Google LLC v. SoundClear Technologies LLC

1. Case Identification

• Case #: IPR2025-00344
• Patent #: 9,070,374
• Filed: February 10, 2025
• Petitioner(s): Google LLC
• Patent Owner(s): Soundclear Technologies LLC
• Challenged Claims: 1-15

2. Patent Overview

• Title: Condition Notification Method and Communication Apparatus
• Brief Description: The ’374 patent discloses an audio input device that provides visual feedback to a user regarding the device's processing of captured audio. The device uses a light-emitting device (LED) to indicate the results of speech-segment and speech-quality evaluations, allowing the user to understand the device's operational state and adjust usage accordingly.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Claims 1-3, 5, 9, 10, and 13 are obvious over IBM.

• Prior Art Relied Upon: IBM (Application # US 2008/0167868).
• Core Argument for this Ground:
  • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that IBM discloses all elements of the independent claims. IBM teaches an intelligent microphone system that provides visual feedback on a "lighted bar" to indicate the status of captured audio. This system performs both speech-segment determination (identifying boundaries of speech) and speech-quality evaluation (detecting conditions that degrade acoustic quality, such as volume or signal-to-noise ratio). The combination of these evaluations corresponds to the ’374 patent's "sound pick-up state determination." IBM's system operates in different modes, including a standby ("detection") mode and a transmission mode, which are switched via user input like a Push-to-Talk (PTT) button, thus meeting the "communication-mode determination" limitation. The lighted bar is controlled based on these determinations, turning on, off, or changing colors (e.g., green, yellow, red) to reflect speech detection and quality, thereby mapping to the claimed control of a light-emitting device.
  • Key Aspects: Petitioner contended that IBM's "lighted bar" directly corresponds to the ’374 patent's LED and that its use of different colors and brightness levels to convey information about speech quality and activity renders the specific on/off sequences of the dependent claims obvious.

Ground 2: Claims 4, 6-8, 11, 12, and 15 are obvious over IBM in view of Kale.

• Prior Art Relied Upon: IBM (Application # US 2008/0167868) and Kale (Application # 2012/0027219).
• Core Argument for this Ground:
  • Prior Art Mapping: This ground addresses claims requiring noise cancellation, microphone directionality, and frequency-domain processing. Petitioner asserted that IBM teaches a basic dual-microphone noise cancellation system. Kale was introduced as teaching more advanced, known techniques for noise cancellation using two microphones. Kale explicitly discloses a direction of arrival (DOA) module that determines the direction of a sound source based on the phase difference of signals received at two microphones, directly mapping to the "microphone-direction determination step" of claims 6 and 12. Kale also discloses using Fast Fourier Transform (FFT) modules to convert audio signals into the frequency domain to distinguish speech from noise based on spectral components, mapping to the limitations of claims 8 and 15.
  • Motivation to Combine: Petitioner argued a person of ordinary skill in the art (POSITA) would combine Kale's advanced noise cancellation and direction-finding techniques into IBM's user feedback system. Both references are in the same field of audio signal processing and share the common goal of improving audio quality. A POSITA would have been motivated to incorporate Kale's methods to enhance the noise reduction capabilities of the IBM system.
  • Expectation of Success: Petitioner asserted that integrating Kale's well-understood, component-based noise processing techniques into IBM's system would have been a straightforward application of routine skill.

Ground 3: Claim 14 is obvious over IBM and Kale in view of Li.

• Prior Art Relied Upon: IBM (Application # US 2008/0167868), Kale (Application # 2012/0027219), and Li (Application # 2011/0026730).
• Core Argument for this Ground:
  • Prior Art Mapping: This ground targets the specific microphone placement recited in claim 14: a main microphone and a sub-microphone arranged on the front and rear faces of the communication apparatus, respectively. While IBM and Kale teach dual-microphone systems, Petitioner argued Li explicitly discloses this arrangement. Li describes a noise-suppression apparatus for a cell phone where a main microphone is on the bottom of the front panel and a reference microphone is on the top of the back panel.
  • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA implementing the audio processing and feedback system of IBM and Kale would have been motivated to look to known art for optimal microphone placement to enhance noise cancellation. Li provides a known, advantageous arrangement for this purpose, making it a logical and predictable design choice to incorporate into the base system.
  • Expectation of Success: Petitioner contended that adopting the specific microphone placement from Li for the dual-microphone system of IBM/Kale would have been a simple and predictable modification.

4. Key Claim Construction Positions

• "simplex communication apparatus": Petitioner argued that, consistent with the patent's specification and industry understanding, this term should be construed to encompass devices that use half-duplex or semi-duplex communications, such as the PTT devices described in the prior art. The term is not limited to one-way-only communication but includes communication that occurs alternately in each direction.

6. Arguments Regarding Discretionary Denial

• Petitioner argued against discretionary denial under §314(a) and §325(d).
  • Fintiv Factors: Petitioner contended that the parallel district court litigation is in its infancy, with no trial date set, no substantive discovery conducted, and no claim construction orders issued. Therefore, the Fintiv factors strongly favor institution to promote efficiency.
  • Advanced Bionics Factors: Petitioner asserted that denial under §325(d) is unwarranted because the prior art references and combinations presented in the petition were not previously considered by the Examiner during prosecution.

7. Relief Requested

• Petitioner requests institution of an inter partes review and cancellation of claims 1-15 of the ’374 patent as unpatentable.