`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`_________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`_________________
`
`GOOGLE LLC
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`IPA TECHNOLOGIES INC.
`Patent Owner
`
`_________________
`
`Patent No. 6,757,718
`_________________
`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW
`OF U.S. PATENT NO. 6,757,718
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`Patent No. 6,757,718
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`I.
`INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................... 1
`II. MANDATORY NOTICES ............................................................................. 1
`III.
`PAYMENT OF FEES ..................................................................................... 2
`IV. GROUNDS FOR STANDING ........................................................................ 2
`V.
`PRECISE RELIEF REQUESTED AND GROUNDS RAISED ..................... 2
`VI. LEVEL OF ORDINARY SKILL .................................................................... 5
`VII. OVERVIEW OF THE ’718 PATENT AND THE PRIOR ART .................... 6
`A.
`The ’718 Patent ..................................................................................... 6
`B.
`Prosecution History of the ’718 Patent ................................................. 7
`C.
`The Prior Art ......................................................................................... 8
`VIII. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION .......................................................................... 10
`A.
`“Navigation Query” ............................................................................. 11
`B.
`“Code Segment [That]” and “Logic[,] Operable To” ......................... 12
`IX. DETAILED EXPLANATION OF GROUNDS ............................................ 16
`A. Ground 1: Cheyer, Shwartz, and Thrift Render Obvious Claims
`1-4, 6, 8-10, 12, 13, 15, 17-19, 21, 22, 24, 26, 27 ............................... 17
`1.
`Claim 1 ...................................................................................... 17
`2.
`Claims 2 and 3 ........................................................................... 38
`3.
`Claim 4 ...................................................................................... 41
`4.
`Claim 6 ...................................................................................... 44
`5.
`Claims 8, 9 ................................................................................ 45
`6.
`Claim 10 .................................................................................... 46
`7.
`Claim 12 .................................................................................... 50
`8.
`Claim 13 .................................................................................... 51
`9.
`Claim 15 .................................................................................... 52
`10. Claims 17, 18 ............................................................................ 52
`11. Claim 19 .................................................................................... 52
`12. Claim 21 .................................................................................... 57
`i
`
`

`

`C.
`
`B.
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`Patent No. 6,757,718
`13. Claim 22 .................................................................................... 57
`14. Claim 24 .................................................................................... 58
`15. Claims 26, 27 ............................................................................ 59
`Ground 2: Cheyer, Shwartz, Thrift, and Dureau Render
`Obvious Claims 2, 11, and 20 ............................................................. 59
`1.
`Claim 2 ...................................................................................... 59
`2.
`Claims 11, 20 ............................................................................ 62
`Ground 3: Cheyer, Shwartz, Thrift, and Johnson Render
`Obvious Claims 4, 13, and 22 ............................................................. 62
`1.
`Claim 4 ...................................................................................... 63
`2.
`Claim 13 .................................................................................... 69
`3.
`Claim 22 .................................................................................... 69
`D. Ground 4: Cheyer, Shwartz, Thrift, and Simmers Render
`Obvious Claims 5, 7, 14, 16, 23, and 25 ............................................. 69
`1.
`Claims 5, 7 ................................................................................ 69
`2.
`Claims 14, 16, 23, 25 ................................................................ 73
`IPR SHOULD BE INSTITUTED ON ALL GROUNDS ............................. 73
`X.
