Trials@uspto.gov
`571-272-7822
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`_____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`_____________
`
`GOOGLE LLC,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`HAMMOND DEVELOPMENT INTERNATIONAL, INC.,
`Patent Owner
`_____________
`
`IPR2020-00020 (Patent 9,264,483 B2)
`IPR2020-00080 (Patent 10,264,032 B1)
`____________
`
`Record of Oral Hearing
`Held Virtually: January 29, 2021
`
`BEFORE: MICHELLE N. WORMMEESTER, AMBER L. HAGY, and
`KRISTI L.R. SAWERT, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Paper # 37
`Entered: 03/02/2021
`
`
`
`
`571-272-7822
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`_____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`_____________
`
`GOOGLE LLC,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`HAMMOND DEVELOPMENT INTERNATIONAL, INC.,
`Patent Owner
`_____________
`
`IPR2020-00020 (Patent 9,264,483 B2)
`IPR2020-00080 (Patent 10,264,032 B1)
`____________
`
`Record of Oral Hearing
`Held Virtually: January 29, 2021
`
`BEFORE: MICHELLE N. WORMMEESTER, AMBER L. HAGY, and
`KRISTI L.R. SAWERT, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Paper # 37
`Entered: 03/02/2021
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00020 (Patent 9,264,483 B2)
`IPR2020-00080 (Patent 10,264,032 B1)
`
`A P P E A R A N C E S
`
`
`ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER:
`
`
`KEVIN D. RODKEY, ESQUIRE
`FINNEGAN, HENDERSON, FARABOW, GARRETT & DUNNER,
`LLP
`901 New York Avenue NW
`Washington, DC 20001
`202-408-4000
`
`
`ON BEHALF OF THE PATENT OWNER:
`
`
`JOSEPH P. OLDAKER, ESQUIRE
`NELSON BUMGARDNER ALBRITTON P.C.
`Suite 300
`3131 W 7th Street
`Ft, Worth, TX 76107
`817-377-9111
`
`
`
`ALSO PRESENT: ERIKA ARNER, TIMMER INGAN (ph),
`YI YU, and ANDREW WRIGHT
`
`The above-entitled matter came on for hearing on Friday,
`January 29, 2021, commencing at 10:00 a.m. EST, by video/by telephone.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00020 (Patent 9,264,483 B2)
`IPR2020-00080 (Patent 10,264,032 B1)
`
` (Proceedings begin at 10:00 a.m.)
` JUDGE HAGY: Good morning, everyone. This is our combined
`hearing for IPR2020-00020 and IPR2020-00080, between Petitioner Google
`LLC and Patent Owner Hammond Development International Inc. The
`challenged patents are U.S. Patent No. 9,264,483 and
`10,264,032, respectively.
` I'm Judge Hagy. With me today on the panel are
`Judges Sawert and Wormmeester. And I assume everyone saw, we
`did have a panel change. The panel change was just for
`purposes of efficiency as we have a lot of these cases that are all together.
`So in case anyone was curious, I just wanted to
`point that out.
` So let's go ahead and start with counsel
`introductions.
` Petitioner, please identify who will present your
`argument.
` MR. RODKEY: Good morning, Your Honors. My name is
`Kevin Rodkey with Finnegan for Google. I will be presenting
`the arguments. With me is Erika Arner, also with Finnegan,
`lead counsel for Google. On the phone, we have Timmer Ingan,
`in-house counsel for Google, and Yi Yu, with Finnegan.
` JUDGE HAGY: Okay.
` All right. And counsel for Patent Owner?
` MR. OLDAKER: Good morning, Your Honors. Joseph
`Oldaker of Nelson Bumgardner, Albritton P.C. on behalf of
`
`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
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00020 (Patent 9,264,483 B2)
`IPR2020-00080 (Patent 10,264,032 B1)
`Hammond Development International, Patent Owner. On the phone
`is -- I will be presenting for Patent Owner. On the phone is
`Andrew Wright, also with Nelson Bumgardner Albritton, who is
`lead counsel.
