IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
`WACO DIVISION
`§
`
`§
`Case No. 6:21-cv-00984-ADA
`§
`
`JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`§
`§
`
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`
`
`
`
`v.
`
`
`APPLE INC.,
`
`
`Defendant.
`
`Case 6:21-cv-00984-ADA Document 63-1 Filed 06/15/22 Page 1 of 54
`
`
`JAWBONE INNOVATIONS, LLC,
`
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`
`DECLARATION OF DONALD R. BROWN, PH.D. IN SUPPORT OF
`PLAINTIFF JAWBONE INNOVATIONS, LLC’S MARKMAN BRIEF
`
`1.
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`I, Donald R. Brown, do hereby declare as follows:
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`I have been retained by Fabricant LLP., counsel for Jawbone Innovations, LLC
`
`(“Jawbone”), as an expert in the lawsuit captioned above.
`
`I have reviewed U.S. Patent Nos. 8,019,091, 8,280,072, 7,246,058, 10,779,080,
`
`11,122,357, 8,467,543, 8,321,213, 8,326,611, and 8,503,691 (the “Asserted Patents” or
`
`“Patents-in-Suit”), the prosecution file history for the Patents-in-Suit, and the parties’
`
`proposed claim construction of the terms for the Patents-in-Suit. I have also reviewed
`
`Apple Inc.’s Opening Claim Construction Brief, and the exhibits thereto, including the
`
`Declaration of Cliff Reader, Ph.D.
`
`QUALIFICATIONS
`
`I received my Bachelor’s and Master’s degrees in Electrical Engineering from the
`
`University of Connecticut in 1992 and 1996, respectively. I received my Ph.D. degree in
`
`Electrical Engineering from Cornell University in 2000. I am currently a Professor and the
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00984-ADA Document 63-1 Filed 06/15/22 Page 2 of 54
`
`Head of the Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering at Worcester Polytechnic
`
`Institute in Worcester, Massachusetts. In this position, I am responsible for conducting
`
`novel research, teaching undergraduate and graduate courses, and for certain administrative
`
`tasks.
`
`4.
`
`I was a development engineer at General Electric from May 1992 to December 1996.
`
`During this period, I worked on several projects including circuit design, embedded
`
`systems design, software and firmware development, communication system design,
`
`sensor systems and networks, user interface design, and product commercialization. In
`
`1997, I left General Electric to pursue my Ph.D. degree at Cornell University which I
`
`completed in May 2000. Since August 2000, I have been a faculty member at Worcester
`
`Polytechnic Institute.
`
`5.
`
`During my academic career, I have taught undergraduate-level and graduate-level courses
`
`and advised dozens of student projects in the areas of signal processing, sensor systems,
`
`microprocessor system design, software and firmware development, communication
`
`systems, digital communications, wired and wireless networking, and signal detection and
`
`estimation. I have authored or co-authored more than 110 original articles in the fields of
`
`communication systems, networking, signal processing, synchronization, and information
`
`theory, including several highly cited articles on signal processing and distributed wireless
`
`communication systems. I have also authored or co-authored four book chapters on
`
`subjects related to signal processing, synchronization, and low-latency networking. I have
`
`received significant funding from the National Science Foundation (NSF), the Defense
`
`Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA), and Bose, Inc. in support of my research.
`
`I was elected a Senior Member of the Institute for Electrical and Electronics Engineers
`
`-2-
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00984-ADA Document 63-1 Filed 06/15/22 Page 3 of 54
`
`(IEEE) in 2009 for contributions to signal processing and communication systems.
`
`6.
`
`Among my various research subjects, I have advised projects and authored original papers
`
`on acoustic signal processing. One example is my work on distributed acoustic
`
`beamforming which resulted in a 2010 conference paper titled “An Experimental Study of
`
`Acoustic Distributed Beamforming Using Round-Trip Carrier Synchronization”. Another
`
`example is my work on novel a novel speech sensor for high noise environments which
`
`was reported in a 2005 journal article entitled “Measuring glottal activity during voiced
`
`speech using a tuned electromagnetic resonating collar sensor.” Other examples of my
`
`peer-reviewed papers on the subjects of signal processing, beamforming, and speech
`
`processing can be found in my Curriculum Vitae, attached as Exhibit A.