`XI. CONCLUSION .............................................................................................. 74
`
`
`
`
`
`
`ii
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`Patent No. 6,757,718
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
` Page(s)
`
`Federal Cases
`Blackboard, Inc. v. Desire2Learn, Inc.,
`574 F.3d 1371 (Fed. Cir. 2009) .......................................................................... 16
`Cisco Sys., Inc., v. AIP Acquisition, LLC,
`IPR2014-00247, Paper No. 20 (July 10, 2014) .................................................. 10
`Default Proof Credit Card Sys., Inc. v. Home Depot U.S.A., Inc.,
`412 F.3d 1291 (Fed. Cir. 2005) .......................................................................... 15
`Gracenote, Inc. v. Iceberg Indus., LLC,
`IPR2013-00551, Paper No. 6 (Feb. 28, 2014) .................................................... 15
`KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc.,
`550 U.S. 398 (2007) .....................................................................................passim
`Phillips v. AWH Corp.,
`415 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc) .......................................................... 10
`SDI Techs., Inc. v. Bose Corp.,
`IPR2014-00343, Paper No. 32 (June 11, 2015) .................................................... 4
`Toyota Motor Corp. v. Cellport Systems, Inc.,
`IPR2015-00633, Paper No. 11 (Aug. 14, 2015) ................................................. 10
`Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc.,
`200 F.3d 795 (Fed. Cir. 1999) ............................................................................ 10
`Williamson v. Citrix Online, LLC,
`792 F.3d 1339 (Fed. Cir. 2015) .................................................................... 15, 16
`Federal Statutes
`35 U.S.C. § 102(a) ................................................................................................. 4, 5
`35 U.S.C. § 102(b) ................................................................................................. 3, 4
`35 U.S.C. § 102(e) ................................................................................................. 4, 5
`
`iii
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`Patent No. 6,757,718
`35 U.S.C. § 103 .......................................................................................................... 2
`35 U.S.C. § 112 .................................................................................................passim
`Regulations
`37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(3) .................................................................................... 12, 16
`
`
`
`iv
`
`

`

`Ex. 1001
`
`Ex. 1002
`
`Ex. 1003
`
`Ex. 1004
`
`Ex. 1005
`
`Ex. 1006
`
`Ex. 1007
`
`Ex. 1008
`
`Ex. 1009
`
`Ex. 1010
`
`Ex. 1011
`
`Ex. 1012
`
`Ex. 1013
`
`Ex. 1014
`
`Ex. 1015
`
`Ex. 1016
`
`Ex. 1017
`
`Ex. 1018
`
`Ex. 1019
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`Patent No. 6,757,718
`
`LIST OF EXHIBITS
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,757,718
`
`Declaration of Dr. Dan R. Olsen Jr.
`
`Curriculum Vitae of Dr. Dan R. Olsen Jr.
`
`Prosecution History of U.S. Patent No. 6,757,718
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,742,021
`
`Prosecution History of U.S. Patent No. 6,742,021
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,851,115
`
`Prosecution History of U.S. Patent No. 6,851,115
`
`U.S. Provisional Application No. 60/124,718
`
`U.S. Provisional Application No. 60/124,719
`
`U.S. Provisional Application No. 60/124,720
`
`Cheyer et al., “Multimodal Maps: An Agent-based Approach”
`(“Cheyer”)
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,197,005 to Shwartz et al. (“Shwartz”)
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,748,974 to Johnson (“Johnson”)
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,188,985 to Thrift et al. (“Thrift”)
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,345,389 to Dureau (“Dureau”)
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,841,431 to Simmers (“Simmers”)
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,035,197 to Haberman et al. (“Haberman”)
`
`Letter from IPA Technologies, Inc.’s litigation counsel to Judge
`Andrews regarding claim construction in related district court
`litigation
`
`v
`
`

`

`Ex. 1020
`
`Ex. 1021
`
`Ex. 1022
`
`Ex. 1023
`
`Ex. 1024
