Case 3:24-cv-00540-MHL Document 49-1 Filed 04/08/25 Page 1 of 89 PageID# 377
`
`Exhibit 1
`
`
`
`Exhibit 1
`
`
`
`Case 3:24-cv-00540-MHL Document 49-1 Filed 04/08/25 Page 2 of 89 PageID# 378
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`__________________________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`__________________________________
`
`AMAZON.COM, INC.,
`AMAZON.COM SERVICES LLC, and
`AMAZON WEB SERVICES, INC.,
`Petitioners,
`
`v.
`
`SOUNDCLEAR TECHNOLOGIES LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`
`Case No. IPR2025-00565
`Patent No. 11,069,337
`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW
`OF CLAIMS 1-5 OF U.S. PATENT NO. 11,069,337
`
`
`
`Case 3:24-cv-00540-MHL Document 49-1 Filed 04/08/25 Page 3 of 89 PageID# 379
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`INTRODUCTION ------------------------------------------------------------------ 1
`I.
`BACKGROUND ------------------------------------------------------------------- 2
`II.
`III. THE ’337 PATENT ---------------------------------------------------------------- 3
`A. Overview --------------------------------------------------------------------- 3
`B.
`Prosecution History --------------------------------------------------------- 5
`IV. RELIEF REQUESTED ------------------------------------------------------------ 6
`A. Grounds ---------------------------------------------------------------------- 6
`B.
`The References Are Analogous Prior Art -------------------------------- 6
`LEVEL OF ORDINARY SKILL ------------------------------------------------- 7
`V.
`VI. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION ------------------------------------------------------- 8
`VII. GROUND 1: CLAIMS 1-5 ARE ANTICIPATED BY SHIN ---------------- 8
`A.
`Claim 1 ----------------------------------------------------------------------- 8
`1.
`1[pre]: Voice-Content Control Device --------------------------- 8
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`4.
`
`5.
`
`6.
`
`7.
`
`8.
`
`9.
`
`1[a]: Proximity Sensor ---------------------------------------------- 9
`
`1[b]: Voice Classifying Unit -------------------------------------- 11
`
`1[c]: Process Executing Unit -------------------------------------- 15
`
`1[d]: Voice-Content Generating Unit ---------------------------- 16
`
`1[e]: Output Controller -------------------------------------------- 18
`
`1[f]: Generate a First Output Sentence -------------------------- 18
`
`1[g]: Generate a Second Output Sentence ---------------------- 20
`
`1[h]: Output Controller Adjusts Volume of Voice
`Data ------------------------------------------------------------------ 22
`
`-i-
`
`
`
`Case 3:24-cv-00540-MHL Document 49-1 Filed 04/08/25 Page 4 of 89 PageID# 380
`
`B.
`
`Claim 2 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- 24
`1.
`2[a]: Process Executing Unit -------------------------------------- 24
`
`2.
`
`2[b]: Voice-Content Generating Unit ---------------------------- 27
`
`Claim 3 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- 27
`C.
`Claims 4 and 5 -------------------------------------------------------------- 29
`D.
`VIII. GROUND 2: CLAIMS 1-5 WOULD HAVE BEEN OBVIOUS
`OVER SHIN ------------------------------------------------------------------------ 30
`A.
`Claim 1 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- 30
`B.
`Claim 2 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- 32
`C.
`Claim 3 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- 33
`D.
`Claims 4 and 5 -------------------------------------------------------------- 35
`IX. GROUND 3: CLAIMS 1-5 WOULD HAVE BEEN OBVIOUS
`OVER SHIMOMURA ------------------------------------------------------------ 35
`A.
`Claim 1 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- 35
`1.
`1[pre]: Voice-Content Control Device -------------------------- 35
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`4.
`
`5.
`
`6.
`
`7.
`
`8.
`
`9.
`
`1[a]: Proximity Sensor --------------------------------------------- 37
`
`1[b]: Voice Classifying Unit -------------------------------------- 37
`
`1[c]: Process Executing Unit -------------------------------------- 40
`
`1[d]: Voice-Content Generating Unit ---------------------------- 41
`
`1[e]: Output Controller -------------------------------------------- 42
`
`1[f]: Generate a First Output Sentence -------------------------- 43
`
`1[g]: Generate a Second Output Sentence ---------------------- 44
`
`1[h]: Output Controller Adjusts Volume of Voice
`Data ------------------------------------------------------------------ 46
`
`-ii-
`
`
`
`Case 3:24-cv-00540-MHL Document 49-1 Filed 04/08/25 Page 5 of 89 PageID# 381
`
`B.
`
`Claim 2 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- 53
`1.
`2[a]: Process Executing Unit -------------------------------------- 53
`
`2.