`
`7.
`
`I have worked as a consultant on a variety of projects since receiving my Ph.D. These
`
`projects have included the development of sensor systems and signal processing techniques
`
`for a wide range of applications including precise synchronization and localization of
`
`mobile devices through novel sensor fusion techniques. I have also served as an expert
`
`witness on several occasions and have performed extensive code reviews in patent
`
`litigation cases.
`
`8.
`
`I have served on several government expert panels for the National Science Foundation.
`
`From 2016-2018, I also served the National Science Foundation as a Program Director. I
`
`was responsible for managing a $20 million annual award budget and a diverse portfolio
`
`of projects addressing cutting-edge problems in signal processing, information theory,
`
`wireless communications, and networking.
`
`9.
`
`I am a co-inventor on three issued patents, U.S. Patents Nos. 5,867,669, 5,862,391, and
`
`8,634,405, and on two additional U.S. Patent Applications.
`
`-3-
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00984-ADA Document 63-1 Filed 06/15/22 Page 4 of 54
`
`10.
`
`In summary, I have more than 30 years of experience as an Electrical Engineer with a broad
`
`background in sensor systems, signal processing, embedded systems design, software and
`
`firmware development, and wireless communication systems.
`
`11.
`
`A detailed record of my professional qualifications is set forth in the attached Exhibit A,
`
`which is my Curriculum Vitae, including a list of publications, awards, research grants,
`
`and professional activities. My Curriculum Vitae also lists the depositions, hearings, and
`
`trial at which I have testified. I am being compensated $600 per hour for my work in
`
`connection with this case. My compensation is in no way related to the outcome of this
`
`litigation. If called as a witness, I would testify as to the statements and opinions contained
`
`3.
`
`12.
`
`in this report.
`
`LEGAL UNDERSTANDING
`
`I am not an attorney or a legal expert, and I offer no opinions on the law. I have been
`
`informed of the relevant legal principles by counsel for the Plaintiff in preparation for
`
`forming the opinions set forth in this Declaration. Below I provide those principles relevant
`
`to this Declaration, as explained to me by counsel for Plaintiff and as I understand them. I
`
`have applied these principles in reaching my opinions discussed herein.
`
`3.1. Claim Construction
`
`13.
`
`I understand that claim terms should be given their ordinary and customary meaning within
`
`the context of the patent in which the terms are used, i.e., the meaning that the term would
`
`have to a person of ordinary skill in the art in question at the time of the invention in light
`
`of what the patent teaches, unless it appears that the inventors were using them to mean
`
`something else. Additionally, the specification and prosecution history must be consulted
`
`to confirm whether the patentee has acted as his/her own lexicographer (i.e., provided
`
`-4-
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00984-ADA Document 63-1 Filed 06/15/22 Page 5 of 54
`
`special meaning to any disputed terms), or intentionally disclaimed, disavowed, or
`
`surrendered any claim scope.
`
`14.
`
`I understand that a person of ordinary skill in the art is deemed to read a claim term not
`
`only in the context of the particular claim in which the disputed term appears, but also in
`
`the context of the entire patent, including the specification and the prosecution history. The
`
`prosecution file history provides evidence of how both the Patent Office and the inventors
`
`understood the terms of the patent, particularly in light of what was known in the prior art.
`
`Further, where the specification describes a claim term broadly, arguments and
`
`amendments made during prosecution may require a narrower interpretation. For these
`
`reasons, the words of the claim must be interpreted in view of, and be consistent with, the
`
`entire specification. The specification is the primary basis for construing the claims and
`
`provides a safeguard such that correct constructions closely align with the specification.
`
`Ultimately, the interpretation to be given a term can only be determined and confirmed
`
`with a full understanding of what the inventors actually invented and intended to envelop
`
`with the claim as set forth in the patent itself.
`
`15.