`
`Ex. 1025
`
`Ex. 1026
`
`Ex. 1027
`
`Ex. 1028
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`Patent No. 6,757,718
`Coen, M. H., “Building Brains for Rooms: Designing Distributed
`Software Agents,” AAAI’97/IAAI’97 Proceedings of
`the
`Fourteenth National Conference on Artificial Intelligence and
`Ninth Conference on
`Innovative Applications of Artificial
`Intelligence (1997) (“Coen”)
`
`Hodjat et al., “An adaptive agent oriented software architecture,” in
`Lee et al. (eds.) PRICAI’98: Topics in Artificial Intelligence,
`Lecture Notes in Computer Science (Lecture Notes in Artificial
`Intelligence), vol. 1531, Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg (1998)
`(“Hodjat”)
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,584,024 to Shwartz (“Shwartz”)
`
`Cheyer et al., “MVIEWS: Multimodal Tools for the Video
`Analyst,” in Proceedings of the 1998 International Conference on
`Intelligent User Interfaces (IUI ’98), San Francisco, California
`(Jan. 1998)
`
`Kehler et al., “On Representing Salience and Reference in
`Multimodal Human-Computer Interaction,” in Proceedings of AAAI
`1998 workshop on Representations for Multi-Modal Human-
`Computer Interaction, Madison, Wisconsin (1998)
`
`Cohen et al., “An Open Agent Architecture,” in Proceedings AAAI
`Spring Symposium, Stanford, California (March 1994) (“Cohen”)
`
`Martin et al., “Information brokering in an agent architecture,” in
`Proceedings of the Second International Conference on the
`Practical Application of Intelligent Agents and Multi-Agent
`Technology, Blackpool, Lancashire, UK (Apr. 1997) (“Martin”)
`
`Wyard et al., “Spoken language systems – beyond prompt and
`response,” BT Technol. J. Vol. 14 No. 1 (Jan. 1996) (“Wyard”)
`
`Excerpts from Knaster, B., Presenting Magic Cap, A Guide to
`General Magic’s Revolutionary Communicator Software, 1994
`
`vi
`
`

`

`Ex. 1029
`
`Ex. 1030
`
`Ex. 1031
`
`Ex. 1032
`
`Ex. 1033
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`Patent No. 6,757,718
`Moran et al., “Multimodal User Interfaces in the Open Agent
`Architecture,” Proc. of the 2nd International Conference on
`Intelligent User Interfaces (IUI ’97), Orlando, Florida (1997)
`(“Moran”)
`
`Archived copy from 1997 of SRI website
`http:/www.ai.sri.com/~Cheyer/mmap.html from
`https://web.archive.org
`
`Archived copy from 1997 of SRI website
`http://www.ai.sri.com:80/~Cheyer/papers/mmap/mmap.html from
`https://web.archive.org)
`
`Excerpts from Bunt, H., et al. (eds.), Multimodal Human-Computer
`Communication: Systems, Techniques, and Experiments, Lecture
`Notes in Artificial Intelligence 134 (Springer, copyright 1998)
`
`Konstan, J. A., “State Problems in Programming Human-Controlled
`Devices,” IEEE Transactions on Consumer Electronics, vol. 40, no.
`4 (Nov. 1994) (“Konstan”)
`
`vii
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`Patent No. 6,757,718
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`Google LLC (“Petitioner”) requests inter partes review (“IPR”) of claims
`
`1-27 (“the challenged claims”) of U.S. Patent No. 6,757,718 (“the ’718 patent”)
`
`(Ex. 1001), which, according to PTO records, is assigned to IPA Technologies Inc.
`
`(“Patent Owner”). For the reasons discussed below, the challenged claims should
`
`be found unpatentable and canceled.
`
`II. MANDATORY NOTICES
`Real Parties-in-Interest: Petitioner identifies Google LLC as the real party-
`
`in-interest.
`
`Related Matters: The ’718 patent is at issue in the following cases: IPA
`
`Technologies Inc. v. NVIDIA Corporation, Case No. 1-17-cv-00287 (D. Del.), IPA
`
`Technologies Inc. v. Sony Electronics Inc., Case No. 1-17-cv-00055 (D. Del.), IPA
`
`Technologies Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc., Case No. 1-16-cv-01266 (D. Del.), IPA
`
`Technologies Inc. v. DISH Network Corporation, Case No. 1-16-cv-01170 (D.
`
`Del.), DISH Network Corporation et al v. IPA Technologies Inc., IPR2018-00351
`
`(PTAB).
`
`Counsel and Service Information: Lead counsel: Naveen Modi (Reg. No.
`
`46,224). Backup counsel: (1) Daniel Zeilberger (Reg. No. 65,349), and (2) Arvind
`
`Jairam (Reg. No. 62,759). Service information is Paul Hastings LLP, 875 15th St.
`
`1
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`Patent No. 6,757,718
`N.W., Washington, D.C., 20005, Tel.: 202.551.1700, Fax: 202.551.1705, email:
`
`PH-Google-IPA-IPR@paulhastings.com. Petitioner consents to electronic service.