` JUDGE HAGY: Okay. Great.
` Well, welcome, everyone. It's good to have you
`here, and we appreciate that you made the effort to do this by
`video. So just as a reminder, if at any time during the
`proceeding you encounter any technical difficulties or any
`other difficulties that you feel would undermine your ability
`to present your argument to be heard, please let us know
`immediately, for example, by contacting the team members who
`provided you with the connection. So just let us know. And we
`don't anticipate any issues, but if they do happen, we will
`take care of them.
` We set forth the procedure for the hearing in the
`order, and we're going to hear both of these cases at the same
`time. Given the overlap, and we saw the parties’ slides, we're
`just -- we're going to go ahead and hear from Petitioner first
`on both cases, followed by Patent Owner on both cases, et
`cetera. Both parties have 60 minutes total for the arguments,
`which you may divide up as you see fit.
` Does anyone have any questions or concerns on that
`approach? No?
` MR. RODKEY: No, Your Honors.
`
`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
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00020 (Patent 9,264,483 B2)
`IPR2020-00080 (Patent 10,264,032 B1)
` JUDGE HAGY: We do have the whole record in front of
`us, including -- we received both parties' slides on Tuesday,
`so we have those. And just so the record is clear, please be
`sure and let us know what slide you're referencing so we can
`follow along or what exhibit. And if you jump in between
`documents, maybe just give us a second or two to make sure
`that we can locate it.
` Also, once we begin the arguments, please mute the
`line when you're not speaking. And in case it's been a little
`while since you've spoken, it might be helpful if you identify
`yourself for the court reporter. After our time is up, we
`will pause, and we will make sure that the court reporter
`doesn't have any questions about spellings or something like
`that to address. So that will happen at the end.
` So as you all know, the Petitioner bears the burden
`of persuasion here and will proceed first, followed by Patent
`Owner. Petitioner may reserve time for rebuttal, and Patent
`Owner may reserve time for sur-rebuttal. So I'm going to keep
`time on my handy little iPhone here because, you know, of
`course, we don't have the light system. I'm going to ask the
`parties now to state how much time you would like to reserve.
` So Petitioner, how much time would you like to
`reserve for rebuttal?
` MR. RODKEY: May I reserve 20 minutes, please, Your
`Honor?
`
`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
`
`
`
`5
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00020 (Patent 9,264,483 B2)
`IPR2020-00080 (Patent 10,264,032 B1)
` JUDGE HAGY: Okay.
` And Patent Owner?
` MR. OLDAKER: I'll reserve 15 minutes.
` JUDGE HAGY: Okay. So I will keep track of this,
`and I will -- if you do start running into the time you've
`reserved, I will let you know that. Okay. So -- and -- you
`know, at the end of each of your presentations, I'll let you
`know how much time you have left.
` So quickly, ground rules. We want to keep the
`arguments focused on the merits. So I'm sure you guys already
`know this, but there's no interruptions, no objections. It's
`not district court. Instead, you may raise and discuss any
`objections that you have during your time to argue.
` So that covers the opening housekeeping. Assuming
`that no one has any questions, I think we are ready to begin.
` Counsel for Petitioner, when you're ready.
` MR. RODKEY: Good morning, Your Honors. Kevin
`Rodkey for Petitioner. As mentioned, these IPRs involve two
`patents owned by Patent Owner, Hammond Development; the '483
`Patent and the '032 Patent. The '032 Patent is a continuation
`through a series of continuations of the '483 Patent, and so
`they share the same specification and same general technology.
` I think it's helpful to discuss, generally, what
`these patents are directed to. And the Hammond Patents are
`directed to automated voice response systems. One common
`
`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
`
`
`
`6
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00020 (Patent 9,264,483 B2)
`IPR2020-00080 (Patent 10,264,032 B1)
`example of this type of system is when a person calls a
`hotline for an airline to check the status of a delayed
`flight. A person picks up their handy phone -- cell phone,
`and calls the airline's hotline, and hears an automated voice
`that says, "Do you want to check the status of an existing
`flight, or do you want to book a new flight?" And the person
`says, "I want to check my existing flight."