`
`I understand that, to determine how a person of ordinary skill would understand a claim
`
`term, one should look to those sources available that show what a person of skill in the art
`
`would have understood disputed claim language to mean. Such sources include the words
`
`of the claims themselves, the remainder of the patent’s specification, the prosecution
`
`history of the patent (all considered “intrinsic” evidence), and “extrinsic” evidence
`
`concerning relevant scientific principles, the meaning of technical terms, and the state of
`
`the art. I understand that one looks primarily to the intrinsic patent evidence, but extrinsic
`
`evidence may also be useful in interpreting patent claims when the intrinsic evidence itself
`
`-5-
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00984-ADA Document 63-1 Filed 06/15/22 Page 6 of 54
`
`is insufficient.
`
`16.
`
`Additionally, the context in which a term is used in the Asserted Claims can be highly
`
`instructive. Likewise, other claims of the patent in question, both asserted and not asserted,
`
`can inform the meaning of a claim term. For example, because claim terms are normally
`
`used consistently throughout the patent, the usage of a term in one claim can often
`
`illuminate the meaning of the same term in other claims. Differences among claims can
`
`also be a useful guide in understanding the meaning of particular claim terms.
`
`17.
`
`I understand that, while intrinsic evidence is of primary importance, extrinsic evidence,
`
`e.g., all evidence external to the patent and prosecution history, including expert and
`
`inventor testimony, dictionaries, and learned treatises, can also be considered. For
`
`example, technical dictionaries may help one better understand the underlying technology
`
`and the way in which one of skill in the art might use the claim terms. Extrinsic evidence
`
`should not be considered, however, divorced from the context of the intrinsic evidence.
`
`Evidence beyond the patent specification, prosecution history, and other claims in the
`
`patent should not be relied upon unless the claim language is ambiguous in light of these
`
`intrinsic sources. Furthermore, while extrinsic evidence can shed useful light on the
`
`relevant art, it is less significant than the intrinsic record in determining the legally
`
`operative meaning of claim language.
`
`3.2.
`
`Indefiniteness
`
`18.
`
`I understand that a patent term may be considered indefinite. I further understand that a
`
`term is to be considered indefinite if a person of ordinary skill in the art (POSITA) reading
`
`the term, in light of the specification and prosecution history of the patent, is not informed
`
`about the scope of the invention with reasonable certainty. Absolute precision, however,
`
`-6-
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00984-ADA Document 63-1 Filed 06/15/22 Page 7 of 54
`
`is not required — some amount of uncertainty about the meaning of the term is acceptable.
`
`19.
`
`I understand that the Supreme Court of the United States has instructed that in order for a
`
`claim to be definite, “a patent’s claims, viewed in light of the specification and prosecution
`
`history, [must] inform those skilled in the art about the scope of the invention with
`
`reasonable certainty.”1 The Supreme Court also warned that “the definiteness requirement
`
`must take into account the inherent limitations of language . . . Some modicum of
`
`uncertainty . . . is the price of ensuring the appropriate incentives for innovation.” The
`
`Court also stated that “a patent must be precise enough to afford clear notice of what is
`
`claimed, thereby apprising the public of what is still open to them.”2
`
`4.
`
`THE PATENTS AT ISSUE
`4.1. Description of the Patents-in-Suit
`
`20.
`
`The inventions of the Asserted Patents generally relate to noise suppression in acoustic
`
`signal processing.
`
`4.1.1. Description of ’091 Patent
`
`21.
`
`The ’091 Patent generally relates to “Acoustic noise suppression [] in multiple-microphone
`
`systems using Voice Activity Detectors (VAD).”3 In exemplary embodiments, “[a] host
`
`system receives acoustic signals via multiple microphones. The system also receives
`
`information on the vibration of human tissue associated with human voicing activity via
`
`the VAD. In response, the system generates a transfer function representative of the
`
`received acoustic signals upon determining that voicing information is absent from the
`
`
`1 Nautilus, Inc. v. Biosig Instruments, Inc., 134 S. Ct. 2120, 2129 (2014).
`
`2 Id. at 2123.
`
`3 ’091 Patent at Abstract.
`
`-7-
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00984-ADA Document 63-1 Filed 06/15/22 Page 8 of 54
`
`received acoustic signals during at least one specified period of time. The system removes
`
`noise from the received acoustic signals using the transfer function, thereby producing a
`
`denoised acoustic data stream.”4
`
`22.
`
`In exemplary embodiments, the ’091 Patent describes a denoising system which utilizes
`
`physiological information on voicing activity in concert with microphones:
`
`23.
