UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________________
`
`RØDE MICROPHONES, LLC AND
`FREEDMAN ELECTRONICS PTY LTD,
`Petitioners
`
`v.
`
`ZAXCOM, INC.,
`Patent Owner.
`____________________
`
`IPR2025-00557
`
`Patent 12,051,444
`
`____________________
`
`DECLARATION OF DR. CHRIS KYRIAKAKIS IN SUPPORT OF
`PETITIONS FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW
`
`RØDE Exhibit 1002
`RØDE Microphones, LLC, et. al v. Zaxcom, Inc.
`Page i of 123
`
`

`

`Declaration of Dr. Chris Kyriakakis in Support of Petitions for Inter Partes
`Review of U.S. Pat. No. 12,051,444
`
`I.
`II.
`
`IV.
`
`V.
`VI.
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`INTRODUCTION.............................................................................. 1
`EXPERIENCE, QUALIFICATIONS, AND STATUS AS AN
`INDEPENDENT EXPERT WITNESS ............................................. 2
`III. UNDERSTANDING OF RELEVANT LEGAL PRINCIPLES ....... 8
`A.
`Prior Art ................................................................................... 8
`B.
`Standard of Proof ..................................................................... 9
`C.
`Claim Construction .................................................................. 9
`D.
`Anticipation ........................................................................... 10
`E.
`Obviousness ........................................................................... 11
`SUMMARY OF MATERIALS REVIEWED AND CONSIDERED
` .......................................................................................................... 14
`Background of the Technology ........................................................ 15
`LEVEL OF SKILL IN THE ART AND PERSPECTIVE APPLIED
`IN THIS DECLARATION .............................................................. 16
`VII. BACKGROUND.............................................................................. 17
`A.
`Overview of the Technology ................................................. 17
`1. Wireless multitrack recording systems ....................... 18
`2.
`Timecode synchronization .......................................... 18
`VIII. The Challenged Patent ..................................................................... 19
`A.
`Summary of the Specification ............................................... 19
`B.
`Claims .................................................................................... 24
`C.
`Lectrosonics IPRs .................................................................. 27
`1.
`PTAB’s Findings Regarding Claim Elements in Prior
`Art and Obviousness of Combinations........................ 27
`PTAB’s Findings Regarding Zaxcom’s Purported
`Objective Indicia of Nonobviousness ......................... 31
`IX. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION ............................................................. 32
`
`2.
`
`RØDE Exhibit 1002
`RØDE Microphones, LLC, et. al v. Zaxcom, Inc.
`Page ii of 123
`
`

`

`Declaration of Dr. Chris Kyriakakis in Support of Petitions for Inter Partes
`Review of U.S. Pat. No. 12,051,444
`
`X.
`
`XI.
`
`THE PRIOR ART ............................................................................ 32
`A.
`Strub ....................................................................................... 33
`B. Woo ........................................................................................ 35
`C.
`Nagai ...................................................................................... 39
`D.
`Gleissner ................................................................................ 42
`E.
`Samadani ................................................................................ 44
`Specific Grounds for INvalidity ....................................................... 47
`A.
`Ground 1: Claims 1-7, 9, 10, 13-15, 17-20, 22, 23, and 27 are
`Rendered Obvious Under § 103 By the Combination of Strub
`and Woo ................................................................................. 47
`1.
`A POSA Would have Been Motivated to Combine
`Strub and Woo ............................................................. 47
`The Combination of Strub and Woo Meets All
`Elements of The Challenged Claims 1-7, 9, 10, 13-15,
`17-20, 22, 23, and 27 ................................................... 50
`Ground 2: Claims 12 and 26 are Rendered Obvious Under §
`103 By the Combination of Strub, Woo, Nagai, and Gleissner
` .............................................................................................. 107
`1.
`A POSA Would have Been Motivated to Combine
`Strub, Woo, Nagai, and Gleissner ............................. 107
`The Combination of Strub, Woo, Nagai, and Gleissner
`Meets All Elements of Challenged Claims 12 and 26
` ................................................................................... 109
`Ground 3: Claims 16 and 24 are Rendered Obvious Under §
`103 By the Combination of Strub, Woo, and Samadani ..... 114
`1.
`A POSA Would have Been Motivated to Combine
`Strub, Woo, and Samadani ........................................ 114
`The Combination of Strub, Woo, and Samadani Meets
`All Elements of Challenged Claims 16 and 24 ......... 117
`XII. SECONDARY CONSIDERATIONS ........................................... 119
`XIII. CONCLUSION .............................................................................. 120
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`2.
`
`2.
`
`2.
`
`RØDE Exhibit 1002
`RØDE Microphones, LLC, et. al v. Zaxcom, Inc.
`Page iii of 123
`
`