` The hotline -- the server at the end processes that
`request and then asks the person through another automated
`voice, "What's your flight number?" And the person says, "My
`flight number is 1234." The system checks the flight number
`and tells the person that their flight's been delayed until
`6:00 p.m. The person, having gotten the information that they
`wanted, then hangs up their phone. That's the general
`technology.
` But this technology was commonplace long before
`Hammond filed its patents, and it was pervasive through the
`art. Hammond says that its alleged invention was doing some
`of the processing on the user's device. But as shown by the
`record, including multiple prior art references, this was also
`commonplace in the art. They merely moved the location of
`processing from one location to the other.
` If you will turn to Slide 6 of Petitioner's
`demonstratives, I think understanding the general structure of
`the prior art in the Hammond Patents is helpful to put
`
`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
`
`
`
`7
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00020 (Patent 9,264,483 B2)
`IPR2020-00080 (Patent 10,264,032 B1)
`everything in perspective. And on Slide 6, we have Figure 1D
`of the Hammond Patents in the top-left corner. Figure 2 of
`Gilmore prior art reference, Exhibit 1005, top-right corner.
`And Figure 4 of the Dodrill reference, Exhibit 1006, in the
`bottom-left corner.
` And as you can see from these, the structure is
`generally the same. They all have a user device, which is
`shown in orange. That can be a telephone, it can be a
`cellular phone or mobile phone, a personal data assistant or
`PDA, or a personal computer that's connected to the system via
`the blue cloud networks. And those networks can be any number
`of networks, including public switch telephone networks,
`PSTNs, as you see in some of the figures, IP networks, which
`are data networks or internet protocol, voice-over IP, which
`is a combination of voice and IP networks, or generally any
`other sort of data or voice network.
` On the server side -- or the system side, you have
`three components. One is the yellow, what the Hammond Patents
`called the application server. That's where the application
`that interacts with the user is actually processed. So in the
`example I gave, it's where the voice -- the automated voice is
`generated to ask the user, do they want to check their
`existing flight.
` It receives those applications from what the Hammond
`Patents call the repository, which is the green box in each of
`
`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
`
`
`
`8
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00020 (Patent 9,264,483 B2)
`IPR2020-00080 (Patent 10,264,032 B1)
`-- the bright green box, I should say, in each of these
`figures. What the repository does is it just grabs the
`application from storage, a database, which is shown in red.
`That's a red cylinder. It's a datastore in Gilmore. It's a
`database in Dodrill and the Hammond Patents. And you get that
`application, and it sends it to the voice gateway or the
`application server for processing where it's executed, and the
`voice is output. Dodrill teaches the alternative of simply
`moving that processing to the user device.
` Hammond's Patent Owner Response has raised a number
`of arguments in these proceedings, but I think to clarify the
`issues for the Board, there are really only four issues that
`need to be resolved. Two are common across the '483 Patent
`and the '032 Patent, and two are specific to the '032 Patent.
`The rest of Hammond's arguments don't affect the outcome of
`patentability because whichever way the Board decides, the
`claims are unpatentable.
` If you'll turn to Slide 8 of Petitioner's
`demonstratives, these are the two issues that are common to
`the '483 and '032 Patents that the Board needs to resolve. The
`first issue is whether a request, as used in the claims, must
`be at a computer code level instruction. And it doesn't.
`Hammond makes two arguments, this relates to two terms, as we
`will discuss in a minute. But the correct resolution is, the
`term "request," as used in the patents, is used in this ordinary
`
`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
`
`
`
`9
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00020 (Patent 9,264,483 B2)
`IPR2020-00080 (Patent 10,264,032 B1)
`manner, and not limited to computer code instructions. When
`that ordinary manner is looked at, the claims are
`unpatentable.
