UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`APPLE INC.,
`Petitioner,
`v.
`PARUS HOLDINGS, INC.,
`Patent Owner.
`
`Case No. IPR2020-00686
`U.S. Patent No. 7,076,431
`
`PATENT OWNER’S SUR-REPLY TO
`PETITIONER’S REPLY TO PATENT OWNER’S RESPONSE
`
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`APPLE INC.,
`Petitioner,
`v.
`PARUS HOLDINGS, INC.,
`Patent Owner.
`
`Case No. IPR2020-00686
`U.S. Patent No. 7,076,431
`
`PATENT OWNER’S SUR-REPLY TO
`PETITIONER’S REPLY TO PATENT OWNER’S RESPONSE
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2020-00686
`Patent No. 7,076,431
`
`I.
`II.
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................... 1
`LADD DOES NOT TEACH OR DISCLOSE LIMITATION 1(C):
`“SPEAKER-INDEPENDENT SPEECH RECOGNITION DEVICE”........... 2
`A.
`Parus’s Construction of “Speaker-Independent Speech
`Recognition Device” is Consistent with the District Court’s
`Construction and the Intrinsic Record ................................................... 3
`1.
`Parus’s construction is consistent with the District
`Court’s construction. ................................................................... 4
`The plain and ordinary meaning should be afforded to the
`term “voice pattern” .................................................................... 4
`The Plain Disclosure of Ladd Demonstrates that Speech
`Recognition in Ladd is Dependent on Voice Patterns .......................... 6
`1.
`Apple’s identified speech recognition device operates in
`a manner proscribed by the ’431 Patent ...................................... 7
`Ladd’s use of a speech to text unit further undermines
`Apple’s argument ........................................................................ 8
`Apple’s Attempt to Conflate Speech Recognition with Natural
`Language Processing is Not Tenable .................................................. 10
`1.
`Speech Recognition does not include natural language
`processing .................................................................................. 10
`Mr. Occhiogrosso’s testimony does not support Apple’s
`two-step speech recognition theory .......................................... 13
`Ladd’s Disclosed “Voice Patterns” Are The Same “Voice
`Patterns” Excluded By The District Court’s Construction ................. 15
`III. MR. OCCHIOGROSSO’S OPINIONS SHOULD BE GIVEN
`GREATER WEIGHT THAN DR. TERVEEN’S ......................................... 18
`IV. CLAIM LIMITATION 1(K) ......................................................................... 19
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`D.
`
`2.
`
`2.
`
`2.
`
`i
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2020-00686
`Patent No. 7,076,431
`V. MOTIVATION TO COMBINE .................................................................... 21
`VI. CLAIMS 5-6 .................................................................................................. 23
`VII. CONCLUSION .............................................................................................. 23
`
`ii
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2020-00686
`Patent No. 7,076,431
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
` Page(s)
`
`Cases
`ATD Corp. v. Lydall, Inc.,
`159 F.3d 534 (Fed. Cir. 1998) ............................................................................ 22
`In re Enhanced Security Research, LLC,
`739 F.3d 1347 (Fed. Cir. 2014) .......................................................................... 22
`In re Fine,
`837 F.2d 1071 (Fed. Cir. 1988) .......................................................................... 22
`In re Gorman,
`983 F.2d 982 (Fed. Cir. 1991) ............................................................................ 22
`
`iii
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2020-00686
`Patent No. 7,076,431
`
`TABLE OF EXHIBITS
`
`Exhibit
`2001
`
`2002
`2003
`2004
`2005
`2006
`
`2007
`2008
`2009
`2010
`2011
`
`2012
`2013
`2014
`2015
`2016
`2017
`2018
`2019
`2020
`2021
`2022
`2023
`2024
`2025
`
`2026
`2027
`
`Description
`Order Denying Motion to Stay Pending Inter Partes Review, C.A. No.