`

`Declaration of Dr. Chris Kyriakakis in Support of Petitions for Inter Partes
`Review of U.S. Pat. No. 12,051,444
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`I have been retained by RØDE Microphones, LLC and Freedman
`
`Electronics Pty Ltd. (collectively, “Petitioner”) to provide my opinions concerning
`
`the validity of claims 1-7, 9, 10, 12-20, 22-24, 26, and 27 of the 12,051,444 Patent
`
`(“the ’444 Challenged Claims”).
`
`This Declaration summarizes the opinions I have formed to date. I
`
`reserve the right to modify my opinions, if necessary, based on further review and
`
`analysis of information that I receive subsequent to the filing of this report, including
`
`in response to positions taken by Zaxcom, Inc. (“Zaxcom”) or its experts that I have
`
`not yet seen, including any secondary consideration evidence that Zaxcom or its
`
`expert may consider and present.
`
`It is my opinion that the ’444 Challenged Claims are invalid based on
`
`the following grounds:
`
`Ground
`1
`
`Claims
`1-7, 9, 10,
`13-15, 17-20,
`22, 23, 27
`
`2
`
`12, 26
`
`Prior Art
`Basis
`35 U.S.C. § 103 U.S. Patent No. 6,825,875
`(“Strub”) (Ex. 1003), U.S. Patent
`No. 5,479,351 (“Woo”) (Ex.
`1004)
`35 U.S.C. § 103 Strub, Woo, U.S. Patent Pub. No.
`2002/0159179 (“Nagai”) (Ex.
`1005), U.S. Patent Pub. No.
`2004/0028241 (“Gleissner”) (Ex.
`1006)
`
`RØDE Exhibit 1002
`RØDE Microphones, LLC, et. al v. Zaxcom, Inc.
`Page 1 of 123
`
`

`

`Declaration of Dr. Chris Kyriakakis in Support of Petitions for Inter Partes
`Review of U.S. Pat. No. 12,051,444
`
`Ground Claims
`3
`16, 24
`
`Prior Art
`Basis
`35 U.S.C. § 103 Strub, Woo, and U.S. Patent Pub.
`No. 2004/0267387 (“Samadani”)
`(Ex. 1007)
`
`II.
`
`EXPERIENCE, QUALIFICATIONS, AND STATUS AS AN
`INDEPENDENT EXPERT WITNESS
`
`My curriculum vitae, which lists a more detailed summary of my
`
`background, experience, publications that I have authored in the past ten years, and
`
`qualifications, is attached as the Appendix hereto.
`
`I earned my Bachelor of Science degree in Engineering and Applied
`
`Science from the California Institute of Technology (Caltech) in 1985. I received
`
`my Master of Science degree in Electrical Engineering in 1987 and my Ph.D. in
`
`Electrical Engineering in 1993, both from the University of Southern California
`
`(“USC”).
`
`I am a tenured Associate Professor in the Department of Electrical and
`
`Computer Engineering at USC.
`
`My
`
`research
`
`interests
`
`lie at
`
`the
`
`intersection of acoustics,
`
`psychoacoustics (the science that studies human perception of sound), and audio
`
`signal processing. I have worked in the area of audio signal processing for more
`
`than 20 years with particular emphasis on spatial and 3D audio. I have published
`
`nearly 100 technical papers, including several peer-reviewed papers. I have
`
`RØDE Exhibit 1002
`RØDE Microphones, LLC, et. al v. Zaxcom, Inc.
`Page 2 of 123
`
`

