processor. Indeed, the microphones “receive”
`
`signals, the voicing sensor “receives” signals, and the processor is coupled to the microphones
`
`and the voicing sensor, therefore it receives whatever the microphones and voicing sensor
`
`
`
`12
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00984-ADA Document 55-16 Filed 05/25/22 Page 15 of 56
`
`receive. In other words, all of these prior recited devices in the claim “receive” a signal. For the
`
`same reason, it is unclear what “the two receivers” refers to in the next element of claim 1.
`
`42.
`
`The specification does not clarify what a “receiver” means in the context of claim
`
`1. The term “receiver” appears in one paragraph of the written description of the ’058 patent, in
`
`the Background section. The written description states only that “speech from a human speaker
`
`is captured and transmitted to a receiver” and that “the receiver” can be “human or machine.”
`
`’058 patent at 1:26-33. The specification does not provide an intrinsic definition of “receiver”;
`
`indeed, the written description allows for a “receiver” to be “human or machine.” Thus, a person
`
`of ordinary skill in the art would have understood “receiver” to be a human or a machine
`
`component, which could include, for example, a microphone, a voicing sensor, or a processor.
`
`In addition, claim 2 of the ’058 patent recites “receivers,” which a person of ordinary skill in the
`
`art would have understood to include, for example, a microphone, a voicing sensor, or a
`
`processor.
`
`B.
`
`43.
`
`The ’072 patent: The term “less acoustic noise” is indefinite.
`
`I understand that a term is indefinite if, when read in light of the specification and
`
`the prosecution history, the claims fail to inform with reasonable certainty those skilled in the art
`
`about the scope of the invention. I also understand that when a term of degree is used in claim—
`
`such as “less” or “high,” one must ask whether the patent provides some standard for measuring
`
`that degree. If a claim uses a subjective term, like “unobtrusive manner” or “aesthetically
`
`pleasing,” one must look to the specification to see if it provides an objective boundary. Without
`
`a standard or objective boundary, the term fails to provide reasonable certainty about the scope
`
`of the invention and is therefore indefinite.
`
`44. With the above understanding of indefinite, in my opinion, the term “less acoustic
`
`noise” is indefinite. The term appears in claims 1, 2, and 9 of the ’072 patent. I have included
`13
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00984-ADA Document 55-16 Filed 05/25/22 Page 16 of 56
`
`claim 1 below, which uses the term in the same way as claims 2 and 9. I have bolded the term
`
`for emphasis.
`
`1. A method comprising:
`
`receiving acoustic signals at a physical microphone array
`and in response outputting a plurality of microphone signals from the physical
`microphone array;
`
`forming a virtual microphone array by generating a plurality of different signal
`combinations from the plurality of microphone signals, wherein a number of
`physical microphones of the physical microphone array is larger than a number of
`virtual microphones of the virtual microphone array; and
`
`generating output signals by combining signals output from the virtual
`microphone array, the output signals including less acoustic noise than the
`received acoustic signals.
`
`45.
`
`The claim gives the standard for “less acoustic noise.” The output signals should
`
`contain less acoustic noise than the received acoustic signals. The claim language does not
`
`explain however what is meant by “acoustic noise.” In the field of microphone technology and
`
`audio signal processing, “acoustic noise” is quite broad and has no standard meaning. For
`
`example, I note that the invention uses a processor. ’072 patent at 14:39-54 (“One or more
`
`components of the MA and/or a corresponding system or application to which the MA is coupled
`
`or connected includes and/or runs under and/or in association with a processing system. The
`
`processing system includes any collection of processor based devices or computing devices
`
`operating together, or components of processing systems or devices, as is known in the art”); id.
`
`at 4:1-7 (explaining that component 105 in Fig.1 consists of “processing or circuitry
`
`components” and that the “output of the noise removal component is cleaned speech, also
`
`referred to as denoised acoustic signals 107”). In my experience digital processing can be a
`
`source of noise. Consistent with my experience, the definition in the specification of “denoising”
`
`does not limit noise to sounds from the environment. The plain and ordinary meaning of
`
`
`
`14
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00984-ADA Document 55-16 Filed 05/25/22 Page 17 of 56
`
`“denoising” would include removal of “noise” generated as a byproduct of digital processing of
`
`the acoustic signals. In fact, the specification discusses Figure 3 using the term “denoised” in
`
`connection with digital processing using the Pathfinder program. Id. at 10:31-43. The example
`
`in Figure 3 as I understand it relates to filtering out noise from the environment and noise
`
`generated during digital processing.
`
`46.
`
`The claims do not use the term “denoising.” The claims use “less acoustic noise.”
