`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`___________
`
`
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`___________
`
`
`
`MMODAL, LLC,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`NUANCE COMMUNICATIONS, INC.,
`Patent Owner.
`___________
`
`Case IPR2018-01431 (Patent 8,117,034 B2)
`Case IPR2018-01435 (Patent 6,999,933 B2)
`___________
`
`Oral Hearing Held: November 15, 2019
`
`____________
`
`
`Trials@uspto.gov
`571-272-7822
`
`
`
`
`
`Paper No. 58
`
`
`
`Before KEN B. BARRETT, NEIL T. POWELL, and CHRISTA P. ZADO,
`Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2018-01431 (Patent 8,117,034 B2)
`Case IPR2018-01435 (Patent 6,999,933 B2)
`
`
`
`APPEARANCES:
`
`ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER:
`
`
`JONATHAN M. STRANG, ESQUIRE
`Latham & Watkins, LLP
`555 Eleventh Street, N.W.
`Suite 1000
`Washington, D.C. 20004
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`ON BEHALF OF THE PATENT OWNER:
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`ANISH DESAI, ESQUIRE
`Weil Gotschall & Manges, LLP
`2001 M Street, N.W.
`Suite 600
`Washington, D.C. 20036
`
`
`The above-entitled matter came on for hearing on Friday, November
`15, 2019, commencing at 1:01 p.m., at the U.S. Patent and Trademark
`Office, 600 Dulany Street, Alexandria, Virginia, before Donna Jenkins,
`Notary Public.
`
`
`
`
`
` 2
`
`
`
`Case IPR2018-01431 (Patent 8,117,034 B2)
`Case IPR2018-01435 (Patent 6,999,933 B2)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`P R O C E E D I N G S
` - - - - -
`JUDGE POWELL: Good afternoon. This is a hearing
`
`
`for IPR 2018-01431 which involves U.S. patent 8,117,034 B2
`and IPR 2018- 01435 which involves U.S. patent 6,999,933 B2.
`Judge Barrett joins me in the hearing room and Judge Zado joins
`us remotely, and counsel please state your names for the record
`starting with Petitioner.
`
`
`MR. STRANG: Thank you, Your Honor. Jonathan
`Strang for Petitioner MModal and with me today I have Inge
`Osman, also of Latham & Watkins and Amish Shodhan running
`the slides, and I have a representative Eva Mendelsohn behind
`me in the audience and Kevin Wheeler, also from Latham &
`Watkins, Your Honor.
`
`
`JUDGE POWELL: Thank you. And Patent Owner.
`
`
`MR. DESAI: Good afternoon, Your Honor. Amish
`Desai for Patent Owner from Weil Gotshal. With me also from
`Weil Gotshal is Steve Quidu (phonetic) and counsel Brian
`Ferguson, Stephen Bosco, Tim Anderson and from the client
`Nuance Daniel Greenbaum.
`
`
`JUDGE POWELL: Thank you. Before we begin I
`want to -- some of the papers and exhibits in the record have
`been entered under seal and I want to remind everybody that
`because this is a public hearing any information that the parties
`want to maintain as confidential should not be presented or
`
`
`
`
` 3
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`
`
`
`Case IPR2018-01431 (Patent 8,117,034 B2)
`Case IPR2018-01435 (Patent 6,999,933 B2)
`
`discussed in the hearing. With that out of the way, as the Trial
`Order specified each side will have 60 minutes of argument time.
`We will start with the Petitioner and then hear from the Patent
`Owner. When you present, please identify the demonstratives
`and exhibits clearly such as by slide or screen number. That's
`important in particular because Judge Zado will not be able to
`see the exhibits presented in the room and with that do we have
`any questions before we start.
`
`
`MR. DESAI: Briefly, Your Honor. For certain of the
`slides that do contain confidential information, just to get clarity
`there are no members of the public currently in this room. Is it
`okay for us to proceed and discuss those on the record? I mean
`in previous --
`
`
`JUDGE BARRETT: Well --
`
`
`MR. DESAI: Oh, go ahead, Your Honor.
`
`
`JUDGE BARRETT: For all purposes this room is
`public so it's going to go in the transcript, it's going to go like
`that. We have access to your slides, the unredacted ones --
`
`
`MR. DESAI: Right.