` The second issue that's common is whether identical
`disclosure is required to combine the Gilmore and the Dodrill
`references in the prior art. There's no requirement in
`obviousness law that the technology be identical. In fact,
`the opposite is true. It actually doesn't even need to be
`capable of being combined. But more importantly, here, where
`we're only moving processing from one location to another, the
`claims are obvious as a matter of law.
` On Slide 9 of Petitioner's demonstratives are two
`issues specific to the '032 Patent. The first one is whether
`Gilmore, Exhibit 1005, generates a, quote, "voice
`representation" of information derived from an application.
`The correct resolution of this is that it does. It uses
`voice-over IP, and it creates the voice that the user hears by
`looking to WAV files and text files and then converting those
`into speech. And so the WAV and the text files provide the
`information, it's turned into speech that the user hears, and
`that's your voice representation.
` The second issue is whether Gilmore generates
`packetized voice data. Again, it uses voice-over IP as a
`packetized data communication protocol, which Google's expert,
`Mr. Lipoff, explained, and is also supported by the Dhara
`
`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
`
`
`
`10
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00020 (Patent 9,264,483 B2)
`IPR2020-00080 (Patent 10,264,032 B1)
`reference. And, in fact, in the '032 Petition, the petition
`specifically calls out Dhara as supportive of this point in
`rendering it obvious.
` On Slide 10 of Petitioner's demonstratives are the
`remaining issues that Hammond has raised, including whether
`VoiceXML scripts are, quote, "applications" as this -- as that
`term we used in the patents, the meaning of processing
`service, communication, and repository. None of these affect
`patentability, and we'll talk about that at the end.
` And for my order, I think it's helpful to begin with
`"request" as the first issue. The derivation in the '032 Patent
`as the second issue. Moving on to packetized voice data, and
`then the motivation to combine issue. And if there's time
`leftover, I would like to discuss applications.
` If you'll turn to Slide 12 of Petitioner's
`demonstratives, we have a chart showing the various parties'
`positions. Petitioner's position is that no construction is
`necessary because, as we saw in Slide 6, the structure of the
`prior art and the Hammond Patent are essentially the same.
`Hammond asked the court to adopt the district court's plain
`and ordinary meaning, but then layers on top of that this
`additional requirement that the request must be at a
`computer-code-instruction level. That's not supported by
`either the claims or the specification of the '032 Patent or
`the '483 Patent.
`
`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
`
`
`
`11
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00020 (Patent 9,264,483 B2)
`IPR2020-00080 (Patent 10,264,032 B1)
` If you'll turn to Slide 13, I believe this is a
`framework that's going to help the Board with their analysis.
`So the issue that we're discussing is, is a request only at
`computer coding level instructions? And this affects two
`terms. It affects the term, "request for processing service,"
`and it affects the term, "request to establish a communication
`session." On the left side, we have the flow chart for --
`depending on how the Board comes out of this.
` If you agree with Google, and a request is not
`limited to only computer code instructions, the claims are
`unpatentable. Because Gilmore has a request, the user
`contacting the system through their communication device,
`whether it's a phone or a PDA or a computer, is the user's
`desire to interact. That's an action that's a request to
`interact with that system.
` If you adopt the computer-code-instruction that
`Hammond asks, which is incorrect based on the specification
`and the claims of the Hammond Patents, Dodrill renders obvious
`this computer code instruction by sending the code to the user
`device. So the claims are still unpatentable.
` JUDGE HAGY: Well, Counsel, I have a question.
`Request for processing service does seem like it's a key issue
`here. The district court construed a request for processing
`service in a manner that talks about a computing process
`performed by a communication device. And, you know, in going
`
`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
`
`
`
`12
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00020 (Patent 9,264,483 B2)
`IPR2020-00080 (Patent 10,264,032 B1)
`back through the record, it looks like the district court
`essentially adopted Google's proposal, cutting off what looked
`like a negative limitation about something that couldn't be
`done over a microphone or a speaker.
