Trials@uspto.gov
`571-272-7822
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` Paper 9
`
`
`
` Entered: March 8, 2017
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`
` GOOGLE INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`
` IXI MOBILE (R&D) LTD.,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`Case IPR2016-01669
`Patent 7,552,124 B2
`____________
`
`
`Before BRYAN F. MOORE, TREVOR M. JEFFERSON, and
`DANIEL J. GALLIGAN, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`MOORE, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`DECISION
`Institution of Inter Partes Review
`37 C.F.R. § 42.108
`
`
`
`
`
`Ex. 2001 1/42
`
`
`571-272-7822
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` Paper 9
`
`
`
` Entered: March 8, 2017
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`
` GOOGLE INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`
` IXI MOBILE (R&D) LTD.,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`Case IPR2016-01669
`Patent 7,552,124 B2
`____________
`
`
`Before BRYAN F. MOORE, TREVOR M. JEFFERSON, and
`DANIEL J. GALLIGAN, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`MOORE, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`DECISION
`Institution of Inter Partes Review
`37 C.F.R. § 42.108
`
`
`
`
`
`Ex. 2001 1/42
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01669
`Patent 7,552,124 B2
`
`
`
`I. INTRODUCTION
`Google, Inc. (“Petitioner”) filed a Petition (Paper 2, “Pet.”) pursuant
`to 35 U.S.C. §§ 311–19 to institute an inter partes review of claims 1–10 of
`U.S. Patent No. 7,552,124 B2 (“the ’124 patent,” Ex. 1001). The Petition is
`supported by the Declaration of Jason Flinn, Ph.D. (Ex. 1002). IXI Mobile
`(R&D) Ltd. (“Patent Owner”) filed a Preliminary Response (“Prelim.
`Resp.,” Paper 7). The Preliminary Response is supported by the Declaration
`of Lin Chase, Ph.D. (“Chase Declaration,” “Chase Dec.,” Ex. 2001).
`For the reasons set forth below, we institute an inter partes review of
`claims 1–5 of the ’124 patent, but we do not institute an inter partes review
`of claims 6–10 of the ’124 patent.
`A. Related Matters
`Petitioner advises us that the following District Court lawsuits may
`affect or be affected by this proceeding: IXI Mobile (R&D) Ltd. v.
`BlackBerry Limited, No. 2:15-cv-01883 (E.D. Tex.); IXI IP, LLC v. HTC
`Corp., No. 2:15-cv-1884 (E.D. Tex.); IXI IP, LLC v. Samsung Elecs. Co.,
`Ltd., No. 2:15-cv-01885 (E.D. Tex.); IXI IP, LLC v. ZTE Corp., No. 2:15-
`cv-01886 (E.D. Tex.); and Google Inc. v. IXI Mobile (R&D) Ltd., No. 5:16-
`cv-04173 (N.D. Cal). Pet. 1. Petitioner also identifies Microsoft Corp. et al.
`v. IXI IP, LLC, IPR2017-00898, filed February 16, 2017, as involving the
`’124 patent. Paper 8, 1.
`
`B. The ’124 Patent
`The ’124 patent, titled “Natural language for programming a
`specialized computing system,” is directed to a method and corresponding
`
`2
`
`Ex. 2001 2/42
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01669
`Patent 7,552,124 B2
`
`
`system for “programming a mobile communication device based on a high-
`level code comprising operative language.” Ex. 1001, Title, Abstract. A
`user provides “[h]igh-level code 150 [which] may comprise one or more
`sentences, wherein each sentence comprises at least one operative language
`(i.e. keyword) defining an instruction for a function or an operation to be
`performed.” Id. at 4:10–21. “[I]f high-level code 150 comprises a complex
`set of instructions, then high-level code 150 is transmitted to network server
`100,” but
`if high-level code 150 comprises a less complex structure, then
`application software 1122 or a portion thereof is installed and
`executed on mobile device 120 to process high-level code 150 to
`produce executable code 160, without the need for transferring
`high-level code 150 to a more powerful processing environment
`implemented on network server 100.
`
`Id. at 4:49–51, 4:58–64.
`
`C. Illustrative Claim
`Of the challenged claims, claims 1 and 6 are the only independent
`claims.
`Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative.