`
`2[b]: Voice-Content Generating Unit ---------------------------- 56
`
`Claim 3 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- 56
`C.
`Claims 4 and 5 -------------------------------------------------------------- 59
`D.
`X. GROUND 4: CLAIMS 1-5 WOULD HAVE BEEN OBVIOUS
`OVER SHIMOMURA AND SHIN --------------------------------------------- 59
`A.
`Claim 1 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- 59
`B.
`Claim 2 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- 62
`C.
`Claim 3 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- 62
`D.
`Claims 4 and 5 -------------------------------------------------------------- 64
`XI. GROUND 5: CLAIMS 1-5 WOULD HAVE BEEN OBVIOUS
`OVER SHIN AND/OR SHIMOMURA IN VIEW OF
`KRISTJANSSON ------------------------------------------------------------------ 65
`XII. SECONDARY CONSIDERATIONS OF NONOBVIOUSNESS ---------- 68
`XIII. DISCRETIONARY DENIAL UNDER §314(A) IS NOT
`APPROPRIATE ------------------------------------------------------------------- 68
`A.
`Petitioner’s Sotera Stipulation-------------------------------------------- 69
`B.
`The Petition Presents Compelling Evidence of
`Unpatentability ------------------------------------------------------------- 69
`XIV. DISCRETIONARY DENIAL UNDER §325(D) IS NOT
`APPROPRIATE ------------------------------------------------------------------- 70
`XV. MANDATORY NOTICES, GROUNDS FOR STANDING, AND
`FEE PAYMENT ------------------------------------------------------------------- 72
`A.
`Real Party-In-Interest (37 C.F.R. §42.8(b)(1)) ------------------------- 72
`B.
`Related Matters (37 C.F.R. §42.8(b)(2)) -------------------------------- 72
`
`-iii-
`
`
`
`Case 3:24-cv-00540-MHL Document 49-1 Filed 04/08/25 Page 6 of 89 PageID# 382
`
`C.
`D.
`E.
`F.
`
`Lead and Backup Counsel (37 C.F.R. §42.8(b)(3)) ------------------- 73
`Service Information (37 C.F.R. §42.8(b)(4)) --------------------------- 74
`Grounds for Standing (37 C.F.R. §42.104) ----------------------------- 74
`Payment of Fees (37 C.F.R. §42.15(a)) --------------------------------- 74
`
`
`
`
`
`-iv-
`
`
`
`Case 3:24-cv-00540-MHL Document 49-1 Filed 04/08/25 Page 7 of 89 PageID# 383
`
`
`
`Cases:
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`Page(s):
`
`Advanced Bionics, LLC v. MED-EL Elektromedizinische
`Geräte GmbH,
`IPR2019-01469, Paper 6 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 13, 2020) ----------------------- 70, 72
`Apple Inc. v. Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson,
`IPR2022-00457, Paper 7 (P.T.A.B. Sept. 21, 2022) --------------------------- 72
`Endymed Med. Ltd. v. Serendia, LLC,
`IPR2024-00843, Paper 14 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 10, 2025) --------------------------- 69
`In re GPAC Inc.,
`57 F.3d 1573 (Fed. Cir. 1995) ------------------------------------------------------ 7
`JUUL Labs, Inc. v. NJOY, LLC,
`IPR2024-00160, Paper 10 (P.T.A.B. May 24, 2024) -------------------------- 72
`KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc.,
`550 U.S. 398 (2007) ----------------------------------------------------------- passim
`Leapfrog Enters. v. Fisher-Price, Inc.,
`485 F.3d 1157 (Fed. Cir. 2007) --------------------------------------------------- 68
`Newell Cos. v. Kenney Mfg. Co.,
`864 F.2d 757 (Fed. Cir. 1988) ----------------------------------------------------- 68
`Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co. Ltd.,
`868 F.3d 1013 (Fed. Cir. 2017) ---------------------------------------------------- 8
`Quasar Sci. LLC v. Colt Int’l Clothing, Inc.,
`IPR2023-00611, Paper 10 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 10, 2023) ---------------------- 71, 72
`Samsung Elecs. Co. v. Maxell, Ltd.,
`IPR2024-00867, Paper 9 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 7, 2024) ----------------------------- 71
`Shenzen Chic Elecs. v. Pilot, Inc.,
`IPR2023-00810, Paper 12 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 8, 2023)---------------------------- 70
`Sotera Wireless, Inc. v. Masimo Corp.,
`IPR2020-01019, Paper 12 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 1, 2020) ---------------------------- 69
`
`-v-
`
`
`
`Case 3:24-cv-00540-MHL Document 49-1 Filed 04/08/25 Page 8 of 89 PageID# 384
`
`
`
`TP-Link Corp. Ltd. v. Netgear, Inc.,
`IPR2023-01469, Paper 10 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 2, 2024) ---------------------------- 70
`Unwired Planet, LLC v. Google Inc.,
`841 F.3d 995 (Fed. Cir. 2016) ------------------------------------------------------ 7
`Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc.,
`200 F.3d 795 (Fed. Cir. 1999) ------------------------------------------------------ 8
`Statutes and Rules:
`35 U.S.C. § 102 ----------------------------------------------------------------------- 6, 7
`35 U.S.C. § 103 -------------------------------------------------------------------------- 6
`35 U.S.C. § 314 -------------------------------------------------------------------- 68, 69
`35 U.S.C. § 325 -------------------------------------------------------------------- 70, 72
`Miscellaneous:
`Katherine K. Vidal, Interim Procedure for Discretionary Denials in
`AIA Post-Grant Proceedings with Parallel District Court
`Litigation (June 21, 2022) --------------------------------------------------------- 69
`
`
`
`
`
`-vi-
`
`
`
`Case 3:24-cv-00540-MHL Document 49-1 Filed 04/08/25 Page 9 of 89 PageID# 385
`IPR Petition – Patent 11,069,337
`Amazon.com, Inc., et al. v. SoundClear Technologies LLC
`
`LIST OF EXHIBITS
`
`No.