`6:18-cv-00207-ADA
`Exhibit A3 Ladd Claim Chart 7076431
`Exhibit C Obviousness Claim Chart 7076431 (Corrected)
`Reserved
`Reserved
`Standing Order Regarding Scheduled Hearings in Civil Cases, 6:19-
`cv-00432-ADA
`Claim Construction Order, 1:20-cv-00351-ADA
`Claim Construction Order, 6:19-cv-00532-ADA
`Claim Construction Order, 6:18-cv-00308-ADA
`U.S. Patent No. 6,157,705 (Perrone)
`“instruction set” excerpt from 1997 Novell’s Dictionary of
`Networking
`Defendants’ Opening Claim Construction Brief, 6:19-cv-00432-ADA
`Excerpt of Case Docket Sheet, 6-19-cv-00278-ADA
`Excerpt of Case Docket Sheet, 6-19-cv-00514-ADA
`Excerpt of Case Docket Sheet, 6-19-cv-00515-ADA
`Excerpt of Case Docket Sheet, 7-18-cv-00147-ADA
`Markman Hearing Transcript, 6:19-CV-00432-ADA
`10/2/2020 Email to Court
`Excerpt of Case Docket Sheet, 6:18-cv-00308-ADA
`5/30/2019 Order Denying Stay, C.A. No. 6:18-cv-00207
`6/23/2020 Order Denying Stay, C.A. No. 6:19-cv-00514
`6/23/2020 Order Denying Stay, C.A. No. 6:19-cv-00515
`7/22/2020 Order Denying Stay, C.A. No. 7:18-cv-00147
`December 16, 2020 Deposition Transcript of Loren Terveen, Ph.D.
`Declaration of Benedict Occhiogrosso in Support of Patent Owner’s
`Response to Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,076,431
`Dragon Naturally Speaking v.12 User Guide
`Declaration of Benedict Occhiogrosso in Support of Patent Owner’s
`Sur-Reply to Petitioner's Reply to Patent Owner’s Response
`
`iv
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2020-00686
`Patent No. 7,076,431
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`Apple’s primary argument for demonstrating that Ladd discloses the speaker-
`
`independent speech recognition device of claim 1 of the ’431 Patent rests on Apple’s
`
`new theory that speech recognition is a two-step process, which runs counter to the
`
`understanding of those skilled in the art. Apple conflates speech recognition, which
`
`converts speech to text in the ’431 Patent and matches speech to pre-determined
`
`voice patterns in Ladd, with language processing, which attempts to ascribe meaning
`
`to the converted text. This conflation appears to stem from the fact that Apple
`
`attempts to confuse speech recognition with a speech recognition device as required
`
`by the claims of the ’431 Patent, which does both speech recognition and language
`
`processing. Because this new theory of speech recognition rests on Apple’s
`
`transparent attempts to confuse speech recognition and speech recognition devices,
`
`all Grounds fail.
`
`As Parus will show, Apple’s attempts to support their arguments by
`
`mischaracterizing the POR and Mr. Occhiogrosso’s testimony only weakens
`
`Apple’s own arguments. Apple’s citations to Mr. Occhiogrosso’s testimony
`
`undercut their arguments and show the flaws in those arguments clearly. For these
`
`reasons alone, Mr. Occhiogrosso’s testimony should be given greater weight than
`
`Dr. Terveens’s testimony.
`
`1
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2020-00686
`Patent No. 7,076,431
`Apple’s other arguments ignore Parus and Mr. Occhiogrosso’s arguments
`
`from the POR. Parus will further demonstrate there is no motivation to combine the
`
`various references and Apple’s arguments regarding speech recognition run counter
`
`to the content of the dependent claims and cannot be true. Parus has shown and will
`
`further show that Apple relies on impermissible hindsight for motivation to combine
`
`Ladd with Kurosawa and Goedken. For these reasons, all Grounds fail.
`
`II.
`
`LADD DOES NOT TEACH OR DISCLOSE LIMITATION 1(C):
`“SPEAKER-INDEPENDENT SPEECH RECOGNITION DEVICE”
`Apple’s entire argument that Ladd discloses the speaker-independent speech
`
`recognition device is predicated upon two assertions, neither of which is accurate,
`
`and because of this Apple’s entire argument subsequently fails.
`
`Apple’s first assertion is that Parus is forced into some sort of limited claim
`
`construction in order for Parus to demonstrate that Ladd does not disclose claim
`
`limitation 1(c). (Paper 19, 2-3). A closer examination of Parus’s proposed claim
`
`construction reveals that it is not limited in any meaningful way and is encompassed
`
`by the District Court’s construction that Apple now purports to adopt.