`1. A method for programming a mobile communication device based on a
`high-level code comprising operative language, the method comprising:
`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;
`
`3
`
`Ex. 2001 3/42
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01669
`Patent 7,552,124 B2
`
`
`
`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;
`determining at least one operation associated with the
`operative language;
`determining whether high-level code comprises keywords
`defining one or more relationships and conditions corresponding
`to the operative language;
`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;
`determining level of complexity and implementation of the
`high-level code; and
`designating an application software to process the high level
`
`code,
`
`wherein the high-level code comprises at least one sentence
`formatted in accordance with a first context,
`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,
`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
`wherein when the high-level code comprises a 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.
`
`Ex. 1001, 8:59–9:38.
`
`4
`
`Ex. 2001 4/42
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01669
`Patent 7,552,124 B2
`
`
`
`
`D. Prior Art Relied Upon
`Petitioner relies upon the following prior art references:
`
`(Ex. 1005)
`Feb. 21, 20061
`Maes
`US 7,003,463 B1
`(Ex. 1006)
`Preston
`US 2003/0046061 A1
`Mar. 6, 2003
`Pazandak US 7,027,975 B1
`Apr. 11, 20062 (Ex. 1007)
`White
`US 2002/0072918 A1
`June 13, 2002
`(Ex. 1008)
`Aug. 1, 20063
`(Ex. 1009)
`Manson
`US 7,085,708 B2
`
`
`
`E. Asserted Grounds of Unpatentability
`Petitioner asserts the following grounds of unpatentability (Pet. 2):
`
`Challenged Claims
`
`Basis
`
`References
`
`1–10
`
`1–10
`
`§ 103 Maes and Preston
`
`§ 103
`
`Pazandak, White, and Manson
`
`
`
`II. ANALYSIS
`A. Claim Construction
`In an inter partes review, claim terms in an unexpired patent are given
`their broadest reasonable construction in light of the specification of the
`patent in which they appear. 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b); Cuozzo Speed Techs.,
`LLC v. Lee, 136 S.Ct. 2131, 2144–46 (2016). Under the broadest reasonable
`
`
`1 From a PCT with a 35 U.S.C. § 371(c)(1) date of June 25, 2001.
`2 Filed August 8, 2000.
`3 Filed June 18, 2001.
`
`5
`
`Ex. 2001 5/42
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01669
`Patent 7,552,124 B2
`
`
`interpretation standard, claim terms are given their ordinary and customary
`meaning as would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art in the
`context of the entire disclosure. In re Translogic Tech., Inc., 504 F.3d 1249,
`1257 (Fed. Cir. 2007).
`
`1. “operative language”
`Petitioner proposes a construction for the claim term “operative
`language” (claims 1–10). Pet. 7–8. Specifically, Petitioner proposes that
`“operative language” means “language associated with one or more
`operations to be performed.” Id. at 7. Petitioner relies on the Specification’s
`disclosure that ‘“operative language’ [(i.e. keyword]) [may] . . . ‘defin[e] an
`instruction for a function or an operation to be performed.”’ Ex. 1001, 4:19–
`21 (cited at Pet. 8); Pet. 7–8 (citing Ex. 1001, 4:25–28, 9:2–4, 10:6–9; Ex.
`1002 ¶¶ 24–25).
`Patent Owner asserts “[f]or purposes of this paper, Patent Owner
`applies Petitioner’s proposed construction without prejudice, but reserves its
`rights to present evidence and arguments in this or any other proceeding as
`to the proper construction of the term ‘operative language’ within the
`meaning of the ’124 Patent.” Prelim. Resp. 6. Petitioner’s construction is
`generally consistent with the Specification. However, because, at this stage,
`there is no significant argument that the prior art does not read on this term,
`we determine it is unnecessary to provide an express construction for this
`claim term at this stage of the proceeding.
`
`6
`
`Ex. 2001 6/42
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01669
`Patent 7,552,124 B2
`
`
`
`2. Means-Plus-Function Terms
`Petitioner recognizes that claims 6–104 contain limitations written in
`means-plus-function format5 and that, as such, there is a rebuttable
`presumption that they are governed by section 112, paragraph 6. Pet. 8–10;
`See Personalized Media Communications, LLC v. International Trade
`Commission, 161 F.3d 696, 703–04 (Fed. Cir. 1998). On the present record,
`we determine that section 112, paragraph 6 governs these limitations, as they
`use the word “means,” and no rebuttal evidence has been presented. Id.;
`Prelim. Resp. 7. Thus, pursuant to the statute, they are to be construed to
`cover the corresponding structure described in the specification and
`equivalents. See 35 U.S.C. § 112 ¶ 6.
