UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`_________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`_________________
`
`MICROSOFT CORPORATION, SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO. LTD.,
`SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS AMERICA, INC., AND ZTE (USA), INC.
`Petitioners,
`
`v.
`
`IXI IP, LLC
`Patent Owner.
`_________________
`
`IPR2017-00898
`U.S. Patent No. 7,552,124
`Issued: June 23, 2009
`Application No.: 10/872,289
`Filed: June 17, 2004
`Title: Natural Language For Programming A Specialized Computing System
`_________________
`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW
`OF U.S. PATENT NO. 7,552,124
`
`
`
`

`

`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`Page(s)
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION ....................................................................................... 1
`
`II. MANDATORY NOTICES UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.8 ............................... 1
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`Real Party-In-Interest ........................................................................ 1
`
`Related Matters ................................................................................. 1
`
`Counsel And Service Information ..................................................... 2
`
`III. PAYMENT OF FEES ................................................................................. 3
`
`IV. GROUNDS FOR STANDING .................................................................... 3
`
`V.
`
`PRECISE RELIEF REQUESTED .............................................................. 3
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`Proposed Grounds And Prior Art ...................................................... 3
`
`The Proposed Grounds Are Not Redundant ..................................... 5
`
`VI. LEVEL OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART ......................................... 5
`
`VII. OVERVIEW OF THE ’124 PATENT ........................................................ 6
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`The ’124 Patent ................................................................................. 6
`
`’124 Patent Prosecution History ........................................................ 6
`
`VIII. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION ........................................................................ 8
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`“Operative Language” ....................................................................... 8
`
`“High-Level Code” ........................................................................... 8
`
`“The Parsing And Determining Steps” ............................................. 9
`
`D. Means-Plus-Function Claim Terms .................................................. 9
`
`1.
`
`“Means For Receiving
`A High-Level Code ...” (element 6.b)................................... 10
`
`2.
`
`Additional “Means For” Limitations .................................... 10
`
`IX. DETAILED EXPLANATION OF GROUNDS ........................................ 13
`
`A. Ground 1: Maes, Maes II, And
`Preston Render Claims 1-10 Obvious ............................................ 13
`
`1.
`
`Claims 1/6 ............................................................................. 13
`
`a.
`
`“A [method/system] for programming a
`mobile communication device based on a
`
`ii
`
`

`

`b.
`
`c.
`
`d.
`
`e.
`
`f.
`
`g.
`
`h.
`
`i.
`
`j.
`
`high-level code comprising operative
`language, the [method/system] comprising:” ............. 13
`
`“[means for] receiving a high-level code
`comprising one or more keywords, wherein
`the high-level code is provided by a user of a
`mobile communication device to control the
`operation of the mobile communication device
`without having to select from menu items
`provided by an operating system running
`on the mobile communication device;” ...................... 16
`
`“[means for] parsing the high-level code
`for the keywords to recognize the operative
`language associated with controlling one or more
`operations of the mobile communication device;” ..... 17
`
`“[means for] determining at least one
`operation associated with the operative language;” ... 19
`
`“[means for] determining whether
`high-level code comprises keywords defining
`one or more relationships and conditions
`corresponding to the operative language;” ................. 21
`
`“[means for] producing an executable code that can
`be executed by a microcontroller of the mobile
`communication device to perform the respective
`operation associated with the operative language;” ... 26
`
`“[means for] determining level of complexity
`and implementation of the high-level code;” ............. 30
`
`“[means for] [designating / designation] an
`application software to process the high level code,” 34
`
`“wherein the high-level code
`comprises at least one sentence
`formatted in accordance with a first context,” ........... 36
`
`“wherein the high-level code is processed
`by a natural language compiler comprised
`of one or more modules executed on one or
`more independent computing systems,
`
`iii
`
`