`
`Apple’s second assertion is that the speaker-independent speech recognition
`
`device as taught by the ’431 and Ladd is a two-step process and because Ladd, as
`
`Apple interprets it, uses voice patterns in the second step instead of the first step,
`
`2
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2020-00686
`Patent No. 7,076,431
`Ladd does not disclose the voice patterns excluded in the ’431 Patent.1 The
`
`disclosure of Ladd directly contradicts this assertion. Also, a closer examination of
`
`Apple’s purported two-step speech recognition process demonstrates that Apple
`
`conflates speech recognition with language processing or understanding.
`
`Because Apple’s entire argument as to why Ladd discloses limitation 1(c) is
`
`predicated on these two false assertions, Apple’s entire argument fails.
`
`A.
`
`Parus’s Construction of “Speaker-Independent Speech
`Recognition Device” is Consistent with the District Court’s
`Construction and the Intrinsic Record
`Apple’s suggestion that Parus is forced to propose a construction that would
`
`exclude Ladd from teaching the “Speaker-Independent Speech Recognition Device”
`
`is unfounded because Ladd does not teach, or disclose, the “Speaker-Independent
`
`Speech Recognition Device” under the District Court’s or Parus’s construction.
`
`(Paper 19, 2-3).
`
`Recognizing that the Board is not bound by the District Court’s construction,
`
`and that the Board may independently decide the construction of the “Speaker-
`
`Independent Speech Recognition Device,” Parus advanced what it believes is the
`
`appropriate construction of the term. See Paper 15 at 21-24.
`
`1 Parus notes that this is the first time that Apple has advanced this two-step speech recognition theory.
`
`3
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2020-00686
`Patent No. 7,076,431
`Parus’s construction is consistent with the District Court’s
`construction.
`Contrary to Apple’s assertion, Parus’s proposed construction is entirely in
`
`1.
`
`agreement with the District Court’s construction. As can be seen in the table below
`
`by the bolded text, the District Court’s construction includes Parus’s entire
`
`construction:
`
`District Court’s Construction
`speech recognition device that
`recognizes spoken words without
`adapting to individual speakers or
`using predefined voice patterns
`
`Parus’s Construction
`speech recognition device that
`recognizes spoken words without using
`predefined voice patterns
`
`A proposed construction that is entirely encompassed by the District Court’s
`
`construction does not constitute a construction that Parus was forced to adopt as
`
`Apple contends. (Paper 19, 2-3). As will be demonstrated further below, Ladd does
`
`not teach, or disclose, the “Speaker-Independent Speech Recognition Device,” under
`
`either construction.
`
`2.
`
`The plain and ordinary meaning should be afforded to the
`term “voice pattern”
`Apple’s assertion that “Parus’s POR and supporting evidence provide no
`
`definition or explanation of what a ‘voice pattern’ is as used in Parus’s claim
`
`construction” is baseless. (Paper 19, 3). Parus believes that the plain and ordinary
`
`meaning of “voice pattern” should be afforded to the term, and that no further
`
`4
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2020-00686
`Patent No. 7,076,431
`construction should be necessary. Parus’s use of the term in the POR and its
`
`supporting evidence support this belief.
`
`For example, in Mr. Occhiogrosso’s declaration in support of Parus’ POR,
`
`Mr. Occhiogrosso explains that Automatic Speech Recognition (“ASR”) “is a
`
`process by which a computer system recognizes the acoustic signal of human speech
`
`(converted by a microphone into an electrical signal) and translates this text of what
`
`was uttered.” (Ex. 2025, ¶ 49). Mr. Occhiogrosso further explains that ASRs can
`
`be broadly categorized as speaker-dependent and speaker-independent systems.
`
`(Ex. 2025, ¶ 50).