`
`I explain above in the overview of the ’072 patent, the patent specification states that the term
`
`“noise” means “unwanted environmental acoustic noise.” ’072 patent at 3:36-37. Reading the
`
`definition of “noise” into the claim term “acoustic noise” leads to confusion: “acoustic unwanted
`
`environmental acoustic noise.” More confusion stems from the fact that it’s unclear how to tell
`
`the difference between environmental acoustic noise and unwanted environmental acoustic
`
`noise. The signals received from the physical microphone MIC1 that contain “unwanted noise”
`
`are not just the digital signals that are output from the real world analog sound waves—they
`
`include digital signals from the noise added by the physical microphones and the quantization
`
`noise added by the act of digitization.
`
`47.
`
`Although column 3 of the ’072 patent provides “meanings” for many terms, it
`
`does not provide a “meaning” for “acoustic.” The term acoustic is used ambiguously to the
`
`extent it is used in some contexts to refer to the analog real-world signals (e.g., ’072 patent at
`
`Fig. 14) and in other contexts where it refers to digital signals within the processing system (’072
`
`patent at 13:64-67).
`
`48.
`
`Similarly, “denoising” is used broadly to refer to the removal of unwanted
`
`environmental acoustic noise as well as noise added by the physical microphones and the
`
`quantization noise added by the act of digitization. For example, in Fig. 3, the “complex babble
`
`
`
`15
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00984-ADA Document 55-16 Filed 05/25/22 Page 18 of 56
`
`noise” was unwanted environmental acoustic noise. The specification does not explain how to
`
`identify the “complex babble noise” signal within the “received acoustic signals.” The
`
`specification also does not explain what is meant by “unwanted environmental acoustic noise.”
`
`Furthermore, as I already explained, Figure 3 refers to the reduction of environmental noise, as
`
`well as noise generated by digital processing, so Figure 3 is unhelpful in explaining the meaning
`
`of “less acoustic noise” if “acoustic noise” means “unwanted environmental acoustic noise” as
`
`Jawbone asserts. In my opinion, a person of ordinary skill in the art would not understand how
`
`to tell an unwanted acoustic noise from all the other environmental acoustic noise.
`
`C.
`
`The ’213 and ’611 patents
`1.
`
`The term “a relationship for speech” is indefinite.
`
`49.
`
`The term “a relationship for speech” occurs in independent claim 1 of the ’611
`
`patent, as well as independent claims 14 and 42 of the ’213 patent. Since the ’213 and ’611
`
`patents share the same specification, I will cite to the specification of the ’213 patent here for
`
`ease of reference.
`
`50.
`
`Claim 14 of the ’213 patent recites:
`
`A device comprising:
`
`a first physical microphone generating a first signal;
`
`a second physical microphone generating a second signal; and
`
`a processing component coupled to the first physical microphone and the second physical
`microphone, the processing component forming a first virtual microphone, the processing
`component forming a filter that describes a relationship for speech between the first
`physical microphone and the second physical microphone, the processing component
`forming a second virtual microphone by applying the filter to the first signal to generate a
`first intermediate signal, and summing the first intermediate signal and the second signal,
`the processing component detecting acoustic voice activity of a speaker when an energy
`ratio of energies of the first virtual microphone and the second virtual microphone is
`greater than a threshold value.
`
`
`
`16
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00984-ADA Document 55-16 Filed 05/25/22 Page 19 of 56
`
`51.
`
`In my opinion, a POSITA would not have understood the scope of “a relationship
`
`for speech” without any additional guidance or clarifications from the patents. The specification
`
`of the ’213 and 611 patents, however, does not contain any definitions or clarifications regarding
`
`the type or degree of the claimed “relationship.” Instead, the specification simply repeats
`
`verbatim the claim language itself. See, e.g., ’213 patent at 6:64-67, 30:25-37, 33:38-53. Thus,
`
`“a relationship for speech” is a vague term. Put differently, a POSITA would not have been able
`
`to ascertain the scope of the term “a relationship for speech” with reasonable certainty.
`
`2.
`
`The terms “approximately similar” and “approximately dissimilar”
`are indefinite.
`
`52.
`
`The terms “approximately similar” and “approximately dissimilar” occur in
`
`claims 2, 37, and 38 of the ’213 patent, and in claims 3, 4, and 29 of the ’611 patent. All the
`
`claims in which the terms appear are dependent claims. Each depends from an independent
`
`claim that requires the formation of a “first virtual microphone” and a “second virtual
`
`microphone.” The six dependent claims add the limitation that the first virtual microphone and