Case 6:21-cv-00984-ADA Document 88-1 Filed 08/25/22 Page 1 of 20
`Case 6:21-cv-00984-ADA Document 88-1 Filed 08/25/22 Page 1 of 20
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`EXHIBIT A
`EXHIBIT A
`
`

`

`
`
`Case 2:21-cv-00186-JRG-RSP Document 119 Filed 08/17/22 Page 1 of 19 PageID #: 8339Case 6:21-cv-00984-ADA Document 88-1 Filed 08/25/22 Page 2 of 20
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
`MARSHALL DIVISION
`JAWBONE INNOVATIONS, LLC,
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`
`Case No. 2:21-CV-00186-JRG-RSP
`
`SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO. LTD. and
`SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS AM., INC.
`
`Defendants.
`
`CLAIM CONSTRUCTION ORDER
`
`Jawbone Innovations, LLC, accuses Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. and Samsung
`
`Electronics America, Inc., (together, “Samsung”) of infringing claims of U.S. Patents 7,246,058
`
`(the “’058 Patent”); 8,019,091 (the “’091 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”). Each of these
`
`patents relates to noise suppression in acoustic signal processing.
`
`The parties present seven disputes about claim scope. Having considered the parties’
`
`briefing, along with arguments of counsel during an August 2, 2022 hearing, the Court resolves
`
`the disputes as follows.
`
`I.
`
`LEGAL STANDARDS
`
`A.
`
`Generally
`
`“‘[T]he claims of a patent define the invention to which the patentee is entitled the right to
`
`exclude.’” Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1312 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc) (quoting
`
`Innova/Pure-Water, Inc. v. Safari Water Filtration Sys., Inc., 381 F.3d 1111, 1115 (Fed. Cir. 2004)).
`
`As such, if the parties dispute the scope of the claims, the court must determine their meaning. See,
`
`e.g., Verizon Servs. Corp. v. Vonage Holdings Corp., 503 F.3d 1295, 1317 (Fed. Cir. 2007); see
`
`1
`
`

`

`
`
`Case 2:21-cv-00186-JRG-RSP Document 119 Filed 08/17/22 Page 2 of 19 PageID #: 8340Case 6:21-cv-00984-ADA Document 88-1 Filed 08/25/22 Page 3 of 20
`
`also Markman v. Westview Instruments, Inc., 517 U.S. 370, 390 (1996), aff’g, 52 F.3d 967, 976
`
`(Fed. Cir. 1995) (en banc).
`
`Claim construction, however, “is not an obligatory exercise in redundancy.” U.S. Surgical
`
`Corp. v. Ethicon, Inc., 103 F.3d 1554, 1568 (Fed. Cir. 1997). Rather, “[c]laim construction is a
`
`matter of [resolving] disputed meanings and technical scope, to clarify and when necessary to
`
`explain what the patentee covered by the claims . . . .” Id. A court need not “repeat or restate every
`
`claim term in order to comply with the ruling that claim construction is for the court.” Id.
`
`When construing claims, “[t]here is a heavy presumption that claim terms are to be given
`
`their ordinary and customary meaning.” Aventis Pharm. Inc. v. Amino Chems. Ltd., 715 F.3d 1363,
`
`1373 (Fed. Cir. 2013) (citing Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1312–13). Courts must therefore “look to the
`
`words of the claims themselves . . . to define the scope of the patented invention.” Id. (citations
`
`omitted). “[T]he ordinary and customary meaning of a claim term is the meaning that the term
`
`would have to a person of ordinary skill in the art in question at the time of the invention, i.e., as
`
`of the effective filing date of the patent application.” Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1313. This “person of
`
`ordinary skill in the art is deemed to read the claim term not only in the context of the particular
`
`claim in which the disputed term appears, but in the context of the entire patent, including the
`
`specification.” Id.
`
`Intrinsic evidence is the primary resource for claim construction. See Power-One, Inc. v.
`
`Artesyn Techs., Inc., 599 F.3d 1343, 1348 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (citing Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1312). For
`
`certain claim terms, “the ordinary meaning of claim language as understood by a person of skill in
`
`the art may be readily apparent even to lay judges, and claim construction in such cases involves
`
`little more than the application of the widely accepted meaning of commonly understood words.”
`
`Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1314; see also Medrad, Inc. v. MRI Devices Corp., 401 F.3d 1313, 1319 (Fed.
`
`2
`
`