` So without computer code being involved, what
`computing process would be performed by a communication device
`in Gilmore if we adopted that construction?
` MR. RODKEY: Sure. So it could be performed a
`number of ways. One is that, like I said, voice-over IP is a
`packetized system. It's packetized protocol. So is IP, which
`is discussed specifically in the Gilmore reference. So we
`have to reassemble these packets in order to hear the voice
`that's output from the server side, and that would involve
`processing because there's no other way to get the packets
`back in the correct form.
` And I think we need to differentiate the issue of
`request from processing service. You can have a request that
`triggers computing processes that are not themselves computer
`code. And these are even talked about in the Hammond Patent.
`So when the user responds to a query or a question, in the
`example I gave, they said they want to check an existing
`flight, that's their voice going back to the system. But then
`the system executes code, a process -- a computing
`process that determines what the user said. So when you
`separate those two things, you don't arrive at the conclusion
`
`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
`
`
`
`13
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00020 (Patent 9,264,483 B2)
`IPR2020-00080 (Patent 10,264,032 B1)
`that a request must be computer code.
` JUDGE HAGY: I'm muted.
` Not the request itself; I get that. But -- so
`you're saying that if we were to adopt the district court's
`construction of processing services involving a computing
`process performed by a communication device, it's Google's
`position that that computing process would encompass a
`reassembly of digitized packets in a voice-over IP system?
` MR. RODKEY: Yes, Your Honor. (indiscernible)
` JUDGE HAGY: And it doesn't require something else?
` MR. RODKEY: Yes, because that's -- you have to put
`those packets back in order and then output them somehow. And
`if you're putting IP packets in order, you're processing, and
`then it's going to a speaker to be played. So some processing
`is going on there. But I think the bigger point is, that
`Dodrill renders this obvious, even if you don't agree on
`Gilmore. And the reason for that is, the Dodrill reference
`specifically sends an executable file, as shown in Figure 7 of
`Dodrill, that's been executed on the user device and plays the
`response directly to the user on the device. So it comes out
`either way, whether you agree on Gilmore or not, Dodrill still
`renders it obvious.
` The second term that "request" affects is "request to
`establish communication session." And the -- I think it's
`important to understand the two different requests here. As
`
`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
`
`
`
`14
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00020 (Patent 9,264,483 B2)
`IPR2020-00080 (Patent 10,264,032 B1)
`was just pointed out, there's a request for processing service
`that talks about -- even if you adopt the district court's
`construction of processing service, computing processes.
` But the Hammond Patents don't have that same
`limitation on establishing a communication session, and
`there's no limitation on what that request is in the Hammond
`Patents. And it's used in its ordinary meaning of just simply
`the user contacting, somehow, the server side of the system.
`And so when you don't limit it, that's unpatentable.
` If you adopt Hammond's construction, which is the
`far-right box, for computer code only, again, that would be
`legal error. We'll talk about the reasons for that because
`the construction's not supported. But even Dodrill and Dhara
`do talk about sending HTML requests and HTTP requests, which
`would fall under that, although those are not specifically
`called out in the Petition.
` Turning to Slide 14, I have exemplary Claims 10 of
`the '483 Patent.
` JUDGE SAWERT: Counsel? Can we go back to request
`for processing service for one moment? And using your example
`of calling for flight status, could you walk through that in
`terms of what request for processing service would be?
` MR. RODKEY: Yes, Your Honor.
` So request for processing service is something that
`comes from the server side to a user device side. And using
`
`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
`
`
`
`15
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00020 (Patent 9,264,483 B2)
`IPR2020-00080 (Patent 10,264,032 B1)
`the example, when the user says, "I want to check my existing
`flight status," the server side hears that and determines that
`the next question that should be asked of the user is, "What's
`your flight number?" And it packages that into voice packets
`because we're -- we are talking about a cell phone, which uses
`IP or voice-over IP protocols, and it sends that out to the
`user device. Those are then reassembled, and so you get that
`request to reassemble.