`
`
`JUDGE BARRETT: -- so you can reference those and
`we will see what you're referring to and you can avoid revealing
`whether it be dollar figures or whatever that needs to remain
`confidential. If push comes to shove and you absolutely need to
`reference something that needs to be protected then bring it up at
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`
`
`
`
`
` 4
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`Case IPR2018-01431 (Patent 8,117,034 B2)
`Case IPR2018-01435 (Patent 6,999,933 B2)
`
`that time and we can talk about sealing the room but I'd really
`rather just consider this room open.
`
`
`MR. DESAI: Okay. I think the way for me to handle
`that is to present the information, let the slide sort of speak for
`itself without revealing in my own words exactly what is on the
`slide and that may be the easiest way to do it.
`
`
`JUDGE POWELL: I think I understand you have --
`you've got a redacted version of your demonstratives, correct?
`
`
`MR. DESAI: I do.
`
`
`JUDGE POWELL: Could you use that?
`
`
`MR. DESAI: I could but I think the purpose is for me
`to present to Your Honors about the relevance of this
`information and that --
`
`
`JUDGE POWELL: Well I guess what I would say -- if
`you're not going to, here's what I think -- if you're not going to
`speak like suppose there's a dollar figure, whatever that's
`redacted in the public version of the demonstratives, if you're not
`going to say that on the transcript as Judge Barrett said we have
`a copy of the unredacted demonstratives so you can work from
`the public version of the redactions and just tell us I'm on slide
`60, whatever, and then we can see the information that you're
`trying to convey without having it up on the monitor for the
`whole world.
`
`
`MR. DESAI: Okay. I mean I think the issue with the
`whole -- I mean there's nobody in this room who's not under the
`
`
`
`
` 5
`
`
`
`Case IPR2018-01431 (Patent 8,117,034 B2)
`Case IPR2018-01435 (Patent 6,999,933 B2)
`
`protective order at the present. I don't think anyone's going to
`enter the room during the arguments.
`
`
`JUDGE ZADO: Well again, the point is that the
`transcript is public and so the transcript will be part and that's
`really the point.
`
`
`MR. DESAI: And I understand that and that's why I'll
`be careful with what I mentioned as opposed to reading from the
`slide but to point Your Honors to it so you can see it, but I think
`we'll --
`JUDGE POWELL: Yes. I think that's fine with us.
`
`
`The bottom line I suppose is of course we can't offer advice on,
`you know, and so be careful I guess is the --
`
`
`MR. DESAI: I will.
`
`
`JUDGE POWELL: -- more to the point.
`
`
`MR. DESAI: I think the challenge here too of it is it's
`not our confidential information, it's Petitioner's so I will take
`good care.
`JUDGE POWELL: Okay. That's that, we've got that
`
`
`resolved. Are there any other questions? Okay. Well like I say,
`let Petitioner get set up and then when they're ready, we 'll get
`going.
`MR. STRANG: Thank you, Your Honor. Just one
`
`
`question before we get rolling, sorry.
`
`
`JUDGE POWELL: That's all right.
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`
`
`
`
`
` 6
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`Case IPR2018-01431 (Patent 8,117,034 B2)
`Case IPR2018-01435 (Patent 6,999,933 B2)
`
`MR. STRANG: I believe the order said 90 minutes.
`
`
`Are we doing 60 minutes? I can work with either.
`
`
`JUDGE POWELL: Oh, let's go with whatever the
`Order said. I may have that wrong.
`
`
`MR. STRANG: It said 90.
`
`
`JUDGE POWELL: Ninety? All right. Thank you for
`the correction. Give me a second here to --
`
`
`JUDGE BARRETT: Certainly don't feel the need to
`use the entire 90 minutes.
`
`
`JUDGE POWELL: Okay. There we go. Now I've got
`the right amount of time on the clock and I should ask do you
`want to reserve any time?
`
`
`MR. STRANG: Yes, Your Honor. I'd like to reserve
`30 minutes for rebuttal.
`
`
`JUDGE POWELL: Okay. Sounds good.