`1001 U.S. Patent No. 11,069,337
`1002 Declaration of Richard Stern, Ph.D.
`
`Description
`
`1003 U.S. Patent App. Publ. No. 2017/0083281 (“Shin”)
`
`1004 English Translation of Shimomura from Ex. 1005
`1005 Declaration of Gwen Snorteland for Translation of Japanese Unex-
`amined Patent App. Publ. 2005/202076 (“Shimomura”)
`1006 Curriculum Vitae of Richard Stern, Ph.D.
`
`1007 Excerpts from File History of U.S. Patent No. 11,069,337
`1008 Order (Dkt. No. 63), SoundClear Techs., LLC v. Amazon.com, Inc., No.
`1:24-cv-01283-AJT-WBP (E.D. Va. Nov. 8, 2024)
`1009 U.S. Patent App. Publ. No. 2017/0154626 (“Kim”)
`
`1010 U.S. Patent App. Publ. No. 2017/0337921 (“Aoyama”)
`
`1011 U.S. Patent App. Publ. No. 2016/0284351 (“Ha”)
`1012 U.S. Patent No. 9,489,172 (“Iyer”)
`
`1013 U.S. Patent No. 10,147,439 (“Kristjansson”)
`1014 Order (Dkt. No. 84), SoundClear Techs., LLC v. Amazon.com, Inc., No.
`1:24-cv-01283-AJT-WBP (E.D. Va. Jan. 10, 2025)
`Nicolae Duta, Natural Language Understanding and Prediction: From
`Formal Grammars to Large Scale Machine Learning, 131 Fundamenta
`Informaticae 425 (2014) (“Duta”)
`
`1015
`
`
`
`
`Exhibit List, Page 1
`
`
`
`Case 3:24-cv-00540-MHL Document 49-1 Filed 04/08/25 Page 10 of 89 PageID# 386
`IPR Petition – Patent 11,069,337
`Amazon.com, Inc., et al. v. SoundClear Technologies LLC
`
`
`Amazon.com, Inc., Amazon.com Services LLC, and Amazon Web Services,
`
`Inc. (collectively, “Petitioner” or “Amazon”) request inter partes review of claims
`
`1-5 of U.S. Patent No. 11,069,337 (“the ’337 patent”), which SoundClear Technolo-
`
`gies LLC (“Patent Owner” or “PO”) purportedly owns.
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`The ’337 patent describes an electronic device, such as a speaker or phone,
`
`that receives and processes a user’s voice and outputs a voice response. (Ex. 1001
`
`(’337 patent), Fig. 1, 2:62-3:1.) The patent claims priority to 2018, years after Apple
`
`launched Siri (2011), Amazon launched Alexa-enabled devices (2014), and Google
`
`launched its voice assistant (2016). The patent admits that devices that detect voice,
`
`perform processing according to the user’s intent, and provide a voice output were
`
`known. (Id., 1:21-28.)
`
`The Examiner allowed the ’337 patent claims because they recite calculating
`
`the distance between the device and user, then adjusting the content and volume of
`
`the response based on that distance. (Ex. 1007, 28-32, 41-46.) But this was not new
`
`in 2018. It had been disclosed in many prior art references, including the references
`
`relied on herein.
`
`Because the ’337 patent removes from the public store of knowledge devices
`
`that were known and obvious to those skilled in the art, the Board should cancel the
`
`claims.