`

`k.
`
`l.
`
`depending on the level of complexity and
`the implementation of the high-level code,” .............. 37
`
`“wherein application software is executed
`on a distributed environment comprising
`the mobile communication device and a
`network server connected to the mobile
`communication device, and the application
`software performs the parsing and determining
`steps depending on implementation, and” .................. 40
`
`“wherein when the high-level code
`comprises [a/an] complex structure
`the parsing and determining steps are
`performed by application software executed
`on a network server connected to the mobile
`communication device and when the
`high-level code comprises a less complex
`structure the parsing and determining steps
`are performed by application software
`executed on the mobile communication device.” ....... 42
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`4.
`
`5.
`
`Claims 2/7: “The [method of claim 1/
`system of claim 6], wherein said at least
`one sentence comprises one or more keywords.” ................. 44
`
`Claims 3/8: “The [method of claim 1/
`system of claim 6], wherein the first context
`[comprises/is] a natural language context.” .......................... 44
`
`Claims 4/9: “The [method of claim 1/
`system of claim 6], wherein the
`high-level code is contained in a script.” .............................. 45
`
`Claims 5/10: “The [method of claim
`4/system of claim 9], wherein the script is
`written by a user of the mobile communication device.” ..... 47
`
`B. Ground 2: Pazandak, White, And Manson
`Render Claims 1-10 Obvious .......................................................... 47
`
`1.
`
`Claims 1/6 ............................................................................. 47
`
`a.
`
`“A [method/system] for programming a
`mobile communication device based on a
`
`iv
`
`

`

`high-level code comprising operative
`language, the [method/system] comprising:” ............. 47
`
`b.
`
`Claim Elements 1.b/6.b .............................................. 49
`
`(1)
`
`(2)
`
`“[means for] receiving a high-level
`code comprising one or more keywords,
`wherein the high-level code is provided
`by a user of a mobile communication
`device to control the operation of
`the mobile communication device” .................. 49
`
`“without having to select from
`menu items provided by an
`operating system running on
`the mobile communication device” .................. 51
`
`“[means for] parsing the high-level
`code for the keywords to recognize
`the operative language associated
`with controlling one or more operations
`of the mobile communication device;” ...................... 55
`
`“[means for] determining at least one
`operation associated with the operative language;” ... 58
`
`“[means for] determining whether
`high-level code comprises keywords defining
`one or more relationships and conditions
`corresponding to the operative language;” ................. 60
`
`“[means for] producing an executable code that
`can be executed by a microcontroller of the mobile
`communication device to perform the respective
`operation associated with the operative language;” ... 61
`
`“[means for] determining level of complexity
`and implementation of the high-level code;” ............. 67
`
`“[means for] [designating/designation] an
`application software to process the high level code,” 71
`
`“wherein the high-level code comprises
`at least one sentence formatted in
`accordance with a first context,” ................................ 72
`
`c.
`
`d.
`
`e.
`
`f.
`
`g.
`
`h.
`
`i.
`
`v
`
`

`

`j.
`
`k.
`
`l.
`
`“wherein the high-level code is processed
`by a natural language compiler comprised
`of one or more modules executed on one or
`more independent computing systems,
`depending on the level of complexity and
`the implementation of the high-level code,” .............. 72
`
`“wherein application software is executed
`on a distributed environment comprising
`the mobile communication device and a
`network server connected to the mobile
`communication device, and the application
`software performs the parsing and determining
`steps depending on implementation, and” .................. 73
`
`“wherein when the high-level code comprises
`[a/an] complex structure the parsing and
`determining steps are performed by application
`software executed on a network server connected
`to the mobile communication device and when the
`high-level code comprises a less complex structure
`the parsing and determining steps are
`performed by application software executed
`on the mobile communication device.” ...................... 75
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`4.
`
`5.
`
`Claims 2/7: “… wherein said at least
`one sentence comprises one or more keywords” .................. 78
`
`Claims 3/8: “… wherein the first context
`[comprises/is] a natural language context” ........................... 79
`
`Claims 4/9: “… wherein the
`high-level code is contained in a script” ............................... 79
`
`Claims 5/10: “… wherein the script is written
`by a user of the mobile communication device” .................. 80
`
`X.
`
`SECONDARY CONSIDERATIONS ....................................................... 81
`
`XI. CONCLUSION ......................................................................................... 81
`
`
`
`
`
`vi
`
`