`
`
`MR. STRANG: Thank you, Your Honor. Again, Jon
`Strang for Petitioner MModal. Can we go to slide 2, please?
`Now I'd like to hit a few selected issues but of course if the
`Board has any questions would appreciate those and we'd love to
`answer those.
`
`
`Now we know that there's three ways that the claims
`are unpatentable. If you agree with us on construction of a
`cursor, that the cursor can be visible or invisible, if one symbol
`could suffice for both cursors or if it's obvious to display both
`cursors. So that's really the -- where we're going to spend a lot
`
`
`
`
` 7
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`Case IPR2018-01431 (Patent 8,117,034 B2)
`Case IPR2018-01435 (Patent 6,999,933 B2)
`
`of the focus. But before we get there I'd like to have a quick
`overview of the patent.
`
`
`Could we go to slide 4, please? Now the -- when I
`should have said the patent, I should have said the patents.
`There are two patents, the ’933 patent and the ’034 patent.
`They've got different inventors but their specifications are pretty
`close to identical. I don't think there are any differences that
`matter for this case. There are some differences in the claims
`and we'll cover those but just so the Board knows when I'm
`talking about in general that should apply to both sets of claims
`of the same and I would like now to go ahead and go forward to
`the claims themselves.
`
`
`Can we go to slide 6, please? Now on slide 6 is the
`’933 patent independent and dependent claims that are
`challenged and I think the key points where we have some
`dispute are when you get into the step I think we all agree that
`the art teaches the first step where the information that's been
`dictated and recognized comes into the machine. It's been
`marked (indiscernible) so you can keep track of where the audio
`playback is, and then claim 9 allows a synchronous playback
`mode which is defined within the claim but in short a high level
`description is each word is marked with a link or a stamp or a tag
`that tells you what sounds it goes to in playback and as you play
`it back it features the position of the audio cursor, and then
`there's an editing step where you edit the incorrect word with the
`
`
`
`
` 8
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`Case IPR2018-01431 (Patent 8,117,034 B2)
`Case IPR2018-01435 (Patent 6,999,933 B2)
`
`text cursor. There's a dispute on what it means to edit the
`incorrect word and that editing has to be possible with
`synchronous playback mode activated. So there's some issue
`whether the cursors have to be displayed and there's an issue
`with the incorrect word of that claim, and we'll discuss those as
`we go on.
`Go to slide 7, please. Slide 7 shows the ’ 034 patent's
`
`
`challenged claims. Again, it starts with the independent claim
`and it starts off much the same. The information comes in with
`the recognized words and the sound and it's linked to where the
`sound file goes so you can do the playback. It provides an audio
`cursor for display. It provides a text cursor for display and then
`automatically synchronizes those and it's that synchronization
`continues until there's an editing operation performed and then
`here the dependent claims deactivate and activate some modes.
`There's a bit of a dispute on what that actually entails and we'll
`get to that, Your Honor.
`
`
`So subject to your questions on the general overview
`of the claims, I'd like to go to the instituted grounds. Can we go
`to slide 9, please? As I said earlier, the specifications are
`practically identical, at least for the purposes of this case. I
`don't know of any differences and likewise the grounds are very,
`very similar. In both cases we have Schulz as a primary
`reference and we have Schulz and Sumner as a combination in
`the alternative and in both cases it's the same art, and we're
`
`
`
`
` 9
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`Case IPR2018-01431 (Patent 8,117,034 B2)
`Case IPR2018-01435 (Patent 6,999,933 B2)
`
`going to have a lot of the same discussions about how these work
`together.
`Can we go to slide 10, please? Just a quick overview
`
`
`of our friend Schulz. It's a method for performing text edits
`during audio recording playback so the whole point is to allow
`the user to perform text edits during playback which is kind of
`what we were talking about in the claims.
`
`
`If we go to slide 11. Now one thing to realize, and I
`think this is perhaps one of the more important points in the
`case, is that both Schulz and the 034/933 patents identified and
`solved the same problems. So Schulz, for example, recognized
`that in the prior art the transcript editor -- the person, the user --
`needed to stop playback of the recording and then position a
`cursor to where they wanted to make the edits and then make that
`edit and them resume playback, and that was a slow process and
`was expensive because you're paying for peoples' time.