`As an example, one of the limitations at issue recites “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
`
`
`4 Claims 7–10 depend ultimately from claim 6 and incorporate the means
`plus-function limitations of claim 6.
`5 Specifically, “means for receiving a high-level code comprising one or
`more keywords”; “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”; “means for determining at
`least one operation associated with the operative language”; “means for
`determining whether high-level code comprises keywords defining one or
`more relationships and conditions corresponding to the operative language”;
`“means for producing an executable code”; “means for determining level of
`complexity and implementation of the high-level code”; and “means for
`designation an application software to process the high-level code.”
`
`
`7
`
`Ex. 2001 7/42
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01669
`Patent 7,552,124 B2
`
`
`communication device.” Pet. 9. Petitioner contends that the structure that
`should relied upon for the recited function for this limitation—and as to all
`but one of these limitations6—is “software running on a processor
`configured to perform the identified functions or equivalents thereof.” Id.
`However, neither Petitioner nor Patent Owner points to any algorithm for
`performing the functions contained in the relevant limitations of claims 6–
`10. Pet. 11–13; see also Function Media, LLC v. Google, Inc., 708 F.3d
`1310, 1318 (Fed. Cir. 2013) (holding that a computer-implemented means-
`plus-function limitation is indefinite because the specification failed to
`disclose the specific algorithm used by the computer to perform the recited
`function). In fact, Petitioner asserts that “beyond repeating some claim
`language for some identified functions, the specification for the ’124 patent
`does not disclose any algorithm that corresponds to the identified functions
`of [the means-plus-function claim elements].” Pet. 12–13.
`The Specification states “application software 1122 parses high-level
`code 150 for keywords in an attempt to recognize any operative language
`included in high-level code 150 (S220).” Ex. 1001, 5:36–39. However, the
`Specification does not explain sufficiently how the application software
`recognizes the keywords. C.f. TecSec, Inc. v. Int’l Bus. Machines Corp., 731
`F.3d 1336, 1348–49 (Fed. Cir. 2013) (finding that an algorithm was shown
`
`
`6 Petitioner asserts that the corresponding structure for the term “means for
`receiving a high-level code comprising one or more keywords” is “a user
`interface, including a keypad, pointing device, touchscreen, keyboard,
`microphone, or equivalents thereof.” Pet. 9
`8
`
`Ex. 2001 8/42
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01669
`Patent 7,552,124 B2
`
`
`despite the specification’s reference to generic software because the
`specification explains how the generic software works.). Such “black box”
`disclosures of software can be too generic to provide corresponding structure
`for computer-implemented means-plus-function limitations. Blackboard,
`Inc. v. Desire2Learn Inc., 574 F.3d 1371, 1383 (Fed. Cir.2009) (“The ACM
`is essentially a black box that performs a recited function. But how it does
`so is left undisclosed.”); ePlus, Inc. v. Lawson Software, Inc., 700 F.3d 509,
`518 (Fed. Cir.2012) (holding that “black box” labeled “Purchase Orders”
`was insufficient structure to perform the “generate purchase orders”
`function); Noah Sys., Inc. v. Intuit Inc., 675 F.3d 1302, 1316–17 (Fed. Cir.
`2012) (“the disclosure must identify the method for performing the function,
`whether or not a skilled artisan might otherwise be able to glean such a
`method from other sources or from his own understanding.”). That is the
`case here. Thus, Petitioner has not shown sufficiently that the Specification
`discloses an algorithm for the function of parsing a keyword or any other
`structure to enable us to determine if the asserted prior art teaches such
`structure.
`Thus, Petitioner fails to demonstrate a reasonable likelihood of
`prevailing in its challenge to claims 6–10, and the Petition as to those claims
`is denied. See Blackberry Corp. v. MobileMedia Ideas, LLC, IPR2013-
`00036, Paper No. 65 (Mar. 7, 2014) (terminating inter partes review
`proceeding because specification did not disclose specific algorithm to
`perform recited function of a computer-implemented means-plus-function
`term).