`

`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`Page(s)
`
`Cases
`
`Prolitec, Inc. v. Scentair Techs., Inc.,
`807 F.3d 1353 (Fed. Cir. 2015) ...................................................................... 53
`
`Süd-Chemie, Inc. v. Multisorb Techs., Inc.,
`554 F.3d 1001 (Fed. Cir. 2009) ...................................................................... 52
`
`Upsher-Smith Labs, Inc. v. Pamlab, L.L.C.,
`412 F.3d 1319 (Fed. Cir. 2005) ...................................................................... 54
`
`Williamson v. Citrix Online, LLC,
`792 F.3d 1339 (Fed. Cir. 2015) ........................................................................ 9
`
`Statutes
`
`35 U.S.C. § 102 ................................................................................................. 4, 5
`
`35 U.S.C. § 103 ..................................................................................................... 4
`
`35 U.S.C. § 112 ................................................................................................. 8, 9
`
`35 U.S.C. § 371 ..................................................................................................... 4
`
`Regulations
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.8 ..................................................................................................... 1
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.10 .................................................................................................. 3
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.24 ................................................................................................ 82
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.100 ................................................................................................. 8
`
`
`
`
`
`vii
`
`

`

`No.
`
`1001
`
`1002
`
`1003
`
`1004
`
`1005
`
`1006
`
`1007
`
`1008
`
`1009
`
`1010
`
`1011
`
`1012
`
`1013
`
`1014
`
`LIST OF EXHIBITS
`
`Description
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,552,124
`
`Declaration of Dr. John Villasenor, Ph.D.
`
`Prosecution History of U.S. Patent No. 7,552,124 (excerpted)
`
`Office Action dated July 27, 2010 in European Application No.
`05 752 631.1 – 1243
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,003,463 (“Maes”)
`
`U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2003/0046061
`(“Preston”)
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,027,975 (“Pazandak”)
`
`U.S. Pat. Application No. 2002/0072918 (“White”)
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,085,708 (“Manson”)
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,937,383 (“Maes II”)
`
`Petition in Google Inc. v. IXI Mobile, Case No. IPR2016-01669,
`filed August 25, 2016 (Paper 2)
`
`Patent Owner Preliminary Response in Google Inc. v. IXI
`Mobile, Case No. IPR2016-01669, filed December 9, 2016
`(Paper 7)
`
`Appendix A to Patent Owner IXI’s September 8, 2016
`“Disclosure of Asserted Claims and Infringement Contentions
`as to Microsoft” in IXI Mobile (R&D) Ltd., et al. v. Blackberry
`Limited, et al. (Case No. 2:15-cv-01883-JRG-RSP) (LEAD
`CASE)
`
`PCT Application Publication No. WO 02/12982 to Applicant
`Object Services and Consulting, Inc. (“Object”)
`
`viii
`
`