`
`-1-
`
`
`
`Case 3:24-cv-00540-MHL Document 49-1 Filed 04/08/25 Page 11 of 89 PageID# 387
`IPR Petition – Patent 11,069,337
`Amazon.com, Inc., et al. v. SoundClear Technologies LLC
`
`II. BACKGROUND
`Using a proximity sensor to determine a user’s distance from a device and
`
`then tailoring the information provided and the volume based on that distance has
`
`been known for decades. (Ex. 1002 ¶¶35-44.) In 2005, Shimomura (filed by Sony)
`
`described such a device. (Ex. 1004, Abstract.) It used cameras to determine the
`
`distance between the device and the user (id. ¶¶[0039], [0093]), classified the user’s
`
`speech based on distance (e.g., whether the user was more or less than 350 cm away)
`
`and adjusted the output content (e.g., including or omitting words) and volume ac-
`
`cordingly (id. ¶¶[0049]-[0051], [0057], [0086]-[0088]). (Ex. 1002 ¶41.)
`
`In 2017, Shin (filed by Samsung) disclosed a device that acquires a user’s
`
`voice input via a microphone, analyzes it, and provides voice output via a speaker.
`
`(Ex. 1003 ¶¶[0031], [0037].) Shin used a “distance detection module” or “proximity
`
`sensor” to “compute a distance between a user and the electronic device[.]” (Id.
`
`¶¶[0066], [0153], [0053], [0075], [0077], Figs. 5A, 9; Ex. 1002 ¶42.) Shin’s device
`
`classified voice input based on distance and then tailored the output. For users within
`
`1 meter, the device output “detailed content” at a lower volume (e.g., 40 dB). (Ex.
`
`1003 ¶¶[0051], [0088], Tables 1, 3.) For users more than 1 meter away, it output
`
`“abbreviated content” at a higher volume (e.g., 45 dB or more). (Id.; Ex. 1002 ¶43.)
`
`For example, if a user said, “Let me know today’s weather,” Shin’s device
`
`obtained weather-related information and may respond with: “The weather in Jul. 1,
`
`-2-
`
`
`
`Case 3:24-cv-00540-MHL Document 49-1 Filed 04/08/25 Page 12 of 89 PageID# 388
`IPR Petition – Patent 11,069,337
`Amazon.com, Inc., et al. v. SoundClear Technologies LLC
`
`
`(e.g., less than 1 meter away), all five categories of information were provided. (Id.)
`
`If the voice was classified as farther away (e.g., between 1 and 2 meters), category
`
`2015 is (①) rainy after cloudy (②). The highest temperature is 28° C., and the
`lowest temperature is 18° C. (③), the rainfall is 10 mm (④). Prepare your umbrella
`when you go out. (⑤).” (Ex. 1003 ¶[0088].) If the voice was classified as near
`⑤ was omitted. (Id.) And, if the voice was classified as even farther away (e.g.,
`greater than 4 meters), all but category ② was omitted. (Id.) Thus, Shin disclosed
`
`using a proximity sensor to calculate user-to-device distance, classifying the user’s
`
`voice based on that distance, and tailoring the response’s content and volume based
`
`on the classification. This allowed Shin’s device to provide a “suitable” amount of
`
`information at a “suitable” volume based on distance. (Id. ¶¶[0089], [0080]; Ex.
`
`1002 ¶44.)
`
`Other references also disclosed tailoring output responses and/or volume
`
`based on the user-to-device distance. (Ex. 1002 ¶¶36-40; Exs. 1011, 1012, 1013.)
`
`III. THE ’337 PATENT
`A. Overview
`
`The ’337 patent describes a “voice-content control device” that analyzes a
`
`user’s voice and generates a response. (Ex. 1001, Abstract.) Figure 1 shows such a
`
`device 1 (orange) that detects the voice V1 of a user H (purple), processes it, and
`
`outputs a responsive voice V2:
`
`-3-
`
`
`
`Case 3:24-cv-00540-MHL Document 49-1 Filed 04/08/25 Page 13 of 89 PageID# 389
`IPR Petition – Patent 11,069,337
`Amazon.com, Inc., et al. v. SoundClear Technologies LLC
`
`
`(Id., Fig. 1, 2:62-3:1; Ex. 1002 ¶45.)1 The device 1 includes various components,
`
`such as a voice detecting unit 10 (red) and a controller 16 (blue):
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1 Figures and Tables herein may be colored or otherwise annotated for clarity.