` However, what the Dodrill reference teaches is that
`instead of sending the voice out, the server side could send
`out a small executable that has an instruction, and the WAV
`file, the voice file, that has the question, "What's your
`flight number?" You send that to the user device, and the user
`device executes that on the user device. So your executable
`file would be your request for processing service in that second
`alternative. And that's what the Dodrill reference teaches in
`Figure 7 and Column 12.
` JUDGE SAWERT: Okay. Thank you.
` MR. RODKEY: Returning to Petitioner Slide 14, we've
`highlighted "request" where it appears in each of these two
`claims. And there's an important distinction to be drawn here
`as to why you should not limit, and the claims don't support
`limiting "request" to just computer code. At the top of slide
`-- of Claim 10 is request from the communication device to
`establish a communication session. There's no limitation
`
`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
`
`
`
`16
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00020 (Patent 9,264,483 B2)
`IPR2020-00080 (Patent 10,264,032 B1)
`placed on what that request is; it's just used in the ordinary
`manner.
` The three references at the bottom relate to the
`request for processing service. And the first two just refer
`to a request for processing service with no limitation as to
`what the request is. However, the last one says, "The request
`for processing service comprises one or more queries." A
`query is merely a question. It doesn't place any other
`limitation on it. So that query could be computer code
`related, or it doesn't have to be because there's no computer
`code limitation in the claim itself.
` By contrast, Claim 1 of the '032 Patent, if you look
`at the last usage of the word request, which also relates to
`request for processing service, it comprises an instruction to
`present the user the voice representation. That instruction
`could be computer code. And -- so you see this difference
`where the claim calls out something more specific, such as an
`instruction. It's expressly put into the claim. When it uses
`specifically a query, that's in the claim. But where you have
`something like "request to establish communication session" with
`no limitation put on "request," it's used in the ordinary
`manner. And this is consistent with the Specification itself,
`which excerpts are shown on Slide 15.
` In the top-left, we have Column 7, Lines 42 to 51
`for the '483 Patent, and corresponding disclosure in the '032
`
`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
`
`
`
`17
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00020 (Patent 9,264,483 B2)
`IPR2020-00080 (Patent 10,264,032 B1)
`Patent, where it refers to queries or requests for information
`equating a query with a request again, but not limiting that
`request to computer code. A similar example in Column 8,
`Lines 42 to 44 of the '483 Patent, and the corresponding
`disclosure in the '032 Patent, talking about communicating a
`request through a network. Again, no limitation put on what
`that request is. In the top-right, '483 Patent, Column 4,
`Lines 28 to 31, a series of requesting information from the
`user or presenting information to the user. Again --
` JUDGE SAWERT: Counsel? One more clarifying
`question.
` I'm looking at the final clause of Claim 10,
`"Wherein the request for processing service comprises one or
`more queries for information from a user." Just to be clear,
`the request for processing service comes from the -- in your
`example, the automated system. And you're -- and the way
`you're reading this is that the automated system is asking for
`information from a user; is that right? Is that correct?
` MR. RODKEY: Yes, Your Honor. The -- go ahead.
` JUDGE SAWERT: And then another way you could read
`it, I think, is wherein the request for processing services
`comprises one or more queries for information from a user, in
`that the request for processing service is coming from the
`user, asking for information from the -- in your example, the
`online automated system. So can you speak about why we should
`
`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
`
`
`
`18
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00020 (Patent 9,264,483 B2)
`IPR2020-00080 (Patent 10,264,032 B1)
`read it the way you're reading it versus the request coming
`from a user? What does "from a user" modify, I guess, would be
`my question.
` MR. RODKEY: We have read "from a user" as modifying
`the information. So it's querying information from a user.
`So information about the user, such as what would you like to
`do or what is your flight status? And if you look up at the
`second usage of the word request in Claim 10, it says,
`"Wherein the, at least, one application server is operable to
`communicate a request for processing service to the, at least,
`one communication device."