`

`No.
`
`1015
`
`1016
`
`1017
`
`1018
`
`1019
`
`1020
`
`1021
`
`1022
`
`1023
`
`Description
`
`U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2003/0182132
`(“Niemoeller”)
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,693,720 to Kennewick (“Kennewick”)
`
`Withdrawal dated January 12, 2011 in European Application
`No. 05 752 631.1 - 1243
`
`Ex. A to the Joint Claim Construction And Prehearing Statement
`in IXI Mobile (R&D) Ltd., et al. v. Blackberry Limited, et al.
`(Case No. 2:15-cv-01883-JRG-RSP) (LEAD CASE)
`
`Declaration of Lin Chase, Ph.D., in Support of Patent Owner's
`Preliminary Response in IPR2016-01669 (Exhibit 2001)
`
`Linda Himelstein, “Point Cast: The Rise And Fall Of An Internet
`Star,” Bloomberg, April 25, 1999
`
`Daniel Siewiorek, Asim Smailagic, Junichi Furukawa, Neema
`Moraveji, Kathryn Reiger, and Jeremy Shaffer, “SenSay: A
`Context-Aware Mobile Phone,” Proceedings of the 16th IEEE
`Symposium on Computer-Based Medical Systems, June 2003
`
`A.R. Ali-Ali, M. Al-Rousan, and M. Al-Shaikh, “Embedded
`System-based Mobile Patient Monitoring Device,” Proceedings
`of the 16th IEEE Symposium on Computer-Based Medical
`Systems, 2003
`
`Microsoft Computing Dictionary (5th Edition 2002) (excerpts)
`
`ix
`
`

`

`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`Patent No. 7,552,124
`
`
`
`Microsoft Corporation, Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd., Samsung
`
`Electronics America, Inc., and ZTE (USA), Inc. (“Petitioners”) request inter
`
`partes review (“IPR”) of claims 1-10 of U.S. Patent No. 7,552,124 (“’124
`
`patent”) (Ex. 1001), allegedly assigned to IXI IP, LLC (“Patent Owner” or
`
`“IXI”). For the reasons set forth below, claims 1-10 should be found
`
`unpatentable and canceled.
`
`II. MANDATORY NOTICES UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.8
`
`A. Real Party-In-Interest
`
`Microsoft Corporation, Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd., Samsung
`
`Electronics America, Inc., ZTE (USA) Inc. and ZTE Corporation are the sole
`
`real parties-in-interest.
`
`B. Related Matters
`
`On August 25, 2016, Google Inc. filed a Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`of claims 1-10 of the ’124 patent, Case No. IPR2016-01669.
`
`In addition, the ’124 patent is asserted by IXI and another entity in
`
`consolidated litigation in the Eastern District of Texas, in Case Nos. 2:15-cv-
`
`01883 (LEAD CASE) (BlackBerry Limited et al. and defendant / intervenor
`
`Microsoft Corp.), 2:15-cv-01884 (HTC Corp. et al.), 2:15-cv-01885 (Samsung
`
`Elecs. Co., et al.), and 2:15-cv-01886 (ZTE Corp. et al.). The ’124 patent is also
`
`
`
`1
`
`

`

`at issue in Google Inc. v. IXI Mobile (R&D) Ltd. et al., Case No. 5:16-cv-04173
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`Patent No. 7,552,124
`
`
`
`(N.D. Cal.).
`
`C. Counsel And Service Information
`
`Petitioners identify lead and back-up counsel, and service information, as
`
`follows:
`
`Lead Counsel
`Andrew M. Mason
`USPTO Reg. No. 64,034
`KLARQUIST SPARKMAN, LLP
`One World Trade Center, Suite 1600
`121 S.W. Salmon Street
`Portland, Oregon 97204
`Telephone: (503) 595-5300
`Facsimile: (503) 595-5301
`andrew.mason@klarquist.com
`
`Back-Up Counsel
`Joseph T. Jakubek
`USPTO Reg. No. 34,190
`KLARQUIST SPARKMAN, LLP
`One World Trade Center, Suite 1600
`121 S.W. Salmon Street
`Portland, Oregon 97204
`Telephone: (503) 595-5300
`Facsimile: (503) 595-5301
`joseph.jakubek@klarquist.com
`
`J. Christopher Carraway
`(pending pro hac vice admission)
`KLARQUIST SPARKMAN, LLP
`One World Trade Center, Suite 1600
`121 S.W. Salmon Street
`Portland, Oregon 97204
`Telephone: (503) 595-5300
`Facsimile: (503) 595-5301
`chris.carraway@klarquist.com
`
`Service on Petitioners may be made by mail or hand delivery to: Klarquist
`
`Sparkman, LLP, 121 S.W. Salmon Street, Suite 1600, Portland, OR 97204. The
`
`fax number for lead and back-up counsel is (503) 595-5301. Petitioners consent
`
`to service via email at the above email addresses. Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. §
`
`
`
`2
`
`