`
`-4-
`
`
`
`Case 3:24-cv-00540-MHL Document 49-1 Filed 04/08/25 Page 14 of 89 PageID# 390
`IPR Petition – Patent 11,069,337
`Amazon.com, Inc., et al. v. SoundClear Technologies LLC
`
`(Ex. 1001, Fig. 2, 3:12-17; Ex. 1002 ¶46.) The controller includes several “units”
`
`for acquiring the voice, analyzing it, processing the request, and generating a re-
`
`sponse. (Ex. 1001, 3:50-59.) For example, the process executing unit analyzes the
`
`user’s speech (e.g., “How’s the weather today?”) detected with the voice detecting
`
`unit (e.g., microphones) and obtains the requested information (e.g., weather). (Id.,
`
`4:12-14, 4:56-61, 7:17-27.)
`
`The device may include a “proximity sensor” for calculating the distance to
`
`the user. (Id., 8:20-26.) This generic sensor, described in a single sentence, purport-
`
`edly allows the device to classify a voice as either a first or second voice. (Id.) When
`
`the voice is classified as a first voice (e.g., nearer than threshold distance), the device
`
`generates a first sentence and outputs it at a first volume. (Id., 9:38-50, 13:62-65.)
`
`When the voice is classified as a second voice (e.g., farther than threshold distance),
`
`the device generates a second sentence that omits some information from the first
`
`sentence and outputs it at a different volume. (Id.; Ex. 1002 ¶47.)
`
`B.
`
`Prosecution History
`
`During prosecution, the applicant distinguished the prior art based on limita-
`
`tions that recite “a proximity sensor configured to calculate a distance between a
`
`user and the voice-content control device” and “a voice classifying unit configured
`
`… to classify the voice as either one of a first voice or a second voice based on the
`
`distance between the user and the voice-content control device.” (Ex. 1007, 41-46.)
`
`-5-
`
`
`
`Case 3:24-cv-00540-MHL Document 49-1 Filed 04/08/25 Page 15 of 89 PageID# 391
`IPR Petition – Patent 11,069,337
`Amazon.com, Inc., et al. v. SoundClear Technologies LLC
`
`Apparently unaware that the prior art disclosed these limitations, the Examiner er-
`
`roneously allowed the claims. (Id., 31.)
`
`IV. RELIEF REQUESTED
`A. Grounds
`
`The Board should cancel the claims on the following Grounds:
`
`Ground Reference(s)
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`Shin
`
`Shin
`
`Shimomura
`
`Shimomura and Shin
`
`Basis
`
`§102
`
`§103
`
`§103
`
`§103
`
`Challenged
`Claims
`1-5
`
`1-5
`
`1-5
`
`1-5
`
`Shin and/or Shimomura in view of
`Kristjansson
`
`5
`
`This Petition is supported by the expert declaration of Richard Stern (Exs.
`
`§103
`
`1-5
`
`1002, 1006).
`
`B.
`
`The References Are Analogous Prior Art.
`
`The ’337 patent’s earliest possible priority date is March 6, 2018. (Ex. 1001.)
`
`Two references relied on herein are prior art under AIA §102(a)(1) and §102(a)(2):
`
`(1)
`
`(2)
`
`Shin published March 23, 2017 (Ex. 1003); and
`
`Shimomura published October 28, 2005 (Ex. 1004).
`
`-6-
`
`
`
`Case 3:24-cv-00540-MHL Document 49-1 Filed 04/08/25 Page 16 of 89 PageID# 392
`IPR Petition – Patent 11,069,337
`Amazon.com, Inc., et al. v. SoundClear Technologies LLC
`
`
`Kristjansson is prior art under AIA §102(a)(2) because it is an issued U.S.
`
`patent that was effectively filed no later than March 30, 2017 and names different
`
`inventors than the ’337 patent (Ex. 1013).
`
`Shimomura published as a Japanese Patent Application. A certified English
`
`translation (Ex. 1004) is relied on herein. (See Ex. 1005.)
`
`Shin, Shimomura, and Kristjansson are analogous art because they are from
`
`the same field as the ’337 patent, e.g., controlling a device’s voice output. (Ex. 1001,
`
`1:29-64, 3:7-11); Unwired Planet, LLC v. Google Inc., 841 F.3d 995, 1000 (Fed.
`
`Cir. 2016). They are also pertinent to a problem the inventors were focused on, e.g.,
`
`adjusting voice output to improve user interaction. (Ex. 1002 ¶25.)
`
`V. LEVEL OF ORDINARY SKILL
`Based on the relevant factors, In re GPAC Inc., 57 F.3d 1573, 1579 (Fed. Cir.
`
`1995), a person of ordinary skill in the art (“POSITA”) would have had a minimum
`
`of a bachelor’s degree in computer engineering, computer science, electrical engi-
`
`neering, or a similar field, and approximately two years of industry or academic ex-
`
`perience in a field related to controlling the audio output of electronic devices. (Ex.
`
`1002 ¶¶30-34.) Work experience could substitute for formal education and addi-
`
`tional formal education could substitute for work experience. (Id.)