`
`In exemplary embodiments, the ’091 Patent describes a noise removal algorithm that
`
`applies transfer functions to microphone signals based on voicing activity to remove noise:
`
`5
`
`24.
`
`For example, the ’091 Patent teaches that transfer functions may be utilized to remove
`
`6
`
`4 Id.
`
`
`
`5 ’091 Patent at FIG. 1; see also id. at 3:14-19.
`
`6 ’ 091 Patent at FIG. 2; see also id. at 3:20-5:36.
`
`-8-
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00984-ADA Document 63-1 Filed 06/15/22 Page 9 of 54
`
`noise from signals:
`
`25.
`
`For example, the ’091 Patent further describes noise removal algorithms that may be
`
`applied to a number of noise sources:
`
`7
`
`
`
`7 ’091 Patent at 5:13-37.
`
`
`
`-9-
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00984-ADA Document 63-1 Filed 06/15/22 Page 10 of 54
`
`26.
`
`For example, the ’091 Patent further describes noise removal algorithms in cases with
`
`multiple noise sources and multiple signal sources:
`
`8
`
`8 ’091 Patent at 5:38-64.
`
`
`
`-10-
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00984-ADA Document 63-1 Filed 06/15/22 Page 11 of 54
`Case 6:21-cv-00984-ADA Document 63-1 Filed 06/15/22 Page 11 of 54
`
`
`
`Nq(2)
`
`FIG.4
`
`9
`9
`
`The mostgeneral case involves multiple noise sources and
`multiple signal sources. FIG. 4 is a block diagram including
`front-end components 400 ofa noise removal algorithmofan
`embodimentin the most general case where there are n dis-
`tinct noise sources and signalreflections. Here, signal reflec-
`tions enter both microphones MIC 1 and MIC2. This is the
`most general case, as reflections of the noise source into the
`microphones MIC 1 and MIC2 can be modeled accurately as
`simple additional noise sources. For clarity, the direct path
`fromthe signal to MIC 2 is changed from H,(z) to H,,(z), and
`the reflected paths to MIC 1 and MIC 2 are denoted by H, , (z)
`and H,.(z), respectively.
`The input into the microphones now becomes
`
`M{2)=S(z)4S(2)Ho(Z)4N)(2A (2No(z)Aoiz +...
`N_AZ)H,{z)
`
`My(z)5S(2 Agel)4S(2 AplZ)+N(2G (ZN5{2)G(z)+
`..-¥,(2)G,{2).
`
`Eq. 9
`
`When the VAD=0,the inputs become (suppressing z again)
`
`M,,=N,H\+NoHo+ ...N,H,
`
`n
`My, =N,G,4NoGo+..Gy,
`
`10
`10
`
`9 Id. at FIG. 4.
`9 Id. at FIG.4.
`
`10 Id. at 6:42-64.
`10 Td. at 6:42-64.
`
`
`
`-11-
`-11-
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00984-ADA Document 63-1 Filed 06/15/22 Page 12 of 54
`
`27.
`
`For example, the ’091 Patent further describes the calculation and application of transfer
`
`functions based on determinations of whether voicing activity is present, e.g. based on a
`
`physiological VAD signal:
`
`11
`
`12
`
`11 Id. at 7:11-34.
`
`12 Id. at 7:46-60.
`
`
`
`-12-
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00984-ADA Document 63-1 Filed 06/15/22 Page 13 of 54
`
`28.
`
`For example, the ’091 Patent describes effective denoising with a range of VAD hardware,
`
`including an accelerometer-based VAD:
`
`4.1.2. Description of ’058 Patent
`
`13
`
`29.
`
`The ’058 Patent generally relates to “detecting voiced and unvoiced speech in acoustic
`
`signals having varying levels of background noise.”14 In exemplary embodiments, “[t]he
`
`systems receive acoustic signals at two microphones, and generate difference parameters
`
`between the acoustic signals received at each of the two microphones. The difference
`
`parameters are representative of the relative difference in signal gain between portions of
`
`13 ’091 Patent at FIG. 9.
`
`14 ’058 Patent at Abstract.