`
`
`Likewise on the right hand column of slide 11 you can
`see the characterization from the POR, I believe it's the same in
`both PORs but we've put it in the 034 POR here. It recognized
`that stopping the recording to make the corrections was
`inefficient and unwieldy and so they both saw the same problem
`and they both solved the problem in much the same way. If you
`look on the left hand side Schulz, again we're still on Schulz
`column 2, and Schulz explains that the text editor aligns or
`identifies the written word with the spoken word to allow the
`
`
`
`
` 10
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`Case IPR2018-01431 (Patent 8,117,034 B2)
`Case IPR2018-01435 (Patent 6,999,933 B2)
`
`transcriptionist to edit the draft with little or no stopping of the
`audio playback. Conversely if you look at the ’933/ ’034 patents
`we have the same thing and as it was put forward in the POR,
`
`
`"The transcriptionist does not necessarily need to stop
`the synchronous playback to make a correction."
`
`
`So that's really the whole point here is what can you
`do to allow the user to not have to stop the playback and also
`when there is an audit, you leave the cursor at the most
`convenient spot for the user or I should say -- I want to be very
`careful on the nomenclature because I understand that we do
`have our difference between cursor and point. I want to try very
`hard to say text insertion point and audio point so as not to
`confuse the nomenclature. When I talk about the symbol it'll
`still be audio insertion point and audio symbol, so I don't want to
`try to mislead the Board on what I mean when I say cursor.
`Subject to your questions on a high overview of Schulz, Your
`Honor, I'll move on and do a quick look at Sumner
`
`
`JUDGE POWELL: Okay.
`
`
`MR. STRANG: If we go to slide 13, please. Now
`Sumner is a method for incorporating multiple cursors, for us
`that's one of its most important features and what's interesting
`about Sumner for us is that Sumner is in the same field of
`endeavor. We're correcting transcripts from dictation. There's a
`little bit different area in the process. This can be done while
`the person is doing a dictation but the idea is kind of the same
`
`
`
`
` 11
`
`
`
`Case IPR2018-01431 (Patent 8,117,034 B2)
`Case IPR2018-01435 (Patent 6,999,933 B2)
`
`thing. We've got automatically recognized speech that needs to
`be quickly and efficiently edited and it's also reasonably
`pertinent, it's the same problem. So even though we only need
`one of those two prongs for analogous art, we hit both prongs
`and in addition to being the same field of endeavor, it's also
`reasonably pertinent to the problem of how do I tell the user two
`different locations on the screen at the same time and the answer
`is well, you put visible cursors in both spots.
`
`
`Another interesting point on Summer is it talks about
`the parameters of a cursor. The cursors have different
`parameters and one of the parameters is you can make it visible
`or invisible. But the key point is that it teaches having two
`cursors. Unless you have any questions, Your Honor, I'll move
`right into the merits and move on.
`
`
`JUDGE POWELL: Okay.
`
`
`MR. STRANG: So can we go to slide 20, please?
`Now there's a claim construction dispute over whether or not a
`cursor has to be visible, whether the -- for example, edited
`insertion point or the point where you're going to put in the edit
`-- whether that needs to always be visible in order to be called a
`cursor. That is, to say it politely, is very well briefed and unless
`Your Honors have any particular questions, I think I will just go
`on to the next issue which will be the single symbol.
`
`
`JUDGE POWELL: Sure.
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`
`
`
`
`
` 12
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`Case IPR2018-01431 (Patent 8,117,034 B2)
`Case IPR2018-01435 (Patent 6,999,933 B2)
`
`MR. STRANG: Okay. Can we go to slide 44, please?
`
`
`So the single symbol issue is, in a nutshell, is do you practice the
`claims if you only have one symbol representing the location of
`both points? So, for example, if we look on the left there we
`have a description from the ’933 patent and the ’ 034 patent, the
`text is the same, and it states that the -- and I'm quoting from the
`top left one which is the ’933 patent at the top of column 8 and it
`states that,
`
`
`"You can synchronize the audio cursor AC with the
`text cursor TC such that the audio cursor AC would be located at
`the position of the text cursor TC."