`
`-7-
`
`
`
`Case 3:24-cv-00540-MHL Document 49-1 Filed 04/08/25 Page 17 of 89 PageID# 393
`IPR Petition – Patent 11,069,337
`Amazon.com, Inc., et al. v. SoundClear Technologies LLC
`
`VI. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
`No claim terms require construction to resolve the invalidity challenges here.
`
`Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co. Ltd., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017
`
`(Fed. Cir. 2017); Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803
`
`(Fed. Cir. 1999). For purposes of this proceeding only, Petitioner assumes the claims
`
`are not invalid under §112.
`
`VII. GROUND 1: CLAIMS 1-5 ARE ANTICIPATED BY SHIN.
`Shin anticipates claims 1-5. (Ex. 1002 ¶¶50-106.)
`
`A. Claim 1
`1[pre]: Voice-Content Control Device
`1.
`
`Shin discloses an electronic device that receives a user’s voice input through
`
`a microphone, “generate[s] content corresponding to a result of analyzing the voice
`
`input,” and “provide[s] the generated content as sound through an embedded audio
`
`output module (e.g., a speaker).” (Ex. 1003 ¶[0037]; see also id., Abstract, ¶¶[0003],
`
`[0008]-[0011], [0038]-[0039], [0048]-[0060], [0069]-[0072], claims 1, 15, 20.) For
`
`example, if a user says, “Let me know what time it is now,” Shin’s device may re-
`
`spond with, “The current time is nine ten AM.” (Id. ¶[0037].) The device may be a
`
`smartphone, PC, or home appliance. (Id. ¶[0031].) Figure 1A of Shin shows an
`
`example of device 100:
`
`-8-
`
`
`
`Case 3:24-cv-00540-MHL Document 49-1 Filed 04/08/25 Page 18 of 89 PageID# 394
`IPR Petition – Patent 11,069,337
`Amazon.com, Inc., et al. v. SoundClear Technologies LLC
`
`
`(Id., Fig. 1A.) Thus, Shin discloses a “voice-content control device.” (Ex. 1002
`
`
`
`¶51.)
`
`2.
`
`1[a]: Proximity Sensor
`
`Claim element 1[a] recites “a proximity sensor configured to calculate a dis-
`
`tance between a user and the voice-content control device.” Shin discloses this. (Ex.
`
`1002 ¶¶52-58.)
`
`Shin’s device includes a “distance detection module” that “compute[s] a dis-
`
`tance between a user and the electronic device[.]” (Ex. 1003 ¶[0066]; see id.
`
`¶¶[0053] (“the processor 120 may determine a distance between the user and the
`
`electronic device 101 based on … the distance computed, calculated, or measured
`
`by the distance detection module 180”), [0075], [0077], Fig. 5A; Ex. 1002 ¶53.) The
`
`distance detection module 180 may include “a depth camera like a time-of-flight
`
`(TOF) camera, a stereo camera computing depth information using triangulation, a
`
`charge coupled device (CCD) camera computing a distance through an image pro-
`
`cessing, or the like” and/or “various sensors,” such as “an infra-red sensor, an RF
`
`sensor, an ultrasonic sensor, and the like.” (Ex. 1003 ¶[0066]; see also id. ¶[0042];
`
`-9-
`
`
`
`Case 3:24-cv-00540-MHL Document 49-1 Filed 04/08/25 Page 19 of 89 PageID# 395
`IPR Petition – Patent 11,069,337
`Amazon.com, Inc., et al. v. SoundClear Technologies LLC
`
`Ex. 1002 ¶54.) Shin’s Figure 3 shows the electronic device 101 comprising the dis-
`
`tance detection module 180 (green):
`
`(Ex. 1003, Fig. 3, ¶[0045]; id. ¶¶[0053]-[0054], [0077], [0096], claims 5, 9; Ex. 1002
`
`
`
`¶¶55-56.)2
`
`Shin also discloses that the electronic device 101 may use “a proximity sen-
`
`sor.” (Ex. 1003 ¶[0153], Fig. 9 (“proximity sensor” 940G in “sensor module” 940);
`
`see also id. ¶[0143] (device 901 may be included in devices 100, 101); Ex. 1002
`
`¶57.)
`
`
`2 Shin’s electronic device 100 may be implemented with the modules of elec-
`tronic device 101. (Ex. 1003 ¶¶[0041], [0043].)
`
`-10-
`
`
`
`Case 3:24-cv-00540-MHL Document 49-1 Filed 04/08/25 Page 20 of 89 PageID# 396
`IPR Petition – Patent 11,069,337
`Amazon.com, Inc., et al. v. SoundClear Technologies LLC
`
`
`Thus, Shin discloses a proximity sensor configured to calculate a distance be-
`
`tween a user and the voice-content control device. (Ex. 1002 ¶¶52-58.)