`

`42.10(b), Powers of Attorney executed by Petitioners for appointing the above
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`Patent No. 7,552,124
`
`
`
`counsel are concurrently filed.
`
`III. PAYMENT OF FEES
`
`The required fees are submitted herewith. The PTO is authorized to
`
`charge any additional fees due at any time during this proceeding to Deposit
`
`Account No. 02-4550.
`
`IV. GROUNDS FOR STANDING
`
`Petitioners certify that the ’124 patent is available for IPR and Petitioners
`
`are not barred or estopped from requesting IPR on the grounds identified herein.
`
`V.
`
`PRECISE RELIEF REQUESTED1
`
`A.
`
`Proposed Grounds And Prior Art
`
`Claims 1-10 of the ’124 patent should be canceled as unpatentable on the
`
`following grounds:
`
`
`1 The unpatentability positons herein take into account Patent Owner’s
`
`infringement positions in the co-pending litigation and in some instances are
`
`based in-part on these positions. Petitioners do not necessarily agree that these
`
`positions reflect the proper claim scope in district court, however, and reserve
`
`
`
`3
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`Patent No. 7,552,124
`
`
`
`Ground 1: Claims 1-10 are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)2 in
`
`view of Maes (Ex. 1005), Maes II (Ex. 1010), and Preston (Ex. 1006); and
`
`Ground 2: Claims 1-10 are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) in
`
`view of Pazandak (Ex. 1007), White (Ex. 1008), and Manson (Ex. 1009).
`
`Sections VIII-IX, below, provide a more detailed statement of the precise
`
`relief requested. For each ground, the petition demonstrates at least a reasonable
`
`likelihood that each challenged claim is unpatentable.
`
`The ’124 patent effective filing date is no earlier than June 17, 2004.
`
`Ex. 1001.
`
`Maes issued February 21, 2006 from PCT No. PCT/US99/22925 with a
`
`35 U.S.C. § 371(c)(1) date of June 25, 2001. Ex. 1005. Pazandak issued April
`
`11, 2006 from an application filed August 8, 2000. Ex. 1007. Manson issued
`
`August 1, 2006, from an application filed June 18, 2001. Ex. 1009. Therefore,
`
`each is prior art at least under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e).
`
`
`the right to propose different meanings for claim terms under the Phillips
`
`standard in district court.
`
`2 All citations to 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 and 103 are to the pre-AIA versions.
`
`
`
`4
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`Patent No. 7,552,124
`
`
`
`Maes II issued August 10, 1999. Ex. 1010. Preston published March 6,
`
`2003. Ex. 1006. White published June 13, 2002. Ex. 1008. Therefore, each is
`
`prior art at least under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b).
`
`Maes, Maes II, Preston, White, and Manson were not considered by the
`
`Examiner during prosecution of the ’124 patent. The Examiner cited Pazandak,
`
`but only for anticipation (not obviousness) rejections. Ex. 1003, 10-21, 31-37.
`
`B.
`
`The Proposed Grounds Are Not Redundant
`
`The proposed Grounds are not redundant at least because of several
`
`significant differences between them. For example, the primary Ground 1
`
`reference (Maes) focuses on speech-based input and describes a natural
`
`language system without mentioning any need for a selection of menu items. See
`
`infra Section IX.A. The primary Ground 2 reference (Pazandak), on the other
`
`hand, focuses more on non-voice input and describes specific alternatives to
`
`menu-based user inputs. See infra Section IX.B. And, each Ground relies on
`
`distinct secondary references to render the claims obvious.
`
`VI. LEVEL OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART
`
`A person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the alleged invention of
`
`the ’124 patent (“POSITA”) would have had at least an undergraduate degree in
`
`electrical engineering, computer science, or a related field, and two years of
`
`experience in networked communications devices and systems, including
`
`
`
`5
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`Patent No. 7,552,124
`
`
`
`experience implementing systems having natural language processing
`
`capabilities, including voice processing. Ex. 1002, ¶49.
`
`VII. 8-481-9.60-ߣ "2)6-6
`
`A. 6DAߣ "2=JAJ
`
`The ’124 patent is titled “Natural language for programming a specialized
`
`computing system,” and is allegedly “directed to a system and corresponding
`
`methods that facilitate programming a mobile communication device or other
`
`specialized computing device using a natural language.” Ex. 1001, 1:55-58. Fig.
`
`1 is exemplary:
`
`
`
`B.
`
`ߣ "2=JAJ2HIA?KJE0EIJHO
`
`The ’124 application was filed June 17, 2004. Ex. 1001. In September
`
`2006, the PTO issued an office action rejecting all pending claims as anticipated
`
`
`
`6
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`Patent No. 7,552,124
`
`
`
`by Pazandak. Ex. 1003, 29-37. In response, applicant added several elements to
`
`independent claims 1 and 11. Id., 22-28.
`
`In June 2007, the PTO again rejected all claims as anticipated by
`
`Pazandak. Id., 8-21. In response, the applicant again amended independent
`
`claims 1 and 11, adding the following elements to claim 1 (and corresponding
`
`“means for” elements to claim 11, which issued as claim 6):
`
`• “determining level of complexity and implementation of the high-level
`
`code”
`
`• “designating an application software to process the high level code”
`
`• the three final wherein clauses.
`
`Id., 1-7. The PTO then allowed all pending claims.
`
`Notably, the Examiner never considered Pazandak in combination with
`
`any other reference, and as shown herein the elements allegedly missing from
`
`Pazandak are clearly in prior art references that a POSITA would have been
`
`motivated to combine with Pazandak.3
`
`
`3 During prosecution of a foreign counterpart to the ’124 patent, a European
`
`Examiner found the claims lacked inventive step over a foreign counterpart to
`
`
`
`7
`
`