`

`
`
`Case 2:21-cv-00186-JRG-RSP Document 119 Filed 08/17/22 Page 3 of 19 PageID #: 8341Case 6:21-cv-00984-ADA Document 88-1 Filed 08/25/22 Page 4 of 20
`
`Cir. 2005) (“We cannot look at the ordinary meaning of the term . . . in a vacuum. Rather, we must
`
`look at the ordinary meaning in the context of the written description and the prosecution history.”).
`
`But for claim terms with less-apparent meanings, courts consider “‘those sources available to the
`
`public that show what a person of skill in the art would have understood disputed claim language
`
`to mean[,] [including] the words of the claims themselves, the remainder of the specification, the
`
`prosecution history, and extrinsic evidence concerning relevant scientific principles, the meaning
`
`of technical terms, and the state of the art.’” Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1314 (quoting Innova, 381 F.3d
`
`at 1116).
`
`B.
`
`Indefiniteness
`
`“[A] patent is invalid for indefiniteness if its claims, read in light of the specification
`
`delineating the patent, and the prosecution history, fail to inform, with reasonable certainty, those
`
`skilled in the art about the scope of the invention.” Nautilus, Inc. v. Biosig Instruments, Inc., 572
`
`U.S. 898, 901 (2014). “A patent must be precise enough to afford clear notice of what is claimed,”
`
`but that consideration must be made while accounting for the inherent limitations of language. Id.
`
`at 908–09. “Indefiniteness must be proven by clear and convincing evidence.” Sonix Tech. Co. v.
`
`Publ’ns Int’l, Ltd., 844 F.3d 1370, 1377 (Fed. Cir. 2017).
`
`II.
`
`THE LEVEL OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART
`
`The level of ordinary skill in the art is the skill level of a hypothetical person who is
`
`presumed to have known the relevant art at the time of the invention. In re GPAC, 57 F.3d 1573,
`
`1579 (Fed. Cir. 1995). In resolving the appropriate level of ordinary skill, courts consider the types
`
`of and solutions to problems encountered in the art, the speed of innovation, the sophistication of
`
`the technology, and the education of workers active in the field. Id. Importantly, “[a] person of
`
`ordinary skill in the art is also a person of ordinary creativity, not an automaton.” KSR Int’l Co. v.
`
`3
`
`

`

`
`
`Case 2:21-cv-00186-JRG-RSP Document 119 Filed 08/17/22 Page 4 of 19 PageID #: 8342Case 6:21-cv-00984-ADA Document 88-1 Filed 08/25/22 Page 5 of 20
`
`Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 421 (2007).
`
`Here, the parties generally agree on the appropriate level of ordinary skill in the art.
`
`Jawbone, through its expert, contends a skilled artisan at the time of invention “would have a
`
`bachelor’s degree in . . . electrical engineering, computer engineering, or equivalent, with one to
`
`two years of experience in the area of real-time signal processing and signal processing for acoustic
`
`signals.” Brown Decl., Dkt. No. 67-1 ¶ 58. Samsung’s proffered skill level is similar: “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.” Dkt. No. 71 at 3 (citing Kiaei Decl., Dkt.
`
`No. 67-4 ¶ 26). Neither party contends the differences in their respective skill levels, if any, are
`
`material to resolving the disputes they present.
`
`III.
`
`THE DISPUTED TERMS
`
`A.
`
`“a signal processor coupled with the first and second microphone signals and
`operative . . . to apply a varying linear transfer function between the first and
`second microphone signals” (’357 Patent, Claim 1); “a processing
`component . . . applying a varying linear transfer function between the
`acoustic signals” (’080 Patent, Claim 14)
`
`Plaintiff’s Construction
`
`Defendants’ Construction
`
`Plain and ordinary meaning except for “transfer
`function”
`
`“a signal processor coupled with the first and
`second
`microphone
`signals
`and
`operative . . . to apply a varying linear transfer
`function to the first microphone signal and to
`apply the varying linear transfer function to the
`second microphone signal”
`
`Otherwise indefinite.
`
`These patents disclose “[a] dual omnidirectional microphone array (DOMA) that provides
`
`improved noise suppression” in a speech-communications system. ’357 Patent at 5:8–9; see also
`
`4
`
`