`
`III. PAYMENT OF FEES
`The PTO is authorized to charge any fees due during this proceeding to
`
`Deposit Account No. 50-2613.
`
`IV. GROUNDS FOR STANDING
`Petitioner certifies that the ’718 patent is available for IPR and Petitioner is
`
`not barred or estopped from requesting IPR on the grounds identified herein.
`
`V.
`
`PRECISE RELIEF REQUESTED AND GROUNDS RAISED
`The challenged claims should be canceled as unpatentable based on the
`
`following grounds:
`
`Ground 1: Claims 1-4, 6, 8-10, 12, 13, 15, 17-19, 21, 22, 24, 26, and 27 are
`
`unpatentable under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103 based on Cheyer (Ex. 1012) in view
`
`of Shwartz (Ex. 1013) and Thrift (Ex. 1015);
`
`Ground 2: Claims 2, 11, and 20 are unpatentable under § 103 based on
`
`Cheyer in view of Shwartz, Thrift, and Dureau (Ex. 1016);
`
`Ground 3: Claims 4, 13, and 22 are unpatentable under § 103 based on
`
`Cheyer in view of Shwartz, Thrift, and Johnson (Ex. 1014); and
`
`Ground 4: Claims 5, 7, 14, 16, 23, and 25 are unpatentable under § 103
`
`based on Cheyer in view of Shwartz, Thrift, and Simmers (Ex. 1017).
`
`2
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`Patent No. 6,757,718
`For purposes of this proceeding only, Petitioner assumes the earliest
`
`effective filing date of the ’718 patent is March 17, 1999, which is the filing date
`
`of three provisional applications to which the ’718 patent claims priority. (Ex.
`
`1001, Cover.)
`
`Cheyer was published several times years before the earliest effective filing
`
`date of the ’718 patent, and thus qualifies as prior art under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. §
`
`102(b). Cheyer itself has a June 1995 date on its first page. (Ex. 1012, 1.)
`
`However, Cheyer was actually initially published in May 1995 at the First
`
`International Conference on Cooperative Multimodal Communication (CMC/95).
`
`For example, a later book intended to document the papers released at the May
`
`1995 conference, which book itself was published by no later than May 15, 1998
`
`(Ex. 1032, 5 (stamp)), and itself includes a version of Cheyer (with minor
`
`revisions) (id., 9-19), indicates that Cheyer was published in 1995 at the CMC/95
`
`conference. (Id., 6 (Preface).)
`
`In any event, there is little question that Cheyer was widely available more
`
`than a year before the earliest effective filing date of the ’718 patent. For example,
`
`a paper by Moran et al. (Ex. 1029) published in 1997 (id., 1, 2), includes a citation
`
`to Cheyer, (id., 10), and in fact includes instructions on how to retrieve Cheyer (id.,
`
`68 (“Also http://www.ai.sri.com/~oaa/ + ‘Bibliography’”)).
`
`3
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`Patent No. 6,757,718
`Similarly, a web page of the original assignee SRI International (“SRI”)
`
`(http:/www.ai.sri.com/~Cheyer/mmap.html), archived by the Internet Archive,
`
`describes Cheyer with respect to the CMC/95 conference, specifies “24-26 May
`
`1995” as the date, and includes a link to download Cheyer. (Ex. 1030, 1.) The
`
`URL of the Internet Archive page (id.) shows that the web page was available in
`
`1997. See SDI Techs., Inc. v. Bose Corp., IPR2014-00343, Paper No. 32 at 14
`
`(June 11, 2015); see also id., 12-17. Indeed, a full viewable copy of Cheyer was
`
`made available at SRI’s website at least as early as 1997. (Ex. 1031, 1-22 (URL at
`
`bottom of each page shows the web pages were archived in 1997).) Thus, Cheyer
`
`was publicly disseminated at the CMC/95 conference in 1995 and was in any event
`
`made available on the SRI website by at least 1997.
`
`Shwartz issued on March 23, 1993. Therefore, Shwartz is prior art at least
`
`under § 102(b).
`
`Thrift was filed on October 3, 1997 and issued on February 13, 2001.