`

`VIII. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`Patent No. 7,552,124
`
`
`
`The claims should be given their broadest reasonable interpretation
`
`(“BRI”). 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b). Petitioners propose the following BRIs.4
`
`A.
`
`“Operative Language”
`
`Solely for this proceeding under the BRI, Petitioners do not contest the
`
`construction of this term as encompassing at least “language associated with
`
`one or more operations to be performed.” Ex. 1001, 9:2-4, 10:6-9, 4:19-21
`
`(“operative language” may “defin[e] an instruction for a function or an operation
`
`to be performed.”), 4:25-28.
`
`B.
`
`“High-Level Code”
`
`Patent Owner asserts in district court that “high-level code” includes
`
`“spoken or written words” that a “user inputs via a touchscreen, keyboard, or
`
`microphone.” Ex. 1013, 4-5; see also Ex. 1018, 2 (proposing construction of
`
`
`Pazandak and another reference. Ex. 1004, 3-7. In response, the Applicant
`
`withdrew the European counterpart. Ex. 1017, 1.
`
`4 Petitioners do not concede that these are the proper constructions in district
`
`court or that claims 1-10 satisfy the requirements of 35 U.S.C. § 112. Petitioners
`
`reserve their rights to assert contrary interpretations and Section 112 defenses in
`
`litigation.
`
`
`
`8
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`Patent No. 7,552,124
`
`
`
`“naturally or spoken or written text”). Petitioners do not object, solely for this
`
`proceeding under the BRI, to construing this term as “encompassing at least
`
`spoken or written words input by a user.”
`
`C.
`
`“The Parsing And Determining Steps”
`
`Claim 1 recites “determining level of complexity and implementation of
`
`the high-level code.” Because it is not clear how the step of “determining ...
`
`implementation” can “depend[] on implementation,” in IPR2016-01669 Google
`
`interpreted the BRI of this phrase such that:
`
`“parsing … steps” refers to “parsing the high-level code …”
`
`“determining steps” refers to
`
`• “determining at least one operation …” and
`
`• “determining whether high-level code comprises …”.
`
`Ex. 1011, 43-44 n.11. Patent Owner did not dispute this interpretation in the
`
`other proceeding. For purposes of the current proceeding, Petitioners do not
`
`dispute this interpretation.
`
`D. Means-Plus-Function Claim Terms
`
`“‘[M]eans’ in a claim element creates a rebuttable presumption that § 112,
`
`para. 6 applies.” Williamson v. Citrix Online, LLC, 792 F.3d 1339, 1348 (Fed.
`
`Cir. 2015). Means-plus-function claim elements are construed to cover the
`
`
`
`9
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`Patent No. 7,552,124
`
`
`
`corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification, and
`
`equivalents thereof. Id. at 1351. When directed to software, means-plus-function
`
`terms require a corresponding algorithm. Id. at 1352.
`
`1.
`
`“Means For Receiving
`A High-Level Code ...” (element 6.b)
`
`The function for this term is “receiving a high-level code comprising
`
`one or more keywords.” Petitioners do not object, solely for this proceeding
`
`under the BRI, to identifying the corresponding structure for this function as “a
`
`user interface, including a keypad, pointing device, touchscreen, keyboard,
`
`microphone, or equivalents thereof.” See Ex. 1001, 5:31-34, 6:56-57; see also
`
`Ex. 1013, 5 (Patent Ownere alleging that “high-level code” may be received “via
`
`a touchscreen, keyboard, or microphone”5).
`
`2.
`
`Additional “Means For” Limitations
`
`The following chart identifies other means-plus-function terms in
`
`elements 6.c–6.h (bold-highlighted text in the left column is the identified
`
`function, the right column lists the corresponding structure).
`
`
`5 The ’124 patent does not recite these structures in its specification.
`
`
`
`10
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`Patent No. 7,552,124
`
`Corresponding Structure
`
`
`
`Each of these elements recites function
`
`without sufficient structure for performing