` So the request for processing service is in that
`clause coming from the application server, which is the voice
`gateway in Gilmore, or in my example, the automated system
`that was called-into by the user to the communication device,
`the user cell phone or computer or PDA. So that's why we were
`reading it that way.
` However, the way the Board is reading it, the claims
`would still be unpatentable because the user responds with a
`question, "I would like to check my flight status," or "I want to
`work with my existing flight," and then a processing service
`occurs on the server side, which evaluates what the user said.
`In the terms of Gilmore or VoiceXML, which is just one example
`of a language that these applications can be written in,
`that's called a grammar instruction. And it hears what the
`
`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
`
`
`
`19
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00020 (Patent 9,264,483 B2)
`IPR2020-00080 (Patent 10,264,032 B1)
`user said, and it determines what the user said, and then it
`figures out the next way to respond. So that --
` JUDGE SAWERT: In that -- sorry.
` In that example, the processing is still occurring
`on the automated system side, right? How does the automated
`computer coding happen on the user side if it's the user who's
`sending a request for processing service under Google's
`district court construction?
` MR. RODKEY: Well, as I said, I think the language
`of Claim 10, it says that the request for processing service is
`communicated from the application server to the user device.
`If the user is working -- is communicating request for
`processing service for the user device to execute code, you
`can see that again in Dodrill, for example, the upload
`instruction that's part of the executable.
` That takes the user's response and converts that
`into an appropriate file, and then uploads it for the server
`to analyze. So that would be a computing process on the user
`device, based on the user's response if you read it that way.
` JUDGE SAWERT: Okay. Thank you.
` MR. RODKEY: I don't that would be --
` JUDGE SAWERT: I'm just trying to get to -- you say,
`either way, it's read -- the prior art reads on it, correct?
`And I'm just trying --
` MR. RODKEY: Yes, Your Honor --
`
`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
`
`
`
`20
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00020 (Patent 9,264,483 B2)
`IPR2020-00080 (Patent 10,264,032 B1)
` JUDGE SAWERT: -- to understand what the prior art
`teaches that either way, the prior art reads on it. And I see
`where you're coming from, so --
` MR. RODKEY: Okay. Thank you.
` Let's turn to slide -- I believe 16 is the next one
`I'd like to go to, which is where Google's expert, Mr. Lipoff,
`confirmed that the call is the request to establish
`a communication session because it represents the user's action.
`It's that behavior that is the user asking to interact with
`the system, and then that the system will respond to.
` If there are no further questions on "request," I
`would like to turn to generating the voice -- I'm sorry,
`generating the voice representation, which is specific to the
`'032 Patent, Claims 1 and 9. If you'll turn to Petitioner's
`Slide 21?
` Generating the voice representation of information
`derived from the application happens in the Gilmore reference
`because a prompt instruction, which is what gets the audio
`file and plays the audio file, pulls that information from the
`application itself. It executes the instruction. That
`instruction includes a URL, which is the location of the file,
`and it then plays that file.
` So, for example, Paragraph 44 of Gilmore, which has
`been highlighted, says, "Executing the prompt instruction, the
`interpreter program either accesses the prompt file that
`
`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
`
`
`
`21
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00020 (Patent 9,264,483 B2)
`IPR2020-00080 (Patent 10,264,032 B1)
`contains the voice data that is spoken to the user." It goes
`out, it gets it, but a user can't hear a computer file. So
`that is turned into the voice representation, the sound that
`the user actually hears, and that's derived from the location
`of the file, the URL, that's in the voice instruction itself.
` The other way this is done is through the conversion
`of text to speech. If Gilmore's system can't find the audio
`file or it doesn't exist, it uses text to speech, takes the
`text that's in the application, which is the information, and
`it converts that into the voice that the user hears. So it
`goes from text into a voice representation. It derives that
`information from the application by, essentially, reading the
`text and then converting it.
` It does it in another way, too. Which is, when the
`user responds, it processes the user's response, executing
`what's called a grammar. And in Paragraph 50 of Gilmore, it
`s
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