`

`
`
`Case 2:21-cv-00186-JRG-RSP Document 119 Filed 08/17/22 Page 5 of 19 PageID #: 8343Case 6:21-cv-00984-ADA Document 88-1 Filed 08/25/22 Page 6 of 20
`
`’080 Patent at 3:49–50 (same). Generally, they teach configuring two virtual directional
`
`microphones to have similar noise responses but dissimilar speech responses. See ’357 Patent at
`
`5:11–15; ’080 Patent at 3:52–56. The system then uses involved math and information from a
`
`voice activity detector (VAD)1 to reduce the noise in the signal without distorting the speech.
`
`See ’357 Patent at 5:16–21; ’080 Patent at 3:57–60.
`
`Fig. 1 of the ’357, ’691, and ’080 Patents
`
`The ’357 Patent describes a suitable algorithm with reference to Fig. 1. After explaining
`
`the math, the patent provides a formula for removing noise while leaving the original signal:
`
`S(z) = (M1(z) – M2(z) H1(z)) / (1 – H2(z) H1(z)),
`
`(Eq. 3)
`
`where M1(z) and M2(z) are the total acoustic information (i.e., noise and signal) received by MIC 1
`
`and MIC 2, respectively, and H1(z)) and H2(z) are transfer functions. ’357 Patent at 7:40–43.
`
`Equation 3 can be simplified in “well-performing systems” where “there is little or no leakage
`
`1 The ’091 Patent describes a typical VAD, which “uses physiological information to determine
`when a speaker is speaking.” See ’091 Patent at 3:39–50. In general, the VAD outputs a “0” when
`there is no speech and a “1” when speech is produced. Id. at 3:65–4:2.
`
`5
`
`

`

`
`
`Case 2:21-cv-00186-JRG-RSP Document 119 Filed 08/17/22 Page 6 of 19 PageID #: 8344Case 6:21-cv-00984-ADA Document 88-1 Filed 08/25/22 Page 7 of 20
`
`from the speech source into MIC 2” as:
`
`S(z) = M1(z) – M2(z) H1(z).
`
`(Eq. 4)
`
`Id. at 7:45–52.
`
`Each claim at issue seemingly uses this process by requiring a signal processor connected
`
`to two virtual microphones, with the processor then (1) filtering and summing the signals; (2)
`
`applying a transfer function, and (3) generating an output signal with attenuated noise relative to
`
`speech. For example, Claim 1 of the ’357 Patent requires first and second virtual microphones and
`
`a signal processor coupled with the first and second microphone
`signals and operative to combine the first and second microphone
`signals by filtering and summing in the time domain, to apply a
`varying linear transfer function between the first and second
`microphone signals, and to generate an output signal having noise
`content that is attenuated with respect to speech content.
`
`’357 Patent at 34:56–35:10; see also ’080 Patent at 36:3–11 (reciting “a processing
`
`component . . . applying a varying linear transfer function between the acoustic signals”).
`
`The parties’ dispute focuses on the “processor” limitation and, more specifically, the
`
`meaning of “apply[ing] a varying linear transfer function between” the signals. Jawbone suggests
`
`two separate transfer functions could be “applied,” one to each acoustic signal, or even that only
`
`one transfer function could be used. Dkt. No. 67 at 6. Samsung, on the other hand, contends this
`
`language means the same transfer function must be applied to each microphone signal. Dkt. No.
`
`71 at 5–6 (citing ’357 Patent at 8:27–39; ’080 Patent at 7:4–16).
`
`To support its position, Samsung relies on the last paragraph explaining Fig. 1, which
`
`describes an adaptive filter that “relies on a slowly varying linear transfer function between the
`
`two microphones for sources of noise.” Dkt. No. 71 at 6 (quoting ’357 Patent at 8:31–35). Samsung
`
`also relies on excerpts from Plaintiff’s expert’s deposition. Dkt. No. 71 at 6–7. Its construction
`
`6
`
`