`
`the function. However, for purposes of this
`
`proceeding, the structure should be
`
`“application software executing on one or
`
`more processors to perform the identified
`
`functions or equivalents thereof.”
`
`Term and Identified
`Function
`6.c. means for parsing the high-level
`
`code for the keywords to recognize
`
`the operative language associated
`
`with controlling one or more
`
`operations of the mobile
`
`communication device
`
`6.d. means for determining at least
`
`one operation associated with the
`
`operative language
`
`6.e. means for determining whether
`
`high-level code comprises keywords
`
`defining one or more relationships
`
`and conditions corresponding to the
`
`operative language
`
`6.f. means for producing an
`
`executable code
`
`
`
`11
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`Patent No. 7,552,124
`
`Corresponding Structure
`
`
`
`Term and Identified
`Function
`6.g. means for determining level of
`
`complexity and implementation of
`
`the high-level code
`
`6.h. means for designation an
`
`application software to process the
`
`high-level code
`
`
`
`As structure for these functions, Patent Owner has pointed to “application
`
`software 1122.” See Ex. 1018, 7-11; see also Ex. 1001, 4:58-5:4, 5:18-27, 6:23-
`
`30, 6:51-61, 7:56-63. Petitioners do not object, solely for this proceeding under
`
`the BRI, to identifying the structure/algorithm for each of these functions as
`
`application software executing on one or more processors to perform the
`
`identified functions or equivalents thereof.
`
`
`
`12
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`Patent No. 7,552,124
`
`IX. DETAILED EXPLANATION OF GROUNDS
`
`A. Ground 1: Maes, Maes II,
`And Preston Render Claims 1-10 Obvious
`
`1.
`
`Claims 1/66
`
`
`
`
`
`a.
`
`“A [method/system] for programming a
`mobile communication device based on a
`high-level code comprising operative
`language, the [method/system] comprising:”
`
`If limiting, Maes discloses the preamble. Maes explains that client device
`
`100 (the claimed “mobile communication device”) “may be, for example, a
`
`smartphone or any speech-enabled PDA.” Ex. 1005, 4:18-20; Ex. 1002 ¶82.
`
`Maes also discloses programming the mobile communication device based on a
`
`high-level code that comprises an operative language associated with one or
`
`more functions to be performed by the smartphone (i.e., the spoken natural
`
`language contains keywords that cause the phone to be programmed to perform
`
`a function). Id., 15:33 – 16:47. For example, Maes provides that “[t]he user can
`
`... utter a command such as ‘dial first name last name at ... possible qualifier
`
`(home, office, cell phone)[’], and upon recognition/understanding of the
`
`
`6 Petitioners address the ’124 patent’s method and systems claims together
`
`because those claims recite essentially the same features, albeit in different
`
`claiming styles.
`
`
`
`13
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`Patent No. 7,552,124
`
`
`
`command (via the local conversational engines 102), the smartphone will
`
`automatically dial the phone number associated with the person in the address
`
`book (via the local applications 104).” Id., 15:46-55; Ex. 1002, ¶¶83-87. The
`
`uttered command is the high-level code – which comprises operative language
`
`including the keyword “dial” – and the high-level code is used to program the
`
`mobile communication device to perform the requested action. Ex. 1002, ¶¶83-
`
`87.
`
`Maes also discloses a system for performing the same claimed
`
`programming, as shown in FIG. 1:
`
`
`
`14
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`Patent No. 7,552,124
`
`
`
`
`
`Ex. 1005, FIG. 1; see also id., 4:15-29, 15:46-55, 16:7-13; Ex. 1002, ¶87; see
`
`also infra Sections IX.A.1.b–l.
`
`To the extent that Patent Owner argues that “high-level code” requires
`
`text input, the combination of Maes and Preston still renders these claims
`
`obvious. See infra Sections IX.A.4–5; Ex. 1002, ¶87.
`
`
`
`15
`
`