`
`Mr. Occhiogrosso then explains that speaker-independent systems can be
`
`further broken down into two categories. The first category is characterized by
`
`“pattern matching of incoming speech to a priori known templates of words is used
`
`in limited vocabulary” systems that seek to isolate specific commands. (Ex. 2025, ¶
`
`53). Mr. Occhiogrosso uses the Chigier reference to support this type of speaker-
`
`independent speech recognition. Id. Mr. Occhiogrosso notes that the second
`
`category is phoneme based that use statistical models “to extract [] Acoustic Features
`
`used by the acoustic model from the incoming speech after which statistical analysis
`
`estimates the likelihood that a particular sound (i.e. phoneme) is uttered.” Id. Mr.
`
`Occhiogrosso further explains that this category of speaker-independent speech
`
`recognition “allows for a much larger vocabulary and is very useful in creating a
`
`5
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2020-00686
`Patent No. 7,076,431
`flexible system. Id. Mr. Occhiogrosso again relies on the Chigier reference to
`
`support this other type of speaker-independent speech recognition.
`
`Mr. Occhiogrosso then explains that the ’431 Patent disclaims the first
`
`category of speaker-independent speech recognition where the voice pattern is
`
`compared to a priori known templates of words used in a limited vocabulary, which
`
`results in a highly stilted ask and response type language, and favors a phoneme
`
`based speaker independent where larger vocabularies can be employed. (Ex. 2025,
`
`¶ 69). All of this is consistent with the plain and ordinary definition of the term
`
`“voice pattern.”
`
`B.
`
`The Plain Disclosure of Ladd Demonstrates that Speech
`Recognition in Ladd is Dependent on Voice Patterns
`Apple’s attempt to re-define Ladd’s speech recognition into a two-step
`
`process is a red herring and is undercut by the disclosure of Ladd. Speech
`
`recognition in Ladd is a single step process. The express disclosure of Ladd requires
`
`a speech recognition device that is based on voice patterns, something that is
`
`expressly disclaimed by the ’431 Patent. Therefore, Ladd’s speech recognition
`
`device cannot anticipate the speaker-independent speech recognition device of the
`
`’431 Patent.
`
`6
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2020-00686
`Patent No. 7,076,431
`Apple’s identified speech recognition device operates in a
`manner proscribed by the ’431 Patent
`A reading of Ladd shows that speech recognition is a single step process and
`
`1.
`
`that the difference between a speech recognition device based on voice patterns and
`
`the more flexible speech recognition device of the ’431 Patent is significant. The
`
`speech recognition device of Ladd performs speech recognition by recognizing voice
`
`patterns, not by converting speech to text based on phonemes. Following that
`
`recognition, the speech recognition device of Ladd matches those voice patterns to
`
`specific recognition grammars. It is the first step, performing speech recognition
`
`based on voice patterns or speech patterns that is proscribed by the ’431 Patent.
`
`Ladd does not convert speech to text, it recognizes voice patterns. Ladd
`
`describes its speech recognition device as follows: “[w]hen the ASR unit 254
`
`identifies a selected speech pattern of the speech inputs, the ASR unit 254 sends an
`
`output signal to implement the specific function associated with the recognized voice
`
`pattern.” (Ex. 1004, 9:36-39 (emphasis added)). The speaker–independent speech
`
`recognition device (of the ’431) performs speech recognition and language
`
`processing. There is no disclosure or teaching that the ASR unit 254 performs a first
`
`step of converting speech to text during speech recognition. The voice pattern is
`
`recognized and “an output signal to implement the specific function associated with
`
`the recognized voice pattern” is sent. Id. The speech recognition process of Ladd
`
`7
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2020-00686
`Patent No. 7,076,431
`does not convert speech to text. Instead, it performs recognition based on voice
`
`patterns. The second step performed by the ASR unit 254 is identifying the signal
`
`to be sent based on the recognized voice pattern as identified by a recognition
`
`grammar. Id. Mr. Occhiogrosso’s deposition testimony is completely consistent
`
`with this understanding. (Ex. 1039, 43:16-44:7).