`

`
`
`Case 2:21-cv-00186-JRG-RSP Document 119 Filed 08/17/22 Page 7 of 19 PageID #: 8345Case 6:21-cv-00984-ADA Document 88-1 Filed 08/25/22 Page 8 of 20
`
`“makes sense,” says Samsung, “because the noise removal block relates the signal and noise
`
`components of the two microphones at a particular time and uses that relationship to generate the
`
`denoised signal.” Id. at 7.
`
`Although the parties’ arguments focus on the word “between” in isolation, the parties’
`
`arguments are better understood to be addressing the issue of whether the phrase—“between the
`
`first and second microphone signals”—limits “transfer function” or “to apply.” Given the parties’
`
`arguments, the Court finds that the phrase limits “transfer function,” not “to apply.”
`
`Both intrinsic and extrinsic evidence support this conclusion, as does the parties’ agreed
`
`construction for “transfer function.” See Dkt. No. 67 at 4 (“a mathematical expression that specifies
`
`the relationship between an output signal and an input signal”). For example, in Equation 2, the
`
`output and input signals are the noise at MIC 1 (or M1N(z)) and the noise at MIC 2 (or M2N(z)),
`
`respectively, in a no-speech condition. See ’357 Patent at 6:45–60. Thus, H1(z) in Equation 2 is “a
`
`transfer function between the first and second microphone signals,” and the claims merely require
`
`that H1(z) (or some other transfer function “between the first and second microphone signals”) be
`
`applied. Moreover, when describing Fig. 1, the specification notes an adaptive filter that “relies on
`
`a transfer function between the two microphones,” ’357 Patent at 8:34–35, thereby explaining the
`
`nature of the transfer function being relied upon, not how to apply a transfer function.
`
`As for extrinsic evidence, other signal-processing patents use “transfer function between”
`
`in similar fashion. See, e.g., Abe, Kazutaka and Miyasaka, Shuji. “Signal Processor.” U.S. Patent
`
`10,560,782 (Feb. 11, 2020) at [57] (defining GYY as “a transfer function between the Y-side
`
`speaker and the Y-side ear” and GXY as “a transfer function between the X-side speaker and the
`
`Y-side ear” (emphasis added)); Ganeshkumar, Alaganandan. “Audio Signal Processing for Noise
`
`Reduction.” U.S. Patent 10,499,139 (Dec. 3, 2019) at 22:20–21 (“Such a pre-filter may model a
`
`7
`
`

`

`
`
`Case 2:21-cv-00186-JRG-RSP Document 119 Filed 08/17/22 Page 8 of 19 PageID #: 8346Case 6:21-cv-00984-ADA Document 88-1 Filed 08/25/22 Page 9 of 20
`
`nominal transfer function between an acoustic driver and one or more microphones” (emphasis
`
`added)); Liberti, Joseph C. and Chang, Nicholas. “Signal Jamming Suppression.” U.S. Patent
`
`9,577,785 (Feb. 21, 2017) at 12:57–62 (defining HRJ(f) as “[t]he total transfer function between
`
`jammer and a receiver node” (emphasis added; reference numbers omitted)).
`
`Finally, Samsung argues in the alternative that, if its construction is not adopted, the term
`
`is indefinite because a skilled artisan would not know which transfer function should be applied to
`
`which microphone signal. Dkt. No. 71 at 5. But the claim language itself informs what transfer
`
`function should be applied—either “a transfer function between the first and second microphone
`
`signals” or “a transfer function between the acoustic signals,” depending on the claim. Regardless,
`
`this alternative argument concerns breadth rather than indefiniteness. While the disputed phrase is
`
`broad in that it does not limit how or to what the transfer function is “applied,” that does not render
`
`it indefinite.
`
`In sum, the Court expressly rejects Samsung’s construction. Otherwise, this term will be
`
`given its plain and ordinary meaning.
`
`B.
`
`“response [to speech/noise]” / “linear response [to speech/noise]” (’357 Patent,
`Claims 1, 15, 17; ’080 Patent, Claims 1, 7, 9, 14; ’691 Patent, Claims 1, 3–7,
`23–34, 41–45)
`
`Plaintiff’s Construction
`
`Defendants’ Construction
`
`“output [in response to speech/noise]” /
`“output of a linear system [in response to
`speech/noise]”
`
`“[linear] sensitivity in the direction of
`[speech/noise]”
`
`These terms appear in claim language generally reciting the characteristics of virtual
`
`microphones. For example, Claim 1 of the ’357 Patent requires that “the first virtual microphone
`
`and the second virtual microphone are distinct virtual directional microphones with substantially
`
`similar responses to noise and substantially dissimilar responses to speech.” ’357 Patent at 34:65–
`
`8
`
`

`

`
`
`Case 2:21-cv-00186-JRG-RSP Document 119 Filed 08/17/22 Page 9 of 19 PageID #: 8347Case 6:21-cv-00984-ADA Document 88-1 Filed 08/25/22 Page 10 of 20
`
`35:2 (emphasis added).
`
`In their briefing, the parties dispute whether “response” is limited to a “directional
`
`response,” as shown in Figs. 9–13 of the patents, or whether “response” also includes a “frequency
`
`response” as shown in Fig. 14. See Dkt. No. 67 at 9 (alleging “Samsung’s construction would limit
`
`a ‘response’ to a ‘directional response,’ reading out the frequency responses discussed in the
`
`specification”); see also Dkt. No. 78 at 3 (asserting “the figures demonstrate that response includes
`
`both frequency response and directional response”).
`
`The Court agrees with Samsung. The patents clearly focus on the directional response of
`
`the system. For example, they describe “[a] dual omnidirectional microphone array . . . used to
`
`form two distinct virtual directional microphones which are configured to have very similar noise
`
`responses and very dissimilar speech responses.” ’357 Patent at 5:8–15 (emphasis added). The
`
`patents also repeatedly refer to “the response” of certain functions to speech as shown in polar
`
`patterns. See, e.g., id. at 12:55–56 (“The response of V1 to speech is shown in Fig. 11, and the
`
`response to noise in Fig. 12.” (emphasis added)); id. at 11:42–49 (explaining “Fig. 10 is a plot of
`
`linear response of virtual microphone V2”).
`
`In contrast, the patents do not explain how to differentiate noise from speech based on
`
`frequency response, nor do they use “the response” to mean “frequency response.” Jawbone’s
`
`briefing relies on Fig. 14 and Figs. 19–22 to suggest otherwise,2 but these figures and their related
`
`text simply explain acceptable tradeoffs for implementing the described methodology. See ’357
`
`Patent at 12:61–13:13 (explaining, with respect to Fig. 14, that using the disclosed method has a
`
`different frequency response relative to a normal directional microphone within a certain frequency
`
`2 Despite its briefing, during the hearing Jawbone indicated it did not assert this term encompasses
`frequency response.
`
`9
`
`