`

`Declaration of Dr. Chris Kyriakakis in Support of Petitions for Inter Partes
`Review of U.S. Pat. No. 12,051,444
`
`published a book on spatial audio entitled Immersive Audio Signal Processing and
`
`hold several patents in audio processing for headphone optimization, acoustic
`
`measurement of loudspeakers in rooms, loudspeaker crossover optimization, and
`
`loudspeaker response correction using signal processing. My publications examine
`
`various aspects of sound measurement, echo cancellation, microphone arrays, noise
`
`removal, filter banks, how sound interacts with the acoustical elements of the
`
`environment, novel methods for surround sound recording and reproduction, and the
`
`perception of sound by human listeners.
`
`A major focus of my research has been on developing novel
`
`multichannel audio capture and rendering algorithms. In addition to the
`
`mathematical development of the algorithms, I have performed several multichannel
`
`recordings with multiple wired and wireless microphones over the past 20 years. For
`
`example, one of the first ones was in 2003 with a 64-track recording of a live
`
`performance of the group Duran Duran, 24-track recordings of the Boston
`
`Symphony and the Handel and Haydn Society, multi-track recordings of
`
`experimental music in the WGBH studios in Boston, 48-track recordings of the
`
`Dizzy Gillespie band at USC, live multi-track performances of Byzantine chanters
`
`in simulated ancient acoustic environments, as well 32-track Byzantine studio chant
`
`recordings of Cappella Romana. In all of these recordings, a combination of wired
`
`RØDE Exhibit 1002
`RØDE Microphones, LLC, et. al v. Zaxcom, Inc.
`Page 3 of 123
`
`

`

`Declaration of Dr. Chris Kyriakakis in Support of Petitions for Inter Partes
`Review of U.S. Pat. No. 12,051,444
`
`and wireless microphones was used in conjunction with digital multitrack recording
`
`gear and SMPTE timecode synchronization.
`
`Another focus of my early research was on head-related transfer
`
`functions (HRTFs) and how they can be measured and modeled using various signal
`
`processing approaches. I developed several implementations of HRTF-based 3D
`
`audio for rendering spatial sounds over headphones. I have also researched
`
`microphone arrays for applications in enhanced far field voice recognition. This
`
`includes methods for Direction of Arrival finding and beam forming from linear and
`
`circular microphone arrays. I have also investigated methods for noise removal and
`
`reverberation reduction from microphone signals. In addition, over the past few
`
`years year I have worked on methods for echo cancellation for applications in
`
`wearable devices. Previous other work includes loudspeakers and how they interact
`
`with their acoustical environment. In particular, I have researched the role of sound
`
`reflections, absorption, and diffusion in the performance of loudspeakers. I have
`
`also published several technical papers on acoustical measurement methods in rooms
`
`and device enclosures and developed novel signal processing algorithms for
`
`optimizing sound system performance. Other topics I have researched include
`
`multichannel audio acquisition and rendering, virtual microphones and virtual
`
`speakers, hybrid headphone-loudspeaker rendering methods, and advanced signal
`
`processing techniques for optimizing sound quality from small portable devices.
`RØDE Exhibit 1002
`RØDE Microphones, LLC, et. al v. Zaxcom, Inc.
`Page 4 of 123
`
`