`
`9
`
`Ex. 2001 9/42
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01669
`Patent 7,552,124 B2
`
`
`
`For purposes of this Decision and based on the record before us, we
`determine it is unnecessary to provide express constructions for any other
`claim terms at this stage of the proceeding.
`B. Principles of Law
`A patent claim is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) if the
`differences between the claimed subject matter and the prior art are such that
`the subject matter, as a whole, would have been obvious at the time the
`invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said
`subject matter pertains. KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 406
`(2007). The question of obviousness is resolved on the basis of underlying
`factual determinations including: (1) the scope and content of the prior art;
`(2) any differences between the claimed subject matter and the prior art;
`(3) the level of ordinary skill in the art; and (4) objective evidence of
`nonobviousness. Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 17–18 (1966).
`In that regard, an obviousness analysis “need not seek out precise
`teachings directed to the specific subject matter of the challenged claim, for
`a court can take account of the inferences and creative steps that a person of
`ordinary skill in the art would employ.” KSR, 550 U.S. at 418; see also
`Translogic, 504 F.3d at 1259, 1262 (quoting KSR, 550 U.S. at 418).
`The level of ordinary skill in the art is reflected by the prior art of
`record. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001);
`In re GPAC Inc., 57 F.3d 1573, 1579 (Fed. Cir. 1995); In re Oelrich,
`579 F.2d 86, 91 (CCPA 1978).
`
`10
`
`Ex. 2001 10/42
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01669
`Patent 7,552,124 B2
`
`
`
`C. Obviousness of Claims over Maes and Preston
`Petitioner asserts that claims 1–5 are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C.
`§ 103(a) as obvious over Maes and Preston. Pet. 14. To support its
`contentions, Petitioner provides explanations as to how the prior art
`allegedly teaches each claim limitation. Id. at 14–46.
`1. Maes
`Maes (Ex. 1005), entitled “System and Method for Providing Network
`Coordinated Conversational Services,” is generally directed to a “system and
`method for providing automatic and coordinated sharing of conversational
`resources, e.g., functions and arguments, between network-connected
`servers and devices and their corresponding applications.” Ex. 1005,
`Abstract. Maes provides third party applications access to conversational
`services that are, in general, complex, resource-intensive, and expensive to
`operate (e.g., speech recognition, natural language understanding, text-to-
`speech generation, natural language generation, and speaker identification).
`See, e.g., id. at 1:49–60, 4:24–29, 4:57–62, 8:13–16. Maes describes a
`system in which networked devices are made “conversationally aware” of
`each other by using conversational network protocols to transmit messages,
`processed by dialog managers, to automatically share conversational
`resources and functions among the networked devices, and the method of
`operating such a system. Id. at 2:35–48, 5:19–25.
`2. Preston
`Preston (Ex. 1006), entitled “Apparatus for Automatically Generating
`Source Code,” provides “[a] method of automatically generating software
`
`11
`
`Ex. 2001 11/42
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01669
`Patent 7,552,124 B2
`
`
`from one or more predefined functions in accordance with an input
`statement entered in natural language.” Ex. 1006, Abstract. Preston further
`“relates to apparatus for automatically generating source code, and is
`particularly, but not exclusively, suitable for generating source code for
`communication services.” Id. ¶ 1.
`Preston explains that a non-programmer should be able to program a
`system without the need to learn a particular programming language and
`identifies that there are “many situations where it is desirable for a non-
`programmer to be able to program a system so that it can subsequently act
`on his or her behalf without further interaction.” Id. ¶¶ 7, 8.
`Preston describes a method to allow a user (e.g., a non-programmer)
`to input a natural language instruction and have it analyzed to generate
`source code customized for carrying out the user’s wishes. Id. ¶ 49. Preston
`provides that certain natural language descriptions are associated with
`predefined functions and their relationships are stored in data storage. Id.
`¶ 57. After a user inputs natural language, it is determined whether the input
`natural language is associated with any of the pre-defined functions in the
`data storage. Id. ¶ 61. If the user’s input is associated with a function
`contained in the data storage, a code generator generates source code
`corresponding to the pre-defined function. Id.
`
`12
`
`Ex. 2001 12/42
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01669
`Patent 7,552,124 B2
`
`
`
`3. Analysis
`
`a. Claim 1
`i. “receiving a high-level code . . .”