`

`
`
`Case 2:21-cv-00186-JRG-RSP Document 119 Filed 08/17/22 Page 10 of 19 PageID #: 8348Case 6:21-cv-00984-ADA Document 88-1 Filed 08/25/22 Page 11 of 20
`
`range, but “the superior noise suppression” of the invention “more than compensates”); see also
`
`id. at 15:47–60 (noting, with respect to Fig. 19, “the resulting phase difference clearly affects high
`
`frequencies more than low,” but “this system would likely perform well at frequencies up to
`
`approximately 8 kHz”); id. at 16:25–35 (explaining, with respect to Fig. 21, that a cancellation
`
`below about -10 dB for frequencies below 6 kHz means “an error of this type will not significantly
`
`affect the performance of the system”).
`
`That said, the Court rejects Samsung’s construction, which limits how the response must
`
`be determined rather than the scope of the “response” itself. See, e.g., Dkt. No. 71 at 9 (asserting
`
`“the response to speech or noise must be based on the sensitivity of the microphone in the direction
`
`from where the sound is coming from”); id. at 13 (claiming the intrinsic evidence “clearly
`
`demonstrates that ‘response’ to speech or noise (frequency or otherwise) is determined by the
`
`‘sensitivity in the direction’ from which the sound is received” (emphasis added, but original
`
`emphasis omitted)). Accordingly, the Court will give this term its plain and ordinary meaning,
`
`which does not include “frequency response.”
`
`C.
`
`“an adaptive noise removal application coupled to . . . and generating” (’080
`Patent, Claim 1)
`
`Plaintiff’s Construction
`
`Defendants’ Construction
`
`Plain and ordinary meaning.
`
`Indefinite
`
`This claim requires “a microphone array,” “a processing component coupled to the
`
`microphone array,” and “an adaptive noise removal application coupled to the processing
`
`component and generating denoised output signals[.]” ’080 Patent at 33:39–67.
`
`Samsung challenges the definiteness of this claim on two grounds. First, Samsung contends
`
`the claim mixes statutory classes by including a method step of “generating.” Dkt. No. 71 at 13–
`
`10
`
`

`

`
`
`Case 2:21-cv-00186-JRG-RSP Document 119 Filed 08/17/22 Page 11 of 19 PageID #: 8349Case 6:21-cv-00984-ADA Document 88-1 Filed 08/25/22 Page 12 of 20
`
`14 (relying on Rembrandt Data Techs. LP v. AOL, LLC, 641 F.3d 1331 (Fed. Cir. 2011)). Second,
`
`even if “generating” refers to a capability rather than a method step, the claim does not identify
`
`with reasonable certainty which component of the system has the capability. Id. at 15.
`
`A skilled artisan would recognize the “adaptive noise removal application” is a set of
`
`instructions residing in memory to be executed by the “processing component.” See
`
`https://www.yourdictionary.com/application (defining “application” as “of or being a computer
`
`program designed for a specific task or use) (last visited Aug. 5, 2022). This is consistent with the
`
`description and figures, which do not identify any physical structure associated with the
`
`“application.” See ’080 Patent at Fig.4 (item 402). Thus, the most natural understanding of the
`
`disputed language is a set of instructions for “generating denoised output” by forming, filtering
`
`and summing, and applying3 the transfer function. As such, this is not a mixed-class claim, and it
`
`is clear the application includes instructions to “generat[e] denoised output signals.” This term is
`
`not indefinite.
`
`D.
`
`“an adaptive noise removal application . . . generating denoised output signals
`by forming a plurality of combinations . . . by filtering and summing the
`plurality of combinations . . . and by a varying linear transfer function
`between the plurality of combinations” (’080 Patent, Claim 1)
`
`Plaintiff’s Construction
`
`Defendants’ Construction
`
`Plain and ordinary meaning; no construction
`necessary except for “transfer function”
`
`Indefinite
`
`The last limitation of the claim recites:
`
`an adaptive noise removal application coupled to the processing
`component and generating denoised output signals [1] by forming a
`plurality of combinations of signals output from the first virtual
`microphone and the second virtual microphone, [2] by filtering and
`summing the plurality of combinations of signals in the time
`
`3 See Part III.D. infra.
`
`11
`
`