`
`
`So the two cursors are going to be at the same spot
`and the issue is well, can you just have one symbol to tell the
`user that these two things, these two points are both at the same
`spot, and if we look underneath there there's another description
`in the ’933 and ’034 patents that says about the same thing and
`for the ’933 patent, for example, in column 7 and towards the
`bottom it states that,
`
`
`"The current position of the audio cursor AC would
`also be the same as the position of the cursor TC."
`
`
`So the issue is, is how do you display that to the user
`and what do the claims require to happen in that and the reason it
`matters to us is that if you look at Schulz I think it's pretty
`undisputed that when Schulz is in the no time delay mode, the
`text cursor and the audio cursor are on top of each other and
`
`
`
`
` 13
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`Case IPR2018-01431 (Patent 8,117,034 B2)
`Case IPR2018-01435 (Patent 6,999,933 B2)
`
`there is one symbol there representing both the point of where
`the text insertion will happen and also where the audio playback
`is. So I think the real question here is well, how does that fit
`into the claim language because we've always got to go to the
`claims.
`Can we go to slide 22, please? Now slide 22 has an
`
`
`excerpt from the ’933 and the ’034 patents. The ’933 patent is
`on the left and the ’034 patent is on the right and we just kind of
`took the snippet out that has the actual cursors. So if we think
`about a single symbol for both cursors, we're trying to figure out
`does that meet the claim requirements. The claim language
`starts, we'll start with our synchronous playback mode in the
`’933 patent claim 9 and it states allowing the synchronous
`playback mode in which the acoustic playback et cetera, et
`cetera, and then it has the word is marked with link information.
`Now note that that marking is not visible. This is just the
`internal representation. It knows that that word is marked and
`then it continues and it says well the word just marks features of
`the position of an audio cursor. So if you have the audio
`payback point, that location on the screen note and you have a
`symbol there, is that satisfy this for an audio cursor? Yes.
`
`
`JUDGE ZADO: Counsel I want to ask you a question
`about that language you just identified in claim 9 of the ’ 933
`patent. “While the word just marked features the position of an
`audio cursor,” what does features mean? Does features somehow
`
`
`
`
` 14
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`Case IPR2018-01431 (Patent 8,117,034 B2)
`Case IPR2018-01435 (Patent 6,999,933 B2)
`
`indicate in some way that perhaps there has to be some sort of
`visual display or indication, otherwise how are you featuring the
`position of the audio cursor?
`
`
`MR. STRANG: Your Honor, I think the question is
`not unlike what is says above there where it says the word is
`marked by link information. The machine knows that that link
`information is there, it's not visible to the user. So you could
`have the word that was just marked it features the position of an
`audio cursor and that the audio cursor internal to the machine is
`there but it's not visible to the user just like Sumner states that
`one of your parameters to make the cursor visible or invisible.
`But I think word --
`
`
`JUDGE ZADO: Well --
`
`
`MR. STRANG: Oh, I'm sorry, Your Honor.
`
`
`JUDGE ZADO: -- sorry, because I'm looking at the
`disclosure of the ’933 patent and it seems to me, you know,
`putting aside what the word cursor means because I'm looking at
`two things. I'm looking at what does the word cursor mean but
`I'm also looking at the claim language as a whole to figure out
`whether the audio cursor needs to be displayed, when the text
`cursor needs to be displayed and maybe one does, maybe one
`doesn't.
`At any rate, the patent it seems to indicate that it's
`
`
`important for people to be able to see the audio cursor. The
`whole point of having the audio cursor is that the
`
`
`
`
` 15
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`Case IPR2018-01431 (Patent 8,117,034 B2)
`Case IPR2018-01435 (Patent 6,999,933 B2)
`
`transcriptionist, and I'm looking for example at column 3 line 44,
`but it seems that the whole point of having the audio cursor
`visible is that a transcriptionist when looking for errors in
`transcription text wants to hear the audio playback and know
`which word corresponds with what's being played back and so if
`the audio cursor is not visible, the transcriptionist -- there
`doesn't seem to be a point in having the audio cursor in that
`situation and if we're reading the specification and we're reading
`language like the word just marked as featuring the position of
`the audio cursor, I mean wouldn't it be a reasonable
`interpretation that at least the audio cursor needs to be visible or
`seen?
`MR. STRANG: I agree, Your Honor. I think one of
`
`
`skill in the art implementing this is going to want to have an
`indicator there to tell the user a) where is the audio, and b)
`where is the text insertion going to happen or the edit going to
`happen. So I don't think it would make a lot of sense to
`implement this with absolutely nothing visible. But if the text
`insertion point and the current audio position are exactly on top
`of each other and it's going through, you know, following the
`spoken back language right on top of each other it seems to me
`the claim language would be met by a single symbol, that that lit
`up symbol is all you need, you need just one symbol and I think
`that actually Dr. Meldal agrees with me. If you go to Exhibit
`2020 in the 01431, please and make it so that we can see the
`
`
`
`
` 16
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`Case IPR2018-01431 (Patent 8,117,034 B2)
`Case IPR2018-01435 (Patent 6,999,933 B2)
`
`whole page. Your Honor, I'm on -- and I know you can't see the
`screen Judge Zado but we're in Nuance Exhibit 2020.009 in the -
`01431 IPR, that's the ’ 034 patent IPR.
`
`
`Now, Nuance is going to talk to us and show us a
`video and there's the video exhibit that kind of shows what you
`see at the top of this page. It's marked page 8 at the bottom but
`it's Nuance Exhibit 2020.009 and at the top of that page you can
`see a highlighted word " this" and a red box around "T" and if
`you watch the video the highlighting moves along and the red
`box can move along independently of that and they don't have
`any problem discriminating that they're, you know, whether or
`not there's two cursors there.
`
`
`The problem is that's not in the patent. That is
`something that Dr. Meldal has said one of skill in the art, it
`would be obvious to do that, they would know how to do that and
`he also has underneath that in paragraph 20 he gives the example
`of a single green cursor representing two locations because you
`have a blue and a yellow and when they're at the same spot you
`make it green. Well that's not in the patent either. But
`according to Dr. Meldal that would be an obvious thing for a
`user to do and that's my point when I'm going through the claims
`now that a single symbol will suffice, that when the text cursor
`and the audio cursor at the same location you don't have any
`description of that in the patent except it says, you know, you
`can make cursors look however you want to make them look but
`
`
`
`
` 17
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`Case IPR2018-01431 (Patent 8,117,034 B2)
`Case IPR2018-01435 (Patent 6,999,933 B2)
`
`one of skill in the art would know hey, I can symbolize that with
`a single symbol and in fact Dr. Meldal, Nuance's expert, agrees
`with us on that.
`
`
`Could we go to our slide 46, please? Now just one
`thing I want to be very, very clear. Dr. Meldal agrees that the
`’933 and ’034 patents do not go into how to combine cursors.
`This is taking the level of skill in the art to do this. So this is
`more of an obviousness proposal that he's presented and he did
`do this. We first heard of this theory on our second deposition
`right before we put in the sur- surreply. So this was something
`that was kind of new to us so we came out and said well, what
`does it mean? So we now have, I think the parties it would be
`obvious at least to display representation at one spot with one
`single symbol whether it's green, white, blue or yellow I don't
`care. That's all that we need.
`
`
`Are there any questions on the single symbol -- for
`lack of a better term -- embodiment or issue?
`
`
`JUDGE POWELL: As of right now my question is I
`don't think you would say that that would meet claim 13 of the
`’034 patent; is that correct?
`
`
`MR. STRANG: Well I think it would, Your Honor,
`and I think Nuance's expert contends that it would and we can
`walk through the claim now. If we go back to slide 22. Now the
`’034 patent is on the other side and it states, "Providing an audio
`cursor for display that when displayed to the user it highlights
`
`
`
`
` 18
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`Case IPR2018-01431 (Patent 8,117,034 B2)
`Case IPR2018-01435 (Patent 6,999,933 B2)
`
`the portion of the text information that's being acoustically
`played back."
`
`
`So you have the audio point is here, there's
`highlighting on top of it that moves along with the word and then
`for the second one you have providing a text cursor for display
`to facilitate editing the text information, the text cursor
`indicating the position of the text information where one edit
`will be performed. So in that case too you have that position.
`They're at the same position. You have the one bit of
`highlighting --
`
`
`JUDGE POWELL: Right. But sorry, I came out of
`left field with this question, but that's claim 8. I'm talking about
`claim 13.
`MR. STRANG: Oh, I apologize, Your Honor.
`
`
`JUDGE POWELL: (Indiscernible.)
`
`
`MR. STRANG: I heard what I thought I heard and not
`
`
`what you said.
`
`
`JUDGE POWELL: That happens to us all.
`
`
`MR. STRANG: I think you're right at that point, Your
`Honor, that if a cursor must always have something displayed
`that when you break them apart then, yes you would be correct,
`Your Honor, and if you do disagree with some of the independent
`claims, you know, in your opinion we would like to see the claim
`construction that puts us out of that. Were there any other
`questions on the single cursor issue? If not, I'd like to go to the
`
`
`
`
` 19
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`Case IPR2018-01431 (Patent 8,117,034 B2)
`Case IPR2018-01435 (Patent 6,999,933 B2)
`
`whether or not it would be obvious to display both. Can we go
`to slide 48, please?
`
`
`Slide 48 shows Schulz's figures 5A and 5B and there's
`a couple of things to note here. The first thing I note is that
`when I look at this picture my first reaction, and a person of
`ordinary skill in the art's first reaction at the time is that there's
`going two things displayed because even the patent after
`determining these two positions are had to draw something on
`the screen so you would think it would be the same when you go
`to implement it. But when you do dive into the text and you read
`it very carefully you can kind of pull out that, you know what? I
`think there's a fair reading of Schulz that in fact cursor 61 is
`really just the location of where cursor 60 was some time ago.
`But what is important to know is that position 61 is where the
`edit will happen and the position 60 is where the audio currently
`is.
`So they're following along each other and there's a
`
`
`time delay and since the time delay, as a person starts talking
`really fast, that distance will be far apart because you're
`cramming more words very fast. I'm very excited counsel and
`I'm talking way too fast because I'm running out of time, the two
`cursors are going to be far apart, and then when I gather myself
`back up and I become an effective advocate again and slow down
`the cursors become closer together. So the picture here is a little
`bit misleading that you think that they're locked together at the
`
`
`
`
` 20
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`Case IPR2018-01431 (Patent 8,117,034 B2)
`Case IPR2018-01435 (Patent 6,999,933 B2)
`
`same distance and the same is true in the 034, ’933 and also in
`embodiments in Schulz where you do it by the number of words
`because the size of the words can change.
`Supercalifragilisticexpialidocious is going to put a lot more
`distance between the two points and so we propose an alternative
`in our petition.
`
`
`Can we go to slide 49, please? In our alternative in
`our petition we explained look, a person of ordinary skill in the
`art looking at that picture of Schulz we were looking at would
`want to display both because normally users want to know where
`their edits will appear and we cited two user interface treatises.
`The first one Norman's "The Psychology of Everyday Things," an
`old well known treatise and Norman's great because he talks
`about user interfaces a variety of things, not just computers.
`He's all about usability of various things and Norman explained
`that the visibility, people need to see where their computer
`actions will take effect. He's into that. Cooper, "About Face"
`we cited that. Cooper stated and we quoted it right in our
`petition,
`"It is critical that you visually indicate to the user
`
`
`when something is selected for an operation."
`
`
`And we have that in our petition. That's why one of
`skill in the art would implement Schulz with both positions
`visible. Can we go to slide 50, please? Now we take a look at
`what Norman wrote. Now the first part of this quote, there's a
`
`
`
`
` 21
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`Case IPR2018-01431 (Patent 8,117,034 B2)
`Case IPR2018-01435 (Patent 6,999,933 B2)
`
`little background that goes beyond that. He states, "They are
`surprised to discover their creations tyrannizing the user."
`
`
`What he's talking about there is that when software
`designers aren't thinking about their users, they make software
`that's hard to use and instead of being the user's servant they're
`the users tyrant. So the software is tyrannizing the user and he
`further explains,
`
`
`"There's no longer any excuse for this. It is not that
`difficult to develop programs that make visible their actions that
`allow th
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