`
`3.
`
`1[b]: Voice Classifying Unit
`
`Claim element 1[b] recites “a voice classifying unit configured to analyze a
`
`voice spoken by a user and acquired by a voice acquiring unit to classify the voice
`
`as either one of a first voice or a second voice based on the distance between the user
`
`and the voice-content control device.” Shin discloses this. (Ex. 1002 ¶¶59-66.)
`
`The ’337 patent states that a voice classifying unit may be part of a controller,
`
`which performs processes by reading software/program stored in a storage. (Ex.
`
`1001, 3:50-59, Fig. 2.) This controller can be a central processing unit (CPU). (Id.)
`
`Thus, according to the ’337 patent, the “voice classifying unit” refers to a CPU con-
`
`figured to perform the claimed function, namely, to analyze the user’s voice and to
`
`classify it as a first or second voice. (Ex. 1002 ¶60.)
`
`The ’337 patent further explains that, when a proximity sensor is used for
`
`calculating the user-to-device distance, the distance can be used as a “feature value”
`
`to perform the classification as the first or second voice. (Ex. 1001, 8:20-26.) Spe-
`
`cifically, the unit “sets a threshold of the feature value, and classifies the voice” as
`
`the first or second voice “based on whether the feature value exceeds the threshold.”
`
`(Id., 8:30-34.) Shin discloses the same thing. (Ex. 1002 ¶61.)
`
`-11-
`
`
`
`Case 3:24-cv-00540-MHL Document 49-1 Filed 04/08/25 Page 21 of 89 PageID# 397
`IPR Petition – Patent 11,069,337
`Amazon.com, Inc., et al. v. SoundClear Technologies LLC
`
`
`First, Shin discloses a voice classifying unit that “analyze[s] a voice spoken
`
`by a user and acquired by a voice acquiring unit,” as recited. Specifically, Shin
`
`discloses that the device 101 (orange) includes a processor 120 (blue) and an audio
`
`input module 151 (red):
`
`
`
`(Ex. 1003, Fig. 3, ¶[0045]; Ex. 1002 ¶62.) The processor 120, which may be a CPU
`
`(Ex. 1003 ¶[0029]), “analyze[s] a voice input received through [the] audio input
`
`module 151.” (Id. ¶[0048]; see also id., Abstract, ¶¶[0003]-[0011], [0037]-[0039],
`
`[0041], [0060]-[0061], claims 1, 15, 20.) The audio input module 151 can be “im-
`
`plemented with a microphone and the like” to “obtain a user’s speech as a voice
`
`input.” (Id. ¶[0062]; see also id. ¶¶[0037], [0155], [0158].) Thus, Shin discloses a
`
`-12-
`
`
`
`Case 3:24-cv-00540-MHL Document 49-1 Filed 04/08/25 Page 22 of 89 PageID# 398
`IPR Petition – Patent 11,069,337
`Amazon.com, Inc., et al. v. SoundClear Technologies LLC
`
`voice classifying unit (processor) configured to analyze a voice spoken by a user and
`
`acquired by a voice acquiring unit (e.g., audio input module and/or portion of pro-
`
`cessor that receives voice from the audio input module). (Ex. 1002 ¶62.)
`
`Second, Shin discloses that the voice classifying unit (processor) analyzes the
`
`voice to classify it as either a first or second voice based on the user-to-device dis-
`
`tance. (Id. ¶63.) Shin’s processor executes a voice recognition application to pro-
`
`cess the voice input and generates corresponding content for output. (Ex. 1003
`
`¶¶[0047], [0060]; see also id. ¶¶[0037], [0039].) The processor determines the “out-
`
`put scheme,” which includes the content and its volume level, “based on the distance
`
`between the user and the electronic device 101[.]” (Id. ¶¶[0078], [0086]; see also
`
`id. ¶¶[0053], [0077]-[0080], claims 6, 17.) To do so, Shin’s processor classifies the
`
`voice based on the distance. (Ex. 1002 ¶63.)
`
`An example is shown in Shin’s Table 3, which discloses providing a different
`
`amount of information based on the user-to-device distance:
`
`(Ex. 1003, Table 3 (consolidated).)