`
`Therefore, Thrift is available as prior art at least under § 102(e).
`
`Dureau issued February 5, 2002 from U.S. Patent Application No.
`
`09/176,611 filed October 21, 1998. Therefore, Dureau is available as prior art at
`
`least under § 102(e)
`
`Johnson was filed on December 13, 1994 and issued on May 5, 1998.
`
`Therefore, Johnson is prior art at least under §§ 102 (a) and (e).
`
`4
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`Patent No. 6,757,718
`Simmers issued November 24, 1998 and was filed November 15, 1996 and is
`
`thus available as prior art at least under §§ 102(a) and (e).
`
`Thrift, Dureau, and Simmers were not considered by the Patent Office
`
`during prosecution of the ’718 patent. (See, e.g., Ex. 1001; Ex. 1004.) Cheyer was
`
`cited in an Information Disclosure Statement for a related application (Ex. 1008,
`
`330), and Johnson and Shwartz were cited in an Information Disclosure Statement
`
`during prosecution of the ’718 patent (Ex. 1004, 83-84). However, the Examiner
`
`did not cite any of these references in any claim rejections, and Petitioner presents
`
`them in a new light never considered by the Patent Office and supported by new
`
`expert testimony (Ex. 1002). In particular, Cheyer, Johnson, and Shwartz are
`
`presented as part of obviousness combinations that have not been previously
`
`considered by the Patent Office.
`
`VI. LEVEL OF ORDINARY SKILL
`A person of ordinary skill in the art as of the claimed priority date of the
`
`’718 patent (“POSITA”) would have had at least a Bachelor’s degree in computer
`
`science, electrical engineering, or a similar discipline, and one to two years of
`
`work experience in user interfaces for computer systems (including speech-based
`
`5
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`Patent No. 6,757,718
`interfaces), networked computer systems, or a related area. (Ex. 1002, ¶¶14-15.)1
`
`More education can substitute for practical experience and vice versa. (Id.)
`
`VII. OVERVIEW OF THE ’718 PATENT AND THE PRIOR ART
`A. The ’718 Patent
`The ’718 patent issued from Application No. 09/608,872 (“the ’872
`
`application”), filed on June 30, 2000, and claims a March 17, 1999 priority date.
`
`(See Ex. 1001, Cover; see also Exs. 1005, 1007, 1009-1011.) The ’718 patent
`
`“relates generally to the navigation of electronic data by means of spoken natural
`
`language requests, and to feedback mechanisms and methods for resolving the
`
`errors and ambiguities that may be associated with such requests.” (Ex. 1001,
`
`1:22-26; see also Ex. 1002, ¶¶38-40.)
`
`The ’718 patent uses the then-existing Open Agent Architecture (OAA).
`
`(Ex. 1001, 3:46-48, 13:16-19, 14:27-29, FIG. 6 (reproduced below); Ex. 1002,
`
`¶41.) The OAA includes multiple “autonomous entities, or agents” and a
`
`facilitator agent. (Ex. 1007, 4:20-21; Ex. 1001, FIG. 6 (reproduced below); Ex.
`
`1002, ¶41.)
`
`
`1 Petitioner submits the declaration of Dr. Dan R. Olsen Jr. (Ex. 1002), an expert in
`
`the field of the ’718 patent. (Ex. 1002, ¶¶1-9; Ex. 1003.)
`
`6
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`Patent No. 6,757,718
`
`
`
`(Ex. 1001, FIG. 6.)
`
`“[A]n agent registers with its parent facilitator a specification of the
`
`capabilities and services it can provide,” and “[w]hen a facilitator determines that
`
`the registered capabilities of one of its client agents will help satisfy a current goal
`
`or sub-goal thereof, the facilitator delegates that sub-goal to the client agent … .”
`
`(Id., 13:36-45; see also id., 1:5-18, 13:19-22, 13:34-51; Ex. 1007, 6:10-13; Ex.
`
`1002, ¶42.)
`
`B.