`

`Declaration of Dr. Chris Kyriakakis in Support of Petitions for Inter Partes
`Review of U.S. Pat. No. 12,051,444
`
`I am the founding Director of the USC Immersive Audio Laboratory
`
`with facilities for experimental work in room acoustics, multichannel audio, and
`
`psychoacoustics. This laboratory also serves as a unique teaching facility for my
`
`undergraduate course in Introduction to Digital Audio and my graduate course in
`
`Immersive Audio Signal Processing. Both courses have a major acoustics
`
`component that examines the interaction of sound with the acoustical environment
`
`and the basic principles of microphones (including wireless microphones) and
`
`loudspeaker design. The graduate course was developed through a two-year grant I
`
`received from the National Science Foundation entitled “Collaborative Learning in
`
`Engineering Using Immersive Environments,” and was the first of its kind to assess
`
`the impact of audio immersion in student learning. In addition to the courses I teach,
`
`I have also supervised and served on Ph.D. dissertation committees for more than 30
`
`students.
`
`From 2003-2018, I was the co-founder and Chief Technology Officer
`
`of Audyssey Laboratories, a USC spin-off company that develops and licenses audio
`
`technology to leading consumer electronics and automotive companies around the
`
`world. As part of my work at Audyssey, I developed a measurement methodology
`
`for headphones and earphones and created a database with 500+ measurements of
`
`products from nearly 100 manufacturers, created audio algorithms related to sound
`
`RØDE Exhibit 1002
`RØDE Microphones, LLC, et. al v. Zaxcom, Inc.
`Page 5 of 123
`
`

`

`Declaration of Dr. Chris Kyriakakis in Support of Petitions for Inter Partes
`Review of U.S. Pat. No. 12,051,444
`
`optimization that are used in millions of home theater systems, cars, and IMAX
`
`theaters world-wide.
`
`I also developed audio algorithms and designed speakers. These
`
`speakers were novel acoustical designs that used a combination of unique
`
`enclosures, passive radiators (i.e., speaker diaphragms that are driven by changes in
`
`surrounding air pressure), and audio signal processing to optimize their performance
`
`and overcome limitations that arise from small drivers and enclosures. For example,
`
`we used signal processing technologies combined with novel acoustical design to
`
`extend the bass response of small woofers and passive radiators beyond what was
`
`previously possible in small speaker enclosures. The innovations in these designs
`
`have received awards, including Popular Science’s “Best of What’s New.”
`
`In 2019, I joined Syng as the Chief Audio Scientist. Syng creates
`
`innovative products for next generation spatial audio and my role there includes
`
`research and development of audio algorithms for sound capture using microphone
`
`arrays to measure the acoustics of the room and loudspeaker beamforming for
`
`wirelessly rendering sound in various directions.
`
`In April 2018 I was elected as Senior Member of the Institute of
`
`Electrical and Electronic Engineers (IEEE) in recognition of my contributions to the
`
`field of engineering. I am also a member of the Audio Engineering Society (AES),
`
`an association for professionals in the audio industry.
`
`RØDE Exhibit 1002
`RØDE Microphones, LLC, et. al v. Zaxcom, Inc.
`Page 6 of 123
`
`

`

`Declaration of Dr. Chris Kyriakakis in Support of Petitions for Inter Partes
`Review of U.S. Pat. No. 12,051,444
`
`In 2006, I received a World Technology Network Award. This
`
`organization presents awards to innovators in several areas in which technology can
`
`foster a paradigm change. My award was for innovations in immersive audio that
`
`enable new capabilities in media and journalism. Other award recipients at that
`
`event included Vice President Al Gore, Google, and Space-X. In addition, my work
`
`has been featured in multiple news articles, including pieces by The Atlantic, the
`
`BBC World Service, the New York Times, and National Public Radio.
`
`In the late 1990s and early 2000s, I was a faculty researcher and later
`
`Deputy Director of the National Science Foundation’s engineering research center
`
`established at USC. I studied the fundamental and technological limitations of
`
`immersive audio and the role of acoustics on the performance of microphones and
`
`loudspeakers. In 2003, together with one of my graduate students, I received the
`
`award for Best Paper at the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers
`
`(“IEEE”) Conference on Signals, Systems and Computers.
`
`I am being compensated at the rate of $525 per hour for my work on
`
`this declaration. My fee is not contingent on the outcome of any matter or on any of
`
`the technical positions I explain in this declaration.
`
`I have no financial interest in Petitioner. I have been informed that
`
`Zaxcom claims ownership in the ‘444 patent. I have no financial interest in Zaxcom.
`
`RØDE Exhibit 1002
`RØDE Microphones, LLC, et. al v. Zaxcom, Inc.
`Page 7 of 123
`
`

`

`Declaration of Dr. Chris Kyriakakis in Support of Petitions for Inter Partes
`Review of U.S. Pat. No. 12,051,444
`
`III. UNDERSTANDING OF RELEVANT LEGAL PRINCIPLES
`
`I am not a legal expert, and I offer no opinions on the law. However, I
`
`have been advised by counsel about some of the legal principles relevant to an
`
`analysis of patentability of claims in a United States patent, as summarized below.
`
`I have conducted my analysis in accordance with these principles.
`
`A.
`
`Prior Art
`
`I understand that, for an invention claimed in a patent to be found
`
`patentable, or to be valid, it must be, among other things, new and not obvious in
`
`light of what came before it, which is referred to as “prior art.” I further understand
`
`that the frame of reference for determining whether a claim is obvious is from the
`
`perspective of a person of ordinary skill in the relevant art (“POSA”) at the time of
`
`the invention. I have been asked to assume that the effective priority date of the
`
`Challenged Patent is July 14, 2005. I have not been asked to determine whether that
`
`date is appropriate.
`
`I have been informed that a reference qualifies as prior art for
`
`determining obviousness when it (a) predates the invention or was patented or
`
`published more than one year before the effective priority date of the claim in
`
`question under the criteria set out in 35 U.S.C. § 102, and (b) is analogous to the
`
`claimed invention. I understand that the version of § 102 that applies to the
`
`Challenged Claims is the version in effect before the Leahy–Smith America Invents
`RØDE Exhibit 1002
`RØDE Microphones, LLC, et. al v. Zaxcom, Inc.
`Page 8 of 123
`
`

`

`Declaration of Dr. Chris Kyriakakis in Support of Petitions for Inter Partes
`Review of U.S. Pat. No. 12,051,444
`
`Act (“AIA”) went into effect (“pre-AIA § 102“). I further understand that prior art
`
`may be considered analogous if it is from the same field of endeavor, regardless of
`
`the problem addressed, as the claimed invention. I also understand that prior art may
`
`be considered analogous if it is “reasonably pertinent” to the particular problem with
`
`which the inventor is involved. I have been informed that a reference is “reasonably
`
`pertinent” if it is one which, because of the matter with which it deals, logically
`
`would have commended itself to an inventor’s attention in considering the inventor’s
`
`problem.
`
`B.
`
`Standard of Proof
`
`I understand that, in these proceedings, the burden is on the party
`
`asserting unpatentability to prove it by a preponderance of the evidence. I
`
`understand that “a preponderance of the evidence” is evidence sufficient to show
`
`that something is more likely than not.
`
`C.
`
`Claim Construction
`
`I understand that, unless otherwise construed by the U.S. Patent Trial
`
`and Appeal Board (“PTAB”) or a court, patent claims should be accorded their
`
`ordinary and customary meaning as understood by a POSA, in light of the intrinsic
`
`record. The intrinsic record includes the patent’s specification and claims, as well
`
`as its entire prosecution history. I also understand that a patentee is free to be his or
`
`her own lexicographer and thus may use a term in a manner contrary to or
`RØDE Exhibit 1002
`RØDE Microphones, LLC, et. al v. Zaxcom, Inc.
`Page 9 of 123
`
`

`

`Declaration of Dr. Chris Kyriakakis in Support of Petitions for Inter Partes
`Review of U.S. Pat. No. 12,051,444
`
`inconsistent with its ordinary meaning, provided that the patentee makes the special
`
`meaning clear in the specification or as part of the record during prosecution.
`
`I further understand that in construing claims, a POSA 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 and the prosecution history. I understand that the construction that
`
`stays true to the claim language and most naturally aligns with the patent’s
`
`description of the invention will generally be, in the end, the correct construction.
`
`Although the claims themselves provide substantial guidance as to the meaning of
`
`particular claim terms, the claims do not stand alone.
`
`In addition, it has been explained to me that there is a form of claim
`
`element called a “Markush group,” which lists specified alternatives in a patent
`
`claim, typically in the form “[a member] selected from the group consisting of [A],
`
`[B], [C], [etc.].” I further understand that, if a claim element is written in Markush
`
`form, the entire element is disclosed by the prior art if one alternative in the Markush
`
`group is in the prior art.
`
`D.
`
`Anticipation
`
`I have been informed that a patent claim is invalid as anticipated only
`
`if each and every element and limitation of that claim is publicly disclosed, either
`
`explicitly or inherently, in a single prior art reference, already in practice in the
`RØDE Exhibit 1002
`RØDE Microphones, LLC, et. al v. Zaxcom, Inc.
`Page 10 of 123
`
`

`

`Declaration of Dr. Chris Kyriakakis in Support of Petitions for Inter Partes
`Review of U.S. Pat. No. 12,051,444
`
`industry in a single process or method, already in a single marketed product, or
`
`otherwise previously invented. I also understand that anticipation requires the
`
`presence in a single prior art disclosure of all elements of the claim arranged as in
`
`the claim. For a step or limitation to be inherent in a reference, I understand that the
`
`step or limitation must necessarily and inevitably occur or be present when one
`
`follows the teachings of the reference. I am informed that for a reference to be
`
`considered as anticipating, it must disclose the relevant technology in a manner such
`
`that a person of ordinary skill in the art would be able to carry out or utilize the
`
`technology that the reference describes without having to undertake considerable
`
`experimentation.
`
`E.
`
`Obviousness
`
`I have been informed that a patent claim is invalid as obvious only if it
`
`would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time the patent
`
`was filed, in light of the prior art. A claim is invalid as obvious if the differences
`
`between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention
`
`as a whole would have been obvious to a POSA at the time the invention was made.
`
`The prior art may include one or more references that a POSA trying to solve the
`
`problem that the inventor addressed would likely have considered, as well as the
`
`body of knowledge that such a person would possess.
`
`RØDE Exhibit 1002
`RØDE Microphones, LLC, et. al v. Zaxcom, Inc.
`Page 11 of 123
`
`

`

`Declaration of Dr. Chris Kyriakakis in Support of Petitions for Inter Partes
`Review of U.S. Pat. No. 12,051,444
`
`I have been informed that, in evaluating obviousness, one must
`
`consider: (1) the scope and content of the prior art; (2) the differences between the
`
`prior art and the claims; and (3) the level of ordinary skill in the art. In addition, I
`
`understand that objective indicia of non-obviousness, also known as “secondary
`
`considerations,” might be utilized to give light to the circumstances surrounding the
`
`origin of the claimed subject matter. I understand that secondary considerations can
`
`include, for example, evidence of commercial success of the alleged invention,
`
`evidence of a long-felt but unmet need that was solved by an invention, failure of
`
`others, evidence that others copied the alleged invention, or evidence that the alleged
`
`invention achieved a surprising result. I further understand that such evidence must
`
`have a nexus to the elements of a claim in an order to be relevant.
`
`I have been informed that, although a challenger may rely on a
`
`combination of separate prior art references to support an obviousness challenge, a
`
`person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing should have had some
`
`motivation or reason to combine the references in such a way as to arrive at the
`
`claimed invention. That motivation can come from the problem the invention
`
`purports to solve, from other references, from the teachings of those references
`
`showing the invention is obvious, from market incentives, or from the common-
`
`sense knowledge of a person of ordinary skill in the art. Any need or problem known
`
`in the field at the time of the invention and addressed by the patent can provide a
`RØDE Exhibit 1002
`RØDE Microphones, LLC, et. al v. Zaxcom, Inc.
`Page 12 of 123
`
`

`

`Declaration of Dr. Chris Kyriakakis in Support of Petitions for Inter Partes
`Review of U.S. Pat. No. 12,051,444
`
`reason for combining elements. However, obviousness findings grounded in
`
`common sense must contain explicit and clear reasoning providing some rational
`
`underpinning why common sense compels a finding of obviousness. A motivation
`
`to combine requires more than the mere fact that a POSA could have made the
`
`combination.
`
`I have been informed that assessing which prior art references to
`
`combine and how they may be combined to match the asserted claim may not be
`
`based on hindsight reconstruction or ex-post reasoning. That is, one must view the
`
`prior art forward from the perspective of the person of ordinary skill in the art at the
`
`time of invention, not backwards from the current time through the lens of hindsight.
`
`It is my understanding that it is improper to use a patent claim as a template or road
`
`map to the prior art, and to pick and choose prior art references to meet the elements
`
`of that claim to show obviousness.
`
`I understand that a combination of familiar elements according to
`
`known methods is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable
`
`results. I further understand that there need not be a precise teaching in the prior art
`
`directed to the specific subject matter of a claim because one can take account of the
`
`inferences and creative steps that a person of skill in the art would employ.
`
`I understand that, when there is a reason to solve a problem and there
`
`are a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, a person of ordinary skill has
`RØDE Exhibit 1002
`RØDE Microphones, LLC, et. al v. Zaxcom, Inc.
`Page 13 of 123
`
`

`

`Declaration of Dr. Chris Kyriakakis in Support of Petitions for Inter Partes
`Review of U.S. Pat. No. 12,051,444
`
`good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp. I further
`
`understand that, if this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely the product not of
`
`innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense, which bears on whether the
`
`claim would have been obvious.
`
`IV.
`
`SUMMARY OF MATERIALS REVIEWED AND CONSIDERED
`
`All of the opinions contained in this Declaration are based on the
`
`documents I reviewed and my knowledge and professional judgment. In forming
`
`the opinions expressed in this Declaration, while drawing on my experience in the
`
`field of audio signal processing and multichannel audio recording (including my
`
`teaching, research, and consulting experiences), I reviewed the Challenged Patent,
`
`its file history, the prior art, and all exhibits cited in this declaration, including the
`
`documents in the Table of Exhibits submitted with each IPR Petition filed
`
`concurrently with this Declaration.
`
`I may rely upon these materials and/or additional materials to rebut
`
`arguments raised by Zaxcom. Further, I may also consider additional documents
`
`and information in forming any necessary opinions including documents that may
`
`not yet have been provided to me.
`
`My opinions are additionally guided by my appreciation of how a
`
`POSA would have understood the claims of the Challenged Patent at the time of the
`
`alleged invention, which I have been asked to assume is July 14, 2005.
`RØDE Exhibit 1002
`RØDE Microphones, LLC, et. al v. Zaxcom, Inc.
`Page 14 of 123
`
`