`Petitioner establishes sufficiently for purposes of this Decision that
`Maes teaches “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.” Pet. 17–18; Ex.
`1005, 10:59–62, 15:46–61; Ex. 1002, ¶ 64.
`ii. “parsing the high-level code for the keywords . . .”
`Petitioner establishes sufficiently for purposes of this Decision that
`the combination of Maes and Preston teaches “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.”
`Pet. 18–21; Ex. 1005, 2:6–10, 4:24–29, 4:57–62, 8:34–35, 11:23–33, FIG. 2;
`Ex. 1002 ¶ 64. For example, Petitioner asserts that “Maes describes
`‘recognition/understanding’ of the word ‘dial’ in a command to dial a phone
`number.” Pet. 21 (citing Ex. 1005, 15:49–61; Ex. 1002, ¶ 64).
`iii. “determining at least one operation . . .”
`Petitioner establishes sufficiently for purposes of this Decision that
`Maes teaches “determining at least one operation associated with the
`operative language.” Pet. 21–22; Ex. 1005, 4:24–29, 57–62, 11:46–47, 62–
`63, 15:49–61; Ex. 1002, ¶ 64.
`
`13
`
`Ex. 2001 13/42
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01669
`Patent 7,552,124 B2
`
`
`
`iv. “determining whether high-level code comprises
`keywords . . .”
`
`Petitioner establishes sufficiently for purposes of this Decision that
`the combination of Maes and Preston teaches “determining whether high-
`level code comprises keywords defining one or more relationships and
`conditions corresponding to the operative language.” Pet. 22–25; Ex. 1005,
`2:6-10, 4:24–29, 4:57–62, 8:34–35, 11:23–33, FIG. 2, Ex. 1006 ¶¶ 49, 92,
`99–102, 123; Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 41–44, 64. For example, Petitioner relies on
`Preston to show keywords defining relationships and conditions. Pet. 23;
`Ex. 1006 ¶¶ 49, 92, 99–102, 123. Preston discloses “input statements, which
`are entered in natural language, . . . may comprise condition/action
`information.” Ex. 1006 ¶ 99. On the present record, Petitioner articulates
`sufficient reasons for combining Maes and Preston including at least that the
`combination uses known method to obtain predictable results. Pet. 24–25.
`For example, Petitioner asserts:
`A POSA would have recognized the benefits of modifying the
`system and processes of Maes to use and process high-level code
`including keywords defining relationships and conditions,
`similar to that disclosed by Preston, and thus would have been
`motivated to modify the system and processes of Maes in this
`way. Such a modification would have enabled a user of the
`system and processes of Maes to accomplish a wider variety of
`tasks through commands uttered to a mobile communication
`device, e.g., because the commands could include details
`regarding relationships and conditions pertinent to the user’s
`desires. See, e.g., Ex. 1006, ¶¶ [0099]-[0102]; Ex. 1002, ¶64.
`This modification would have been a straightforward
`change for a POSA to make, given that both Maes’s system and
`Preston’s system operate in a similar manner, e.g., by accepting
`14
`
`Ex. 2001 14/42
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01669
`Patent 7,552,124 B2
`
`
`
`a natural language input from a user, processing the input, and
`controlling a mobile communication device to perform a task
`based on the processed input. See Ex. 1005, 15:49-55, 11:23-33,
`FIG. 2; Ex. 1006, Abstract; Ex. 1002, ¶64. Modifying Maes to
`determine whether high-level code comprises keywords defining
`relationships and conditions corresponding to operative language
`would have required minimal change to downstream processing
`related to controlling the mobile communication device that
`would have been within the skill of an ordinary artisan. Ex. 1005,
`15:49-55, 11:23-33, FIG. 2; Ex. 1006, Abstract; Ex. 1002, ¶64.
`Indeed, adding to Maes the capability to determine
`whether high-level code comprises keywords defining
`relationships and conditions corresponding to operative language
`would have involved a combination of prior art elements (e.g.,
`Maes’s speech recognition, conversational engines, and control
`of a device such as a phone, and Preston’s keywords defining
`relationships and conditions) according to known methods (e.g.,
`including Preston’s processing regarding relationships and
`conditions to Maes’s conversational engines, which already
`included parsing capabilities to recognize operative language) to
`yield predictable results (e.g., Maes’s conversational system and
`natural language understanding engines being augmented to be
`able to process additional natural language statements pertaining
`to additional scenarios, thereby expanding the user’s ability to
`program the device). See KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S.