`Prosecution History of the ’718 Patent
`During prosecution, in response to anticipation rejections issued by the
`
`Examiner (Ex. 1004, 138-47), the Applicants amended each then-pending
`
`independent claim to add the limitation “wherein said mobile information
`7
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`Patent No. 6,757,718
`appliance comprises a portable remote control device or a set-top box for a
`
`television.” (Id., 150-58.) After the Examiner issued another Office Action
`
`containing obviousness rejections (id., 178-81),
`
`the Applicants presented
`
`arguments regarding the limitation “a portable remote control device or a set-top
`
`box for a television” without further amending the claims. (Id., 185-86; see also
`
`id., 183-186.) The Examiner then allowed the claims. (Id., 193-95.)
`
`C. The Prior Art
`Cheyer, whose authors are two of the named inventors of the ’718 patent,
`
`describes “how multiple input modalities may be combined to produce more
`
`natural user interfaces.” (Ex. 1012, 1.) Cheyer’s multimodal application uses the
`
`then-existing Open Agent Architecture to implement “a distributed network of
`
`heterogeneous software agents” for distributed processing regarding various tasks.
`
`(Id.; Ex. 1002, ¶47.)
`
`Cheyer discloses various examples of receiving a spoken natural language
`
`(e.g., English) request for desired information from a user on a PC or a handheld
`
`PDA. (Ex. 1012, 4-6, 11; Ex. 1002, ¶48.) The spoken English request is processed
`
`by a speech recognition (SR) agent and a natural language (NL) parser agent to
`
`recognize a speech string in the user’s speech input and translate the recognized
`
`request into a format called Interagent Communication Language that software
`
`agents can handle. (Ex. 1012, 7, 9-11; Ex. 1002, ¶49.) The SR and NL agents are
`
`8
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`Patent No. 6,757,718
`among several agents (shown below in Figure 3 of Cheyer) that are implemented
`
`using the Open Agent Architecture to perform various tasks to service the user’s
`
`request. (Ex. 1012, 7-12; Ex. 1002, ¶49.)
`
`(Ex. 1012, FIG. 3.) Cheyer discloses that “[t]he architecture for the OAA … uses a
`
`hierarchical configuration where client agents connect to a ‘facilitator’ server,”
`
`also referred to as a “facilitator agent.” (Id., 7, 9.) Cheyer discloses that the
`
`
`
`9
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`Patent No. 6,757,718
`facilitator agent “records the published functionality of [its] sub-agents.” (Id., 8;
`
`see also Ex. 1002, ¶¶50-51.)
`
`Shwartz, Thrift, Dureau, Johnson, and Simmers provide additional details on
`
`many of the well-known user interface and networking technologies described in
`
`the ’718 patent. (Ex. 1002, ¶¶52-61; see also id., ¶¶16-37 (discussing the state of
`
`the art).)
`
`VIII. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
`The ’718 patent will expire on January 5, 2019, which is during the likely
`
`pendency of this IPR proceeding should the Board institute review. Accordingly,
`
`the claims should be construed under the standard set forth in Phillips v. AWH
`
`Corp., 415 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc). Under Phillips, claim terms are
`
`given their ordinary and customary meanings, as would have been understood by a
`
`POSITA, at the time of the invention, having taken into consideration the language
`
`of the claims, the specification, and the prosecution history of record. See, e.g.,
`
`Cisco Sys., Inc., v. AIP Acquisition, LLC, IPR2014-00247, Paper No. 20 at 2-3
`
`(July 10, 2014). The Board, however, only construes the claims when necessary to
`
`resolve the underlying controversy. Toyota Motor Corp. v. Cellport Systems, Inc.,
`
`IPR2015-00633, Paper No. 11 at 16 (Aug. 14, 2015) (citing Vivid Techs., Inc. v.
`
`10
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`Patent No. 6,757,718
`Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999)). Petitioner provides
`
`below the construction of various terms that are relevant to this proceeding.2
`
`A.