`

`Declaration of Dr. Chris Kyriakakis in Support of Petitions for Inter Partes
`Review of U.S. Pat. No. 12,051,444
`
`V.
`
`BACKGROUND OF THE TECHNOLOGY
`
`The ’444 Patent describes a system with a wearable local device for
`
`recording locally generated audio and transmitting the audio to a remote device. See,
`
`e.g., Ex. 1001, 1:40-2:5. The local device receives a master timecode from a master
`
`timecode generator, stamps local audio data with a timestamp to create time-
`
`referenced local audio data, and stores (i.e., records) the time-referenced local audio
`
`data in a local memory. Id. 3:62-66, 4:48-5:6, 10:41-65, 43:22-56.
`
`This purported innovation was not new, but existed in the prior art. As
`
`non-limiting examples, Strub, Woo, and Samadani teach local devices which record
`
`locally generated audio, transmit the audio to a remote device, receive a master
`
`timecode from a master timecode generator and stamp the recorded audio data with
`
`a timestamp referencing at least a portion of the local audio data to the master
`
`timecode. See, e.g., Ex. 1003, 8:10-29, 8:50-53, 11:32-50, 12:13–21, 12:31–43
`
`(transmitting recorded local audio data to remote devices), 25:35–49, 37:18–40,
`
`38:1–4, 38:29-39 (“synchronization pulse” received from “‘master’ recording unit”),
`
`62:26-63:49 (“A GPS receiver can also be used to receive a signal representing the
`
`current time that can be used as a clock to generate time-stamps for the recording
`
`data.”), Figs. 1-3; Ex. 1004, Abstract, 1:60-2:9, 2:39-48, 3:3-24, 4:3-32, 5:3-5
`
`(recorders capture performance), 5:37-49 (recordings communicated to editing
`
`station), 5:5-67 (master timecodes used to “date and time tag[]” recordings), 7:26-
`RØDE Exhibit 1002
`RØDE Microphones, LLC, et. al v. Zaxcom, Inc.
`Page 15 of 123
`
`

`

`Declaration of Dr. Chris Kyriakakis in Support of Petitions for Inter Partes
`Review of U.S. Pat. No. 12,051,444
`
`50, 8:32-44, 8:60-9:4, 9:40-43, 9:56-63, 10:15-64, Figs. 1, 3-6; Ex. 1007, [0036]-
`
`[0038] (audio recorded in local recorder and transmitted to central processing station
`
`303; “The reference signal generator 309 is a timer-based generator in that a time
`
`stamp is generated as the reference data.”), [0042], [0044]-[0047] (“audio/visual
`
`recorder[s] 501a, 501b…in…FIG. 5…include reference signal receiver[s] 525a,
`
`525b…that receive[] a main reference signal from a main reference signal generator
`
`509….Each reference signal receiver 525a, 525b [receives a] wireless signal having
`
`timer-based or clock-based information….[T]he main reference signal generator 509
`
`can provide an external time base (e.g., absolute time associated with a GPS
`
`signal)”), [0048] (“[R]eference signal receiver 525a…receives a main reference
`
`signal and generates a reference signal that is stored as reference data in the reference
`
`data, visual data and audio file storage 508a.”), Claims 9, 10, 15, 19, 32, Figs. 3, 5.
`
`VI. LEVEL OF SKILL IN THE ART AND PERSPECTIVE APPLIED IN
`THIS DECLARATION
`
`In determining the level of ordinary skill, I have been asked to consider,
`
`for example, the types of problems encountered in the field, prior solutions to those
`
`problems, the rapidity with which innovations are made, the sophistication of the
`
`technology, and the educational level of active workers in the field. Taking those
`
`factors into consideration, a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the
`
`claimed priority date of the Challenged Patent would have had at least a Bachelor’s
`
`RØDE Exhibit 1002
`RØDE Microphones, LLC, et. al v. Zaxcom, Inc.
`Page 16 of 123
`
`

`

`Declaration of Dr. Chris Kyriakakis in Support of Petitions for Inter Partes
`Review of U.S. Pat. No. 12,051,444
`
`degree in electrical engineering or a related or equivalent field, and two or more
`
`years of experience working with audio systems. However, additional years of
`
`education in the above-referenced fields may compensate for fewer years of
`
`experience.
`
`I believe that I would have qualified as a person of at least ordinary skill
`
`in the art as of July 14, 2005. I further believe that I have a sufficient level of
`
`knowledge, experience, and edu