`398, 416 (2007); Ex. 1002, ¶64.
`
`
`Id.
`
`v. “producing an executable code . . .”
`Petitioner establishes sufficiently for purposes of this Decision that
`the combination of Maes and Preston teaches “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
`
`15
`
`Ex. 2001 15/42
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01669
`Patent 7,552,124 B2
`
`
`language.” Pet. 26–30; Ex. 1005, 1:63–65, 5:58–64; 6:11–37; 8:34, 11:23–
`33, 15:45–49, Ex. 1006 ¶¶ 7–8, 49, 59, 61, 77–82, 185; Ex. 1002 ¶ 64. On
`the present record, Petitioner articulates sufficient reasons for combining
`Maes and Preston including at least that the combination uses known method
`to obtain predictable results. Pet. 29. For example, Petitioner relies on the
`reasons stated in the quoted section above. Additionally, Petitioner asserts:
`Given the disclosures of Preston and Maes, a POSA at the time
`of the alleged invention for the ’124 patent would have
`recognized the benefit of modifying the system and processes of
`Maes to implement producing an executable code that can be
`executed to perform the respective operation associated with the
`operative language, similarly to as described in Preston. Ex.
`1002, ¶64; see also Ex. 1006, ¶¶ [0007]-[0008]. Additionally, a
`POSA would have found this modification to be a simple
`combination of familiar elements (e.g., Maes’s natural language
`input and Preston’s conversion of natural language input into
`executable code) according to known methods (e.g., generation
`of executable code by producing source code and compiling it to
`generate object code for execution by a processor, as was well
`known in the art) to yield predictable results. See KSR, 550 U.S.
`at 416; Ex. 1002, ¶64. Modifying Maes in this way would have
`yielded the predictable result of generating executable code that
`could be executed by a device, as expressly contemplated by
`Maes. Ex. 1005, 3:64-65; Ex. 1002, ¶64.
`
`
`Id. at 28–29.
`
`vi. “determining level of complexity and
`implementation of the high-level code”
`
`Petitioner establishes sufficiently for purposes of this Decision
`that Maes teaches “determining level of complexity and
`
`16
`
`Ex. 2001 16/42
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01669
`Patent 7,552,124 B2
`
`
`implementation of the high-level code.” Pet. 31–32; Ex. 1005, 3:1–5,
`4:36–44; 11:8–10, 16:42–47; Ex. 1002, ¶ 64.
`vii. “designating an application software to
`process the high level code”
`
`Petitioner establishes sufficiently for purposes of this Decision
`that Maes teaches “designating an application software to process the
`high level code.” Pet. 32–33; Ex. 1005, 3:60–62, 4:20–62; Ex. 1002,
`¶ 64.
`
`viii. “wherein the high-level code comprises at least
`one sentence . . .”
`
`
`Petitioner establishes sufficiently for purposes of this Decision
`that Maes teaches “wherein the high-level code comprises at least one
`sentence formatted in accordance with a first context.” Pet. 33–34;
`Ex. 1005, 4:15–17, 24–29, 10:59–62; 15:49–55; Ex. 1002, ¶ 64.
`ix. “wherein the high-level code is processed by a
`natural language compiler . . .”
`
`
`
`Petitioner establishes sufficiently for purposes of this Decision that
`Maes teaches “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” Pet. 34–36; Ex. 1005, 2:66–
`3:10, 4:24–29, 42–45, 57–62, 8:34–35, 11:23–33, 15:55–61, 16:42–47, Fig.
`1; Ex. 1002, ¶ 64. On the present record, Petitioner articulates sufficient
`reasons for combining Maes and Preston. Pet. 36. For example, Petitioner
`argues in the alternative that “it would have been obvious to a POSA to
`17
`
`Ex. 2001 17/42
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01669
`Patent 7,552,124 B2
`
`
`modify the NLU engines in Maes to produce such executable code, in view
`of Preston, which describes such features that result in executable code, for
`the reasons discussed [in regard to the limitation directed to ‘producing an
`executable code’].” Pet. 36.