`
`
`
`-13-
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00984-ADA Document 63-1 Filed 06/15/22 Page 14 of 54
`
`the received acoustic signals. The systems identify information of the acoustic signals as
`
`unvoiced speech when the difference parameters exceed a first threshold and identify
`
`information of the acoustic signals as voiced speech when the difference parameters exceed
`
`a second threshold. Further, embodiments of the systems include non-acoustic sensors that
`
`receive physiological information to aid in identifying voiced speech.”15
`
`30.
`
`For example, the ’058 Patent describes the utilization of non-acoustic voiced speech
`
`activity detection sensors in concert with microphones, allowing for detection and
`
`classification of voiced and unvoiced speech:
`
`31.
`
`For example, the ’058 Patent describes the use of multiple microphones in concert with a
`
`16
`
`15 Id.
`
`16 Id. at 2:20-40.
`
`
`
`-14-
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00984-ADA Document 63-1 Filed 06/15/22 Page 15 of 54
`
`voice activity detector to denoise signals:
`
`
`
`17
`
`32.
`
`For example, the ’058 Patent describes a detection subsystem to detect voiced and unvoiced
`
`speech:
`
`18
`
`17 ’058 Patent at FIG. 3.
`
`18 Id. at 4:14-26.
`
`
`
`-15-
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00984-ADA Document 63-1 Filed 06/15/22 Page 16 of 54
`
`4.1.3. Description of ’543 Patent
`
`33.
`
`The ’543 Patent generally relates to “[c]ommunication systems . . . which use a number of
`
`microphone configurations to receive acoustic signals of an environment.”20 In exemplary
`
`19
`
`19 Id. at FIG. 4; see also 4:27-5:45.
`
`20 ’543 Patent at Abstract.
`
`
`
`-16-
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00984-ADA Document 63-1 Filed 06/15/22 Page 17 of 54
`
`embodiments, “[t]he microphone configurations include, for example, a two-microphone
`
`array including two unidirectional microphones, and a two-microphone array including one
`
`unidirectional microphone and one omnidirectional microphone. The communication
`
`systems also include Voice Activity Detection (VAD) devices to provide information of
`
`human voicing activity. Components of the communication systems receive the acoustic
`
`signals and voice activity signals and, in response, automatically generate control signals
`
`from data of the voice activity signals. Components of the communication systems use the
`
`control signals to automatically select a denoising method appropriate to data of frequency
`
`subbands of the acoustic signals. The selected denoising method is applied to the acoustic
`
`signals to generate denoised acoustic signals when the acoustic signal includes speech and
`
`noise.”21
`
`34.
`
`For example, the ’543 Patent describes systems with multiple microphones which suppress
`
`noise in noisy speech signals:
`
`35.
`
`For example, the ’543 Patent further describes the use of a VAD system in concert with
`
`22
`
`21 Id.
`
`22 Id. at 5:8-17.
`
`
`
`-17-
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00984-ADA Document 63-1 Filed 06/15/22 Page 18 of 54
`
`microphones:
`
`36.
`
`For example, the ’543 Patent describes the use of omnidirectional and directional
`
`microphones:
`
`23
`
`23 Id. at 5:42-57.
`
`
`
`-18-
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00984-ADA Document 63-1 Filed 06/15/22 Page 19 of 54
`
`37.
`
`For example, the ’543 Patent describes improved noise suppression by configuring one
`
`microphone to listen primarily for noise and a second microphone to listen primarily for
`
`speech:
`
`24
`
`24 Id. at 7:13-35.
`
`
`
`-19-
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00984-ADA Document 63-1 Filed 06/15/22 Page 20 of 54
`
`38.
`
`For example, the ’543 Patent describes the use of a directional microphone oriented away
`
`from the speaker to reduce the amount of speech captured by the noise microphone:
`
`25
`
`25 Id. at 7:37:57; see also 8:5-54.
`
`
`
`-20-
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00984-ADA Document 63-1 Filed 06/15/22 Page 21 of 54
`
`39.
`
`For example, the ’543 Patent further describes the use of directional microphones to listen
`
`for both speech and noise:
`
`26
`
`26 Id. at 9:13-33.
`
`
`
`-21-
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00984-ADA Document 63-1 Filed 06/15/22 Page 22 of 54
`
`40.
`
`For example, the ’543 Patent further describes the use of omnidirectional microphones to
`
`listen for both speech and noise:
`
`27
`
`
`27 Id. at 9:46-60; see also 9:62-10:21.
`
`-22-
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00984-ADA Document 63-1 Filed 06/15/22 Page 23 of 54
`
`28
`
`41.
`
`For example, the ’543 Patent describes the use of voice activity detection devices, such as
`
`GEMS sensors, skin-surface microphones, accelerometers, microphone-based VAD, and
`
`manually-activated VAD, in concert with speech and noise detecting microphones.29
`
`4.1.4. Description of the ’691 Patent
`
`42.
`
`The ’691 Patent generally relates to “dual omnidirectional microphone array noise
`
`suppression.”30 In exemplary embodiments, “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. The only null formed is one used to
`
`
`
`28 Id. at 11:1-25.
`
`29 See Id. at 11:40-14:38.
`
`30 ’691 Patent at Abstract.
`
`-23-
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00984-ADA Document 63-1 Filed 06/15/22 Page 24 of 54
`
`remove the speech of the user from V2. The two virtual microphones may be paired with
`
`an adaptive filter algorithm and VAD algorithm to significantly reduce the noise without
`
`distorting the speech, significantly improving the SNR of the desired speech over
`
`conventional noise suppression systems.”31
`
`43.
`
`For example, the ’691 Patent describes embodiments, including virtual microphones
`
`formed by combining the signals of physical microphones:
`
`44.
`
`For example, the ’691 Patent describes a two-microphone adaptive noise suppression
`
`system as depicted in FIG. 1:
`
`32
`
`31 Id.
`
`32 Id. at 3:40-52.
`
`
`
`-24-
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00984-ADA Document 63-1 Filed 06/15/22 Page 25 of 54
`
`45.
`
`For example, the ’691 Patent describes the generation of virtual microphones based on
`
`outputs of physical microphones:
`
`33
`
`33 ’691 Patent at FIG. 1; 5:63-8:24.
`
`
`
`-25-
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00984-ADA Document 63-1 Filed 06/15/22 Page 26 of 54
`
`34
`
`35
`
`46.
`
`For example, the ’691 Patent describes the generation of multiple virtual microphones
`
`34 Id. at 8:25-45.
`
`35 Id. at FIG. 3.
`
`
`
`-26-
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00984-ADA Document 63-1 Filed 06/15/22 Page 27 of 54
`
`based on the outputs of a two-microphone array:
`
`47.
`
`For example, the ’691 Patent further describes the use of virtual microphones for adaptive
`
`noise suppression in acoustic signals:
`
`36
`
`36 Id. at 8:46-58.
`
`
`
`-27-
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00984-ADA Document 63-1 Filed 06/15/22 Page 28 of 54
`
`48.
`
`For example, the ’691 Patent describes improved noise suppression with virtual
`
`microphones that have a similar response to noise and a dissimilar response to speech:
`
`37
`
`
`37 Id. at 10:26-42; see also id. at 10:43-11:20.
`
`-28-
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00984-ADA Document 63-1 Filed 06/15/22 Page 29 of 54
`Case 6:21-cv-00984-ADA Document 63-1 Filed 06/15/22 Page 29 of 54
`
`The V,(z) can be formulated using the general form for
`V,(z):
`
`V(z)=0,0, (2) “4—0,,0,(2)-2 8
`
`Since
`
`¥3{(z)=O,{z)-z"BO; {z)
`
`and, since for noise in the forward direction
`
`OoAz)=O; zz,
`
`then
`
`Vayk2)-O ywle)'2"2BO p42)
`
`V5,Az)-(1-B)Oytz)-29
`
`If this is then set equal to V,(z) above, the result is
`
`Pd)Oho)nOyl77UI = RYO gay
`(zyz*)
`
`thus we mayset
`
`Vi (z)=O\(z)-z*-BO2(z)
`
`
`
`The definitions for V, and V, above meanthat for noise H, (z)
`
`_ ~BOz(z) + O(z)-z 7
`~ On(2)— 27 BOVE)
`
`which, if the amplitude noise responses are about the same,
`has the form of an allpassfilter. This has the advantage of
`being easily and accurately modeled, especially in magnitude
`response, satisfying R2.