`
`-13-
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 3:24-cv-00540-MHL Document 49-1 Filed 04/08/25 Page 23 of 89 PageID# 399
`IPR Petition – Patent 11,069,337
`Amazon.com, Inc., et al. v. SoundClear Technologies LLC
`
`
`Thus, for example, Shin discloses classifying the voice as a “first voice” when
`
`the distance is less than 1 meter, and a “second voice” when the distance is greater
`
`than 4 meters:
`
`
`
`(Id.; see also id., Table 1, ¶¶[0051] (content may be “classified dichotomously”),
`
`[0079]-[0081], [0086]-[0087]; Ex. 1002 ¶64.) Any of the distance ranges up to 4
`
`meters would satisfy the claimed “first voice.” (Ex. 1002 ¶65.) For example, a voice
`
`between 3 and 4 meters away could be considered the recited “first voice.” (Id.)
`
`Alternatively, all of the distances less than 4 meters could collectively be considered
`
`a first voice (e.g., a voice less than 4 meters away). (Id.)
`
`Thus, Shin discloses that the voice classifying unit (processor) is configured
`
`to analyze the voice to classify the voice as either one of a first voice (e.g., closer
`
`than 1 meter) or a second voice (e.g., farther than 4 meters) based on the distance
`
`between the user and the device. (Id. ¶¶59-66.)
`
`-14-
`
`
`
`Case 3:24-cv-00540-MHL Document 49-1 Filed 04/08/25 Page 24 of 89 PageID# 400
`IPR Petition – Patent 11,069,337
`Amazon.com, Inc., et al. v. SoundClear Technologies LLC
`
`
`4.
`
`1[c]: Process Executing Unit
`
`Claim element 1[c] recites “a process executing unit configured to analyze the
`
`voice acquired by the voice acquiring unit to execute processing required by the
`
`user.” The ’337 patent explains that, like the voice classifying unit, a process exe-
`
`cuting unit may be part of a controller that performs processes by reading soft-
`
`ware/program stored in a storage. (Ex. 1001, 3:50-59, Fig. 2.) In the ’337 patent,
`
`the “process executing unit” analyzes the user’s speech (e.g., “How’s the weather
`
`today?”) and obtains the requested information. (Id., 4:12-14, 4:56-61, 7:17-27.)
`
`The patent admits that devices that performed these functions were known (id., 1:21-
`
`28; Ex. 1002 ¶67) and, consequently, this limitation cannot make the claim patenta-
`
`ble. Regardless, Shin discloses this claim element. (Ex. 1002 ¶¶67-70.)
`
`Shin’s processor analyzes the voice acquired by the voice acquiring unit (e.g.,
`
`the “audio input module” and/or portion of processor that receives voice from the
`
`audio input module). (Ex. 1003 ¶¶[0048], [0062].) Shin’s processor executes a
`
`voice recognition application to process the voice input (which requests content in
`
`which the user is interested) and generates corresponding content for output by ana-
`
`lyzing the request. (Supra §VII.A.3; Ex. 1003 ¶¶[0048], [0058]-[0060], [0084],
`
`[0089]; Ex. 1002 ¶68; see also Ex. 1003 ¶¶[0037], [0058], [0067], [0071], [0088],
`
`[0103], [0107], [0120], [0126]-[0127], [0141].)
`
`-15-
`
`
`
`Case 3:24-cv-00540-MHL Document 49-1 Filed 04/08/25 Page 25 of 89 PageID# 401
`IPR Petition – Patent 11,069,337
`Amazon.com, Inc., et al. v. SoundClear Technologies LLC
`
`
`Indeed, Shin discloses analyzing the acquired voice “to execute processing
`
`required by the user” in the same way as the ’337 patent. (Ex. 1002 ¶69.) For ex-
`
`ample, Shin describes analyzing a user’s speech (“Let me know today’s weather”)
`
`to execute processing to obtain the required weather information. (Id.; Ex. 1003
`
`¶[0088].)
`
`Thus, Shin discloses a process executing unit (processor) configured to ana-
`
`lyze the voice acquired by the voice acquiring unit to execute processing required
`
`by the user. (Ex. 1002 ¶¶67-70.)
`
`5.
`
`1[d]: Voice-Content Generating Unit
`
`Claim element 1[d] recites “a voice-content generating unit configured to gen-
`
`erate, based on content of the processing executed by the process executing unit,
`
`output sentence that is text data for a voice to be output to the user.” In the ’337
`
`patent, the “voice-content generating unit” is the portion of the processor (CPU) that
`
`performs the recited function. (Ex. 1001, 3:50-59, Fig. 2.) In the ’337 patent’s
`
`weather example, the “voice-cont
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
Still Working On It
This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.
Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.
A few More Minutes ... Still Working
It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.
Thank you for your continued patience.
This document could not be displayed.
We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
Set your membership
status to view this document.
With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll
get a whole lot more, including:
- Up-to-date information for this case.
- Email alerts whenever there is an update.
- Full text search for other cases.
- Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.
One Moment Please
The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.
Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.
Your document is on its way!
If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.
Sealed Document
We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.
If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.
Access Government Site