`x. “wherein application software is executed on a
`distributed environment . . .”
`
`Petitioner establishes sufficiently for purposes of this Decision that
`Maes teaches “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.” Pet. 37–39; Ex. 1005, 3:1–5, 4:10–62, 15:55–61, 16:42–
`47; Ex. 1002, ¶ 64.
`xi. “wherein when the high-level code comprises a
`complex structure . . .”
`
`Petitioner establishes sufficiently for purposes of this Decision that
`Maes teaches “wherein when the high-level code comprises a 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.” Pet.
`39–40; Ex. 1005, 3:1–5, 16:42–47; Ex. 1002, ¶ 64.
`
`18
`
`Ex. 2001 18/42
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01669
`Patent 7,552,124 B2
`
`
`
`b. Patent Owner Response
`i. “parsing the high-level code for the keywords . . .”
`Claim 1 recites “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.” Patent Owner argues
`“Petitioner has failed to show that Maes, upon which Petitioner exclusively
`relies, discloses or suggests the specific parsing technique recited in claims 1
`and 6 of the ’124 Patent, which require ‘parsing the high level code for
`keywords. . . .’” Prelim. Resp. 17. Specifically, Patent Owner asserts
`Maes’s “generic identification of a ‘parser,’ however, does not suggest
`parsing an input for ‘keywords.’ Though NLU services may utilize some
`form of a parser, there is no indication in Maes of any specific parsing
`technique as being part of its NLU service.” Id. at 18 (citing Ex. 2001
`(Chase Dec.) ¶ 51 (internal citations omitted)). Based on the current record
`and the parties’ arguments, we disagree.
`In order to evaluate this argument, we examine how parsing of
`keywords is accomplished in the Specification. Petitioner correctly asserts
`“regarding the parsing features . . . the specification refers to application
`software that is implemented to parse high-level code for keywords in an
`attempt to recognize any data sources.” Pet. 12 (citing Ex. 1001, 5:44–51).
`In fact, the Specification does not explain sufficiently how the parsing for
`keywords is accomplished by the application software.
`Patent Owner, through its Declarant, asserts “[a] person of ordinary
`skill in the art would understand that when parsing for keywords, the parser
`
`19
`
`Ex. 2001 19/42
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01669
`Patent 7,552,124 B2
`
`
`does not account for or rely upon items in the input (high-level code) that are
`not keywords, but rather selectively and individually identifies particular
`items in the input sequence (i.e., the keywords).” Ex. 2001 ¶ 48; Prelim.
`Resp. 3–4. Thus, Patent Owner suggests that the claims require a negative
`limitation to a parser that avoids accounting for non-keywords. Id. Patent
`Owner’s Declarant does not cite the specification or any other reference for
`this proposition nor does Patent Owner provide sufficient evidence to
`support so limiting the claims. Therefore, we find no basis to depart from
`the ordinary and customary meaning of the term, i.e. parsing the input to
`find keywords. See, e.g., Tex. Digital Sys., Inc. v. Telegenix, Inc., 308 F.3d
`1193, 1204 (Fed. Cir. 2002) (explaining the presumption favoring ordinary
`meaning will be overcome by the inventor’s use of words that represent “a
`clear disavowal of claim scope”), cert. denied, 538 U.S. 1058 (2003). Thus,
`we disagree with Patent Owner’s suggestion that the claim is limited to
`avoiding accounting for non-keywords.
`Petitioner asserts that Maes “recognize[s] operative language (e.g.,
`‘dial’) in the user’s command associated with controlling operations of the
`client device (e.g., dialing a phone number). See e.g., [Ex.1001,] 15:49–54;
`Ex. 1002, ¶ 64. For instance, Maes describes ‘recognition/understanding’ of
`the word ‘dial’ in a command to dial a phone number. Ex. 1005, 15:49–61;
`Ex. 1002, ¶ 64.” Pet. 21. Additionally, Maes uses a parser to accomplish
`this task. Id. In other words, Maes parses keywords. Thus, on this record,
`we disagree with Patent Owner.
`
`20
`
`Ex. 2001 20/42
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01669
`Patent 7,552,124 B2
`
`
`
`For the reasons above, Petitioner has shown sufficiently that the
`combination of Maes and Preston teaches “parsing the high-level code for
`the keyw
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