`This formulation assures that the noise response will be as
`similar as possible and that the speech response will be pro-
`portional to (1-$7). Since f is the ratio ofthe distances from
`O, and O,to the speech source,it is affected by the size ofthe
`array and the distance fromthe array to the speech source. 3
`Te et
`38
`
`
`38 Id. at 11:41-12:19; see also 12:20-17:46.
`38 Td. at 11:41-12:19; see also 12:20-17:46.
`
`-29-
`-29-
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00984-ADA Document 63-1 Filed 06/15/22 Page 30 of 54
`
`4.1.5. Description of the ’357 Patent
`
`49.
`
`The ’357 Patent is a continuation of U.S. Patent Application No. 12/139,133, which issued
`
`as the ’691 Patent, and includes the same disclosure.
`
`4.1.6. Description of the ‘072 Patent
`
`50.
`
`The ’072 Patent generally relates to noise suppression systems comprising arrays of physical and
`
`virtual microphones.
`
`51.
`
`The ’072 Patent is a continuation-in-part of U.S. Patent Application No. 12/139,133, which issued
`
`as the ’691 Patent, and includes similar disclosure to that discussed above.
`
`52.
`
`For example, the ’072 Patent describes several exemplary embodiments including three-
`
`microphone adaptive noise suppression systems:
`
`53.
`
`For example, the ’072 Patent further describes exemplary embodiments in which an array of
`
`physical microphones generate virtual directional microphones for improved noise suppression:
`
`39
`
`39 ’072 Patent at 10:31-43.
`
`
`
`-30-
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00984-ADA Document 63-1 Filed 06/15/22 Page 31 of 54
`
`
`
`40
`
`4.1.7. Description of the ’080 Patent
`
`54.
`
`The ’080 Patent generally relates to “dual omnidirectional microphone array noise suppression.”41
`
`In exemplary embodiments, “the array of an embodiment is used to form two distinct virtual
`
`40 ’072 Patent at 10:56-11:21.
`
`41 ’080 Patent, Abstract.
`
`
`
`-31-
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00984-ADA Document 63-1 Filed 06/15/22 Page 32 of 54
`
`directional microphones which are configured to have very similar noise responses and very
`
`dissimilar speech responses. The only null formed is one used to remove the speech of the user
`
`from V2. The two virtual microphones may be paired with an adaptive filter algorithm and VAD
`
`algorithm to significantly reduce the noise without distorting the speech, significantly improving
`
`the SNR of the desired speech over conventional noise suppression systems.”42
`
`55.
`
`For example, the ’080 Patent describes an array of physical microphones that may be used to
`
`generate a number of virtual microphones:
`
`43
`
`42 ’080 Patent, Abstract.
`
`43 4:52-67; see also 5:1-7:16.
`
`
`
`-32-
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00984-ADA Document 63-1 Filed 06/15/22 Page 33 of 54
`
`56.
`
`For example, the ’080 Patent further describes improved noise suppression with virtual
`
`microphones that include a substantially similar noise response:
`
`44
`
`
`44 Id. at 7:17-38; see also id. at 7:39-8:31.
`
`-33-
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00984-ADA Document 63-1 Filed 06/15/22 Page 34 of 54
`
`4.1.8. Description of the ’213 Patent
`
`45
`
`57.
`
`The ’213 Patent generally relates to methods and systems for acoustic voice activity detection
`
`(“AVAD”) using microphones to generate virtual directional microphones, and to use the ratio of
`
`energies between virtual microphones to generate a VAD signal.
`
`58.
`
`For example, the ’213 Patent describes embodiments configured with a two-microphone array of
`
`omnidirectional microphones to form two virtual microphones with a similar response to noise and
`
`dissimilar response to speech:
`
`
`45 Id. at 9:4-28; see also id. at 9:29-11:19.
`
`-34-
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00984-ADA Document 63-1 Filed 06/15/22 Page 35 of 54
`
`59.
`
`For example, the ’213 Patent describes embodiments in which ratio R is calculated between virtual
`
`microphones:
`
`46
`
`46 ’213 Patent at 4:13-43.