`

`
`
`Case 2:21-cv-00186-JRG-RSP Document 119 Filed 08/17/22 Page 12 of 19 PageID #: 8350Case 6:21-cv-00984-ADA Document 88-1 Filed 08/25/22 Page 13 of 20
`
`domain, and [3] by a varying linear transfer function between the
`plurality of combinations of signals, wherein the denoised output
`signals include less acoustic noise than acoustic signals received at
`the microphone array.
`
`’080 Patent at 33:57–67. Samsung asserts the limitation is missing a verb in the third step between
`
`“a” and “by.”4 It claims there are at least four equally possible but different verbs, each of which
`
`results in a different scope for the phrase—“use,” “apply,” “rely,” and “determine.” Dkt. No. 71 at
`
`17–18. As such, says Samsung, the claim is indefinite.
`
`To start, neither “rely” or “determine” make sense in the context of the claim. The
`
`specification’s sole reference to “relying” on the transfer function is general in nature and does not
`
`specifically refer to the individual steps of the claimed method. See ’080 Patent at 7:7–12 (“The
`
`adaptive filter generally uses the signal received from a first microphone of the DOMA to remove
`
`noise from the speech received from at least one other microphone of the DOMA, which relies on
`
`a slowly varying linear transfer function between the two microphones for sources of noise.”). And
`
`simply “determining” the transfer function would not advance the recited goal of “generating
`
`denoised output signals” without more action.
`
`To achieve the “denoising,” one must “use” or “apply” the transfer function, and there is
`
`no significant difference in scope between those two verbs. Although Samsung insinuates
`
`differences in their meanings based on the testimony of Jawbone’s expert, see Dkt. No. 71 at 17,
`
`it does not proffer its own interpretation or explain the purported difference from a
`
`claim scope perspective.
`
`Ultimately, a skilled artisan would understand the recited transfer function must be applied
`
`to be useful, as recited elsewhere in the claims. See ’080 Patent at 36:4–11 (reciting, in Claim 14,
`
`4 Jawbone does not concede this point.
`
`12
`
`

`

`
`
`Case 2:21-cv-00186-JRG-RSP Document 119 Filed 08/17/22 Page 13 of 19 PageID #: 8351Case 6:21-cv-00984-ADA Document 88-1 Filed 08/25/22 Page 14 of 20
`
`a processing component “including an adaptive noise removal application . . . applying a varying
`
`linear transfer function between the acoustic signals, and generating an output signal” (emphasis
`
`added)). Accordingly the Court construes the last part of the disputed phrase as “. . . by applying a
`
`varying linear transfer function between the plurality of combinations of signals . . . .”
`
`E.
`
`“microphone” (’543 Patent, Claims 1, 26)
`
`Plaintiff’s Construction
`
`Defendants’ Construction
`
`Plain and ordinary meaning
`
`“physical microphone”
`
`The ’543 Patent teaches systems that use a microphone array to receive acoustic signals
`
`from an environment. Based on the received acoustic signals, the system selects an appropriate
`
`denoising method and applies that selected method to generate denoised acoustic signals. For
`
`example, Claim 1 requires:
`
`a denoising subsystem coupled to the voice detection subsystem, the
`denoising subsystem comprising a microphone array including a
`plurality of microphones, wherein a first microphone of the array is
`fixed at a first position relative to a mouth, wherein the first position
`orients a front of the first microphone towards the mouth, wherein a
`second microphone of the array is fixed at a second position relative
`to the mouth, wherein the second position orients a front of the
`second microphone away from the mouth such that the second
`position forms an angle relative to the first position, wherein the
`angle is greater than zero degrees, the microphone array providing
`acoustic signals of an environment to components of the denoising
`subsystem, components of the denoising subsystem automatically
`selecting at least one denoising method appropriate to data of at least
`one frequency subband of the acoustic signals using the control
`signals and processing the acoustic signals using the selected
`denoising method to generate denoised acoustic signals, wherein the
`denoising method includes generating a noise waveform estimate
`associated with noise of the acoustic signals and subtracting the
`noise waveform estimate from the acoustic signal when the acoustic
`signal includes speech and noise[.]
`
`’543 Patent at 24:2–37. Claim 26 includes the same limitation. Id. at 26:10–57.
`
`13
`
`

`

`
`
`Case 2:21-cv-00186-JRG-RSP Document 119 Filed 08/17/22 Page 14 of 19 PageID #: 8352Case 6:21-cv-00984-ADA Document 88-1 Filed 08/25/22 Page 15 of 20
`
`The parties dispute whether “microphone” in Claims 1 and 26 includes “virtual
`
`microphones,” which the parties agree comprise two or more omnidirectional physical
`
`microphones plus some signal processing. Dkt. No. 67 at 4 (reciting the parties’ agreement about
`
`the construction for “virtual microphone” as used in claims of other patents). Samsung cites
`
`extensive intrinsic evidence it contends supports its construction. Dkt. No. 71 at 19–21. Further,
`
`Samsung submits two dictionary definitions that define “microphones” as physical devices. Id. at
`
`23. But according to Jawbone, any type of microphone may be used. Dkt. No. 67 at16 (citing ’543
`
`Patent 6:44–7:26).
`
`Although Jawbone correctly notes there is no limiting definition or prosecution history in
`
`the specification, it fails to satisfy the threshold issue—that the plain and ordinary meaning of
`
`“microphone” to a skilled artisan at the time of invention would have included “virtual
`
`microphone.” Although Jawbone suggests the specification supports the notion that any type of
`
`microphone may be used, id. at 16 (citing ’543 Patent at 6:44–7:26), nowhere does the patent
`
`mention “virtual microphones” or describe something other than a physical microphone. At best,
`
`Jawbone offers intrinsic evidence consistent with its position, such as that the directivity patterns
`
`in the patent are also frequently found in virtual microphones, and the patent contemplates the use
`
`of unidirectional microphones, which could be implemented virtually. Dkt. No. 67 at 15. But
`
`consistency alone is not enough.
`
`Jawbone offers no persuasive evidence that the plain and ordinary meaning of
`
`“microphone” at the time of invention included the notion of a “virtual microphone.” All of the
`
`intrinsic evidence teaches otherwise. The Court adopts Samsung’s proposed construction.
`
`14
`
`

`

`
`
`Case 2:21-cv-00186-JRG-RSP Document 119 Filed 08/17/22 Page 15 of 19 PageID #: 8353Case 6:21-cv-00984-ADA Document 88-1 Filed 08/25/22 Page 16 of 20
`
`F.
`
`“the one receiver” / “the two receivers” (’058 Patent, Claim 1)
`
`Plaintiff’s Construction
`
`Defendants’ Construction
`
`Plain and ordinary meaning. Alternatively:
`“the one receiver”: “the one of the two
`microphones”
`“the two receivers”: “the two microphones that
`receive the acoustic signals”
`
`Indefinite
`
`The ’058 Patent teaches using a combination of acoustic microphones and non-acoustic
`
`voicing sensors to classify signals as voiced or unvoiced speech and distinguish each from
`
`background noise. Claim 1 recites:
`
`1. 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;
`identifies information of the acoustic signals as unvoiced
`speech when the difference parameters exceed a gain
`threshold; and
`identifies information of the acoustic signals as noise when
`the difference parameters are less than the gain threshold.
`
`’058 Patent at 11:8–35 (emphasis added).
`
`15
`
`

`

`
`
`Case 2:21-cv-00186-JRG-RSP Document 119 Filed 08/17/22 Page 16 of 19 PageID #: 8354Case 6:21-cv-00984-ADA Document 88-1 Filed 08/25/22 Page 17 of 20
`
`Samsung argues this claim is indefinite because a skilled artisan would not understand to
`
`what “the one receiver” and “the two receivers” refer—the microphones, the voicing sensor, or the
`
`processor. Jawbone, however, asserts the recited receivers are the microphones. Dkt. No. 71 at 25.
`
`This claim is not indefinite. Each of the two limitations at issue requires the “receivers” to
`
`receive acoustic signals. As between the microphones, the voicing sensor, and the processor, only
`
`the microphones receive acoustic signals, as is expressly recited in the claim. Although Samsung
`
`argues the processor also receives acoustic signals because it is coupled to the microphone and
`
`receives the same signals the microphone receives, Dkt. No. 71 at 26, only microphones convert
`
`acoustic signals into electrical signals. See Dkt. No. 71 at 19 (noting “physical microphones that
`
`operate in a traditio