`

`b.
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`Patent No. 7,552,124
`
`
`
`“[means for] receiving a high-level code
`comprising one or more keywords, wherein
`the high-level code is provided by a user of a
`mobile communication device to control the
`operation of the mobile communication device
`without having to select from menu items
`provided by an operating system running
`JDA>EA?KE?=JE@ALE?A ”
`
`As explained above in Section IX.A.1.a, Maes discloses a mobile
`
`communication device receiving high-level code by a user of that device
`
`uttering “a command” (high-level code) such as “dial first name last name at ...
`
`possible qualifier (home, office, cell phone)” to control the operation of the
`
`mobile communication device, e.g., to dial the requested number. Ex. 1005,
`
`15:46-55. The high-level code comprises one or more keywords, for example
`
`“dial,” “at,” “home,” “office,” “cell phone,” “first name,” and “last name.” See
`
`also Ex. 1002, ¶89.
`
`Maes also discloses “[means for] receiving ... without having to select
`
`from menu items provided by an operating system running on the mobile
`
`communication device.” For example, Maes discloses that “[a]dvantageously,
`
`the present invention offers a full fledged conversational user interface on any
`
`device.” Ex. 1005, 3:11-12. And further that “[i]t is to be appreciated that the
`
`system and methods described herein can be implemented for various speech
`
`enabled and conversational applications.” Ex. 1005, 15:33-35; see also, 10:59-
`
`
`
`16
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`Patent No. 7,552,124
`
`
`
`62, 15:46-55. Maes is silent regarding the use of menus and a POSITA would
`
`understand that “a full fledged conversational user interface” would of necessity
`
`enable a user to provide “high-level code comprising one or more keywords” to
`
`the mobile device without selection of items from a menu.” Ex. 1002, ¶90. Thus,
`
`Maes discloses the “negative” limitation of receiving high-level code provided
`
`by a user “without” having to select from menu items.
`
`Maes also discloses