`
`The identified speech recognition device of Ladd is directly disclaimed by the
`
`’431 Patent. The ’431 Patent is crystal clear that the “speaker-independent speech
`
`recognition device” is not reliant on voice patterns. Specifically, the ’431 Patent
`
`states that: “The voice browsing system recognizes naturally spoken voice
`
`commands and is speaker-independent; it does not have to be trained to recognize
`
`the voice patterns of each individual user. Such speech recognition systems use
`
`phonemes to recognize spoken words and not predefined voice patterns.” (Ex. 1001,
`
`4:38-43; see also Ex. 1041, 2). The text of the references is clear and unambiguous.
`
`The ’431 Patent does not use “predefined voice patterns” and Ladd does.
`
`2.
`
`Ladd’s use of a speech to text unit further undermines
`Apple’s argument
`Apple’s argument, requiring that the speech recognition device first converts
`
`speech to text then recognizes it, is further undermined by Ladd’s disclosure of a
`
`speech to text unit 256 as part of the VRU server 234. Apple identifies the ASR unit
`
`254 of the VRU server 234 as satisfying the speaker-independent speech recognition
`
`8
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2020-00686
`Patent No. 7,076,431
`unit of the claims of the ’431 Patent. (Paper 19 at 9-10). Apple also contends that
`
`“Ladd teaches the automatic speech recognition (ASR) unit 254 first recognizes the
`
`words from the user’s speech input and then performs the second step of determining
`
`whether the speech inputs match any key word or phrase via comparison to a stored
`
`grammar or vocabulary.” (Paper 19, 7). However, at no point does Ladd teach that
`
`the ASR unit 254 is capable of converting speech to text and Mr. Occhiogrosso
`
`provides no testimony that Ladd makes such a disclosure. See generally, Ex. 1039.
`
`The ASR unit 254 is described as being part of the VRU server 234 and having a
`
`particular operation, which does not include converting speech to text. (Ex. 1004,
`
`9:28-44). In the paragraph immediately following that description, the STT unit 256
`
`is described as being part of the VRU server 234 and having a particular operation,
`
`which does include converting speech to text. (Ex. 1004, 9:45-54). Notably, the
`
`STT unit 256 is not described as being speaker independent and then uses a different
`
`“preferable” software package called Dragon Naturally Speaking, which is
`
`commonly understood to be a speaker dependent system that requires extensive
`
`training. (Ex. 2026, 15-16). If, as now urged by Apple, the ASR unit 254 converted
`
`speech to text, there would be no reason to have a separate STT unit 256 that uses a
`
`different type of software to actually perform speech to text translation. The STT
`
`unit 256 is necessary because, as clearly disclosed by Ladd, the ASR unit 254 does
`
`not convert speech to text.
`
`9
`
`
`
`C.
`
`Case No. IPR2020-00686
`Patent No. 7,076,431
`Apple’s Attempt to Conflate Speech Recognition with Natural
`Language Processing is Not Tenable
`In an attempt to escape the plain disclosure of Ladd, Apple argues that Ladd’s
`
`voice patterns are used at a different step in the speech recognition process, which
`
`runs counter to the plain disclosure of Ladd.2 Apple advances this new speech
`
`recognition theory in order to inaccurately claim that speech recognition requires
`
`two steps. (Paper 19, 5). According to Apple, step one comprises converting the
`
`spoken utterance into text or words, and step two determines the content of those
`
`words. Id. Apple then claims that Mr. Occhiogrosso agrees that speech recognition
`
`requires two steps. (Paper 19, 5-6). Speech recognition does not require two steps,
`
`and this is a mischaracterization of Mr. Occhiogrosso’s statements. (Ex. 2027, ¶¶ 2-
`
`3).
`
`1.
`
`Speech Recognition does not include natural language
`processing
`The speaker-independent speech recognition device of the ’431 Patent
`
`performs speech recognition and selection of the appropriate recognition grammar
`
`(i.e., language processing). Apple blurs the lines of speech recognition in an attempt
`
`to invalidate the claims of the ’431 Patent. Unfortunately for Apple, Ladd is clear
`
`2 To the extent the Board allows Dr. Terveen’s new opinions in his supplemental declaration, Parus submits Mr.
`Occhiogrosso’s supplemental declaration to rebut those new opinions.
`
`10
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2020-00686
`Patent No. 7,076,431
`that its speech recognition device (the ASR unit 254) operates based on voice
`
`patterns, which is disclaimed by the ’431 Patent. (Ex. 2027, ¶¶ 2-3).