`“Navigation Query”
`Claims 1, 4, 10, 13, 19, and 22 recite “navigation query.” In district court,
`
`Patent Owner has argued that “navigation query” should be construed as “an
`
`electronic query, form, series of menu selections, or the like; being structured
`
`appropriately so as to navigate a particular data source of interest in search of
`
`desired information.” (Ex. 1019, 2.) This construction corresponds to the
`
`indication in the specification that “[a] ‘navigation query’ means an electronic
`
`query, form, series of menu selections, or the like; being structured appropriately
`
`so as to navigate a particular data source of interest in search of desired
`
`information.” (Ex. 1001, 8:65-9:1.) For purposes of this Petition, Petitioner
`
`applies Patent Owner’s proposed construction of “navigation query.” (Ex. 1002,
`
`¶44.)
`
`
`2 Petitioner reserves all rights to raise claim construction and other arguments in
`
`district court. For example, Petitioner has not necessarily raised all challenges to
`
`the ’718 patent, including those under 35 U.S.C. § 112, given the limitations
`
`placed by the Rules governing this proceeding.
`
`11
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`Patent No. 6,757,718
`B.
`“Code Segment [That]” and “Logic[,] Operable To”
`Claims 10 and 13 recite “code segment[s] [that] [perform various
`
`functions],” and claims 19 and 22 recite various “logic” “operable to [perform
`
`various functions].” Petitioner identifies below for each of the foregoing claim
`
`terms the identified function (in bold) and corresponding structure that performs
`
`such identified function, under the assumption that these terms invoke 35 U.S.C. §
`
`112 ¶ 6. 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(3).
`
`Claim Term and Identified Function
`
`
`
`Corresponding Structure
`
`
`
`“code segment that receives a spoken request for
`
`As explained below, each of
`
`desired information from the user utilizing the
`
`these elements in the left
`
`mobile information appliance of the user” (claim
`
`column
`
`recites
`
`function
`
`10)
`
`without sufficient structure
`
`“code segment that renders an interpretation of
`
`for performing the function.
`
`the spoken request” (claim 10)
`
`However, for purposes of
`
`“code segment that constructs a navigation query
`
`this proceeding, the structure
`
`based upon the interpretation” (claim 10)
`
`should be software running
`
`“code segment that utilizes the navigation query
`
`on
`
`a
`
`microprocessor
`
`to select a portion of the electronic data source”
`
`configured to perform the
`
`(claim 10)
`
`identified
`
`functions
`
`or
`
`12
`
`

`

`Claim Term and Identified Function
`
`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`Patent No. 6,757,718
`Corresponding Structure
`
`
`
`“code segment that transmits the selected portion
`
`equivalents thereof.
`
`of the electronic data source from the network
`
`server to the mobile information appliance of
`
`the user” (claim 10)3
`
`“code segment that solicits additional input from
`
`the user, including user interaction in a modality
`
`different than the original request” (claim 13)
`
`“code segment that refines the navigation query,
`
`based upon the additional input” (claim 13)
`
`
`3 Claim 19 recites a similar
`
`limitation: “(e) electronic communications
`
`infrastructure for transmitting the selected portion of the electronic data source
`
`from the network server to the mobile information appliance of the user.” Because
`
`of the “infrastructure” recited in the claim and the corresponding disclosure in the
`
`specification of the ’718 patent (Ex. 1001, 4:48-55), Petitioner believes this
`
`limitation of claim 19 does not invoke 35 U.S.C. § 112 ¶ 6, but to the extent the
`
`Board decides otherwise, this limitation of claim 19 should be construed in the
`
`same manner as the corresponding limitation of claim 10.
`
`13
`
`

`

`Claim Term and Identified Function
`
`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`Patent No. 6,757,718
`Corresponding Structure
`
`
`
`“code segment that uses the refined navigation
`
`query to select a portion of the electronic data
`
`source” (claim 13)
`
`“spoken language processing logic, operable to
`
`render an interpretation of the spoken request”
`
`(claim 19)
`
`“query construction logic, operable to construct a
`
`navigation query based upon the interpretation”
`
`(claim 19)
`
`“navigation logic, operable to select a portion of
`
`the electronic data source using the navigation
`
`query” (claim 19)
`
`“user
`
`interaction
`
`logic operable
`
`to
`
`solicit
`
`additional input from the user, including user
`
`interaction in a modality different than the
`
`original request” (claim 22)
`
`“query refining
`
`logic operable
`
`to refine the
`
`navigation query based upon the additional
`
`14
`
`

`

`Claim Term and Identified Function
`
`
`
`input” (claim 22)
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`Patent No. 6,757,718
`Corresponding Structure
`
`
`
`A structure disclosed in the specification qualifies as corresponding structure
`
`only if it is clearly linked by the patent’s specification (or possibly the prosecution
`
`history) to performing the claimed function. See Default Proof Credit Card Sys.,
`
`Inc. v. Home Depot U.S.A., Inc., 412 F.3d 1291, 1298 (Fed. Cir. 2005); Gracenote,
`
`Inc. v. Iceberg Indus., LLC, IPR2013-00551, Paper No. 6 at 15 (Feb. 28, 2014).
`
`Where a means-plus-function term is directed to software, the specification must
`
`“disclose an algorithm for performing the claimed function.” Williamson v. Citrix
`
`Online, LLC, 792 F.3d 1339, 1352 (Fed. Cir. 2015).
`
`For the terms in the table above, the only corresponding structure under 35
`
`U.S.C. § 112 ¶ 6 disclosed is software running on a processor. For example, the
`
`specification of
`
`the
`
`’718 patent discloses “a general-purpose hardware
`
`microprocessor” for implementing various embodiments. (Ex. 1001, 6:65-7:3.)
`
`The ’718 patent specification does not describe the “code segment[s]” and
`
`“logic[s]” as claimed in claims 10, 13, 15, 19, and 22, other than by way of
`
`functional description. Given that the “code segment[s]” and “logic[s]” refer to
`
`computer software, and given that none of the identified functions is a “generic
`
`function,” the corresponding structure for such terms requires an algorithm.
`
`15
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`Patent No. 6,757,718
`Williamson, 792 F.3d at 1352. However, beyond repeating some claim language
`
`for some identified functions, the ’718 patent does not disclose an algorithm that
`
`corresponds to the identified functions of these terms. Thus, with respect to each
`
`of the identified functions for these terms discussed above, the ’718 patent simply
`
`discloses a “black box” that performs some function, “[b]ut how it does so is left
`
`undisclosed.” Blackboard, Inc. v. Desire2Learn, Inc., 574 F.3d 1371, 1383 (Fed.
`
`Cir. 2009).
`
`For purposes of this proceeding, as required by 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(3),
`
`Petitioner submits that the corresponding structure for each of the above-identified
`
`functions of the terms listed above should be software running on a microprocessor
`
`configured to perform the identified functions or equivalents thereof under 35
`
`U.S.C. § 112 ¶ 6.4 (Ex. 1002, ¶¶45-46.)
`
`IX. DETAILED EXPLANATION OF GROUNDS
`As discussed below, the challenged claims are unpatentable in view of the
`
`prior art.
`
`
`4 Petitioner does not concede that claims 10 and 19 and their dependent claims are
`
`not indefinite. Moreover, the analysis below addresses these claims even if the
`
`terms do not invoke 35 U.S.C. § 112 ¶ 6.
`
`16
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`Patent No. 6,757,718
`A. Ground 1: Cheyer, Shwartz, and Thrift Render Obvious Claims 1-
`4, 6, 8-10, 12, 13, 15, 17-19, 21, 22, 24, 26, 27
`1.
`Claim 1
`i)
`“A method for speech-based navigation of an
`electronic data source located at one or more
`network servers located remotely from a user,
`wherein a data link is established between a mobile
`information appliance of the user and the one or
`more network servers, comprising the steps of:”
`To the extent the preamble of claim 1 is limiting, Cheyer discloses the
`
`limitations therein. (Ex. 1002, ¶63.) For instance, Cheyer discloses a method for
`
`processing input provided by a user via “spoken natural language” (Ex. 1012, 4)
`
`(“speech-based”) to enable the user “to transparently access a wide variety of data
`
`sources, including information stored in HTML form on the World Wide Web”
`
`(id.) (“navigation of an electronic data source”). (Ex. 1002, ¶64; see also Ex.
`
`1012, 11-12 (providing an example where a user’s speech-based query is processed
`
`to provide the user with requested information).)
`
`More specifically as to