PTAB

IPR2023-01111

LG Electronics Inc v. Jawbone Innovations LLC

Log In
Key Events
Petition
petition Intelligence

1. Case Identification

2. Patent Overview

  • Title: Acoustic Voice Activity Detection System
  • Brief Description: The ’213 patent discloses noise suppression systems that use signals from two physical microphones to create "virtual microphones." The system determines acoustic voice activity by comparing the energy ratio of these virtual microphone signals against a threshold value.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Obviousness over Avendano ’880 and Hou - Claims 1-3, 5-9, 12, and 13 are obvious over Avendano ’880 in view of Hou.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Avendano ’880 (Patent 8,194,880) and Hou (Patent 7,155,019).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner asserted that Avendano ’880 teaches the core of claim 1: an acoustic voice activity detection system using two physical microphones to generate two processed signals ("cardioid primary signal" and "cardioid secondary signal"), which function as virtual microphones. Avendano ’880 determines the presence of speech by calculating the energy ratio between these two signals and comparing it to a threshold. Hou was argued to address the problem of mismatched microphone sensitivity in multi-microphone systems. Hou teaches compensating for sensitivity differences by delaying one signal, estimating the minimums of both signals, calculating a scaling amount (a ratio), and applying it to one signal to create a compensated signal before subtraction. Petitioner argued this combination taught the filter limitations of claim 1[1b], where Hou's compensation system constitutes the claimed "filter."
    • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA would combine Hou with Avendano ’880 to improve the performance of Avendano ’880’s system. Both references operate in the same field of enhancing speech and attenuating noise using signals from two microphones. A POSITA would recognize that microphone sensitivity mismatch, as addressed by Hou, is a known problem that can degrade the performance of directional systems like Avendano ’880. Therefore, a POSITA would be motivated to incorporate Hou’s robust compensation techniques to improve the equalization and directionality of the virtual microphones in Avendano ’880.
    • Expectation of Success: A POSITA would have a reasonable expectation of success because both systems process inputs from two microphones to generate directional signals. Incorporating Hou’s signal compensation components into Avendano ’880’s processing chain was presented as a predictable modification to achieve improved signal equalization without impacting other system operations.

Ground 2: Obviousness over Avendano ’880, Hou, and Avendano ’252 - Claims 4, 10, and 11 are obvious over Avendano ’880 and Hou in view of Avendano ’252.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Avendano ’880 (Patent 8,194,880), Hou (Patent 7,155,019), and Avendano ’252 (Patent 8,204,252).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: This ground builds upon the combination of Avendano ’880 and Hou from Ground 1. Petitioner argued that Avendano ’252, a continuation-in-part of Avendano ’880, provides the missing limitations for claims 4, 10, and 11. Specifically, Avendano ’252 teaches an "adaptation control module" that triggers adjustment of an "equalization coefficient" when frames are "dominated by speech." This adaptive process is configured to cancel a desired speech signal from a backward-facing cardioid pattern, thereby minimizing the output when only speech is received (claim 10) and generating filter coefficients during periods of speech (claim 11). For claim 4, Petitioner asserted Avendano ’252 explicitly teaches that delays in differential microphone arrays depend on the distance between microphones, making the delay proportional to the time difference of arrival for sound.
    • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA would combine Avendano ’252 with the base combination to further enhance performance. The three references serve a similar purpose: compensating for microphone mismatch to generate improved directional signals. A POSITA would be motivated to incorporate the teachings of Avendano ’252—specifically, adapting the equalization filter only when speech is present—to enhance the separation of speech and noise in the resulting directional signals from the Avendano ’880/Hou system.
    • Expectation of Success: Success would be expected as Avendano ’252 is a continuation-in-part of Avendano ’880 and describes similar processing modules. Integrating its adaptive control features into the established Avendano ’880/Hou combination would be a predictable application of known methods to achieve the predictable result of improved speech/noise separation.

4. Arguments Regarding Discretionary Denial

  • Petitioner argued against discretionary denial under Fintiv, stating that the co-pending district court litigation is in its earliest stages, with no trial date set, making a stay pending IPR likely. Petitioner also stipulated that it will not pursue the same invalidity grounds in the district court litigation if a stay is not granted, which weighs against denial. Petitioner further contended that denial under General Plastic is unwarranted because it is a different entity from prior petitioners challenging the ’213 patent and is filing this "me-too" petition with a motion for joinder, a situation where the Board has found the General Plastic factors not particularly relevant.

5. Relief Requested

  • Petitioner requests institution of an inter partes review and cancellation of claims 1-13 of Patent 8,321,213 as unpatentable.