`
`
`
`-35-
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00984-ADA Document 63-1 Filed 06/15/22 Page 36 of 54
`
`
`
`47
`
`60.
`
`For example, the ’213 Patent describes embodiments in which the ratio R can be used with a
`
`detection system to determine when speech is occurring:
`
`47 ’213 Patent at 6:20-46.
`
`
`
`-36-
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00984-ADA Document 63-1 Filed 06/15/22 Page 37 of 54
`
`
`
`48
`
`4.1.9. Description of the ’611 Patent
`
`61.
`
`The ’611 Patent is a continuation of U.S. Patent Application No. 11/805,987, which issued
`
`as the ’213 Patent, and includes the same disclosure.
`
`LEVEL OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART
`
`It is my understanding that I must address the issues set forth in this Declaration from the
`
`5.
`
`62.
`
`48 ’213 Patent at 6:47-7:7.
`
`
`
`-37-
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00984-ADA Document 63-1 Filed 06/15/22 Page 38 of 54
`
`viewpoint of a person of ordinary skill in the art (“POSITA”) at the time of the invention
`
`to which the Asserted Patents pertain.
`
`63.
`
`It is my opinion that the person of ordinary skill in the art would have a Bachelor’s degree
`
`in in electrical engineering, computer engineering, or equivalent, with one to two years of
`
`experience in the area of real-time signal processing, including acoustic signal processing.
`
`Extensive experience and technical training may substitute for educational requirements,
`
`while advanced education might substitute for experience.
`
`64.
`
`I also understand that Jawbone contends the ’091 Patent claims priority to an invention
`
`date at least as of June 2000 and is further entitled to at least the priority date of its earliest
`
`application, U.S. Provisional Patent Application No. 60/219,297, with a filing date of July
`
`19, 2000.
`
`65.
`
`I also understand that Jawbone contends the ’058 Patent claims priority to an invention
`
`date at least as of June 2000 and is further entitled to at least the filing date of its earliest
`
`application, U.S. Provisional Patent Application No. 60/294,383, filed May 30, 2001.
`
`66.
`
`I also understand that the ’072 Patent is entitled to at least the priority date of its earliest
`
`application, U.S. Patent Application No. 10/400,282, with a filing date of March 27, 2003.
`
`67.
`
`I also understand that Jawbone contends the ’080 Patent claims priority to an invention
`
`date at least as of June 2005 and is further entitled to at least the filing date of its earliest
`
`application, U.S. Provisional Patent Application No. 60/934,551, filed June 13, 2007.
`
`68.
`
`I also understand that Jawbone contends the ’357 Patent claims priority to an invention
`
`date at least as of June 2005 and is further entitled to at least the filing date of its earliest
`
`application, U.S. Provisional Patent Application No. 60/934,551, filed June 13, 2007.
`
`69.
`
`I also understand that Jawbone contends the’543 Patent claims priority to an invention date
`
`-38-
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00984-ADA Document 63-1 Filed 06/15/22 Page 39 of 54
`
`at least as of June 2000 and is further entitled to at least the filing date of its earliest
`
`application, U.S. Provisional Patent Application No. 60/368,209, filed March 27, 2002.
`
`70.
`
`I also understand that Jawbone contends the ’691 Patent claims priority to an invention
`
`date at least as of June 2005 and is further entitled to at least the filing date of its earliest
`
`application, U.S. Provisional Patent Application No. 60/934,551, filed June 13, 2007.
`
`71.
`
`I also understand that Jawbone contends the ’213 Patent claims priority to an invention
`
`date at least as of June 2005 and is further entitled to at least the filing date of its earliest
`
`application, U.S. Patent Application No. 11/805,987 filed May 25, 2007.
`
`72.
`
`I also understand that Jawbone contends the ’611 Patent claims priority to an invention
`
`date at least as of June 2005 and is further entitled to at least the filing date of its earliest
`
`application, U.S. Patent Application No. 11/805,987 filed May 25, 2007.
`
`73.
`
`I understand that the relevant time period from which a person of ordinary skill in the art
`
`would evaluate the disclosure of the Asserted Patents is the priority date of each given
`
`Asserted Patent. I have applied the earliest priority date of each pa