`
`The process that Apple describes as speech recognition includes speech
`
`recognition (step one of Apple’s process) and then natural language processing or
`
`understanding (step two of Apple’s process)—two distinctly different processes.
`
`Apple is attempting to confuse speaker-independent speech recognition, whether
`
`using voice patterns (Ladd) or phonemes (’431 Patent), with an automatic speech
`
`recognition device which includes both speech recognition and natural language
`
`processing (i.e., utilizing a set of grammars).
`
`As Mr. Occhiogrosso testified during his deposition, speech recognition as
`
`described by the ’431 Patent translates an audio input into text. (Ex. 1039, 51:19-
`
`25). This opinion is consistent with Mr. Occhiogrosso’s declaration where he
`
`testified that Automatic Speech Recognition (“ASR”) “is a process by which a
`
`computer system recognizes the acoustic signal of human speech (converted by a
`
`microphone into an electrical signal) and translates this into the text of what was
`
`uttered.” (Ex. 2025, ¶ 49). As described above, once the audio signal is translated
`
`into text, the speech recognition process is complete.
`
`According to the disclosure and claims of the ’431 Patent, after the speech
`
`recognition process is complete, natural language processing occurs to use the
`
`translated text to understand the speaker. This process may utilize grammars and is
`
`11
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2020-00686
`Patent No. 7,076,431
`called language understanding or processing, which is entirely consistent with Mr.
`
`Occhiogrosso’s testimony. (Ex. 1039, 11:9-12:1, 64:20-66:3). In the natural
`
`language processing phase, the system of the ’431 Patent uses the translated text and
`
`attempts to match it with a recognition grammar that corresponds to potential
`
`capabilities of the system.
`
`The speech recognition device of Ladd, to the contrary, discusses recognizing
`
`a voice pattern and performing an action. (Ex. 2027, ¶¶ 2-3). The ASR unit 254 is
`
`described as “identif[ying] a selected speech pattern of the speech inputs” (speech
`
`recognition) and performing an action (activating a grammar). (Ex. 1004, 9:36-39;
`
`Ex. 2027, ¶¶ 2-3). Ladd provides additional description of speech recognition, which
`
`is also relied on by Apple. Ladd describes a “detection unit 260 records the audio
`
`inputs from the user and compares the audio inputs to the vocabulary of grammar
`
`stored in the database server unit 244.” (Ex. 1004, 10:13-15; Ex. 2027, ¶¶ 2-3).
`
`Ladd does not describe comparing the text derived from the audio input. Id. It
`
`describes comparing the “audio” to the grammar. (Ex. 2027, ¶¶ 2-3). Ladd matches
`
`predefined voice patterns to the audio input in the speech recognition phase, which
`
`is proscribed by the ’431 Patent. It does not convert audio to text and somehow
`
`compare that text to a voice pattern in a later phase.
`
`Apple’s interpretation of the speech recognition device of Ladd simply makes
`
`no sense. Ladd is unambiguous that “[w]hen the ASR unit 254 identifies a selected
`
`12
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2020-00686
`Patent No. 7,076,431
`speech pattern of the speech inputs, the ASR unit 254 sends an output signal to
`
`implement the specific function associated with the recognized voice pattern.” (Ex.
`
`1004, 9:36-39; Ex. 2027, ¶¶ 2-3). If Apple’s interpretation is correct, Ladd would
`
`convert the audio input, which is a voice pattern, into text, then it would have to
`
`convert the text back to the voice pattern in order to match it to a particular voice
`
`pattern related to a grammar.
`
`Apple conflates these two different processes in an attempt to differentiate
`
`Ladd’s voice patterns from the voice patterns excluded from the ’431 Patent. (Paper
`
`19, 5-8). A POSITA would understand that Apple cannot claim that speech
`
`recognition requires two distinct steps because speech recognition is completed after
`
`step one of Apple’s purported two-step process. (Ex. 2027, ¶¶ 2-3).
`
`2. Mr. Occhiogrosso’s testimony does not support Apple’s
`two-step speech recognition theory
`In order to bolster their inaccurate two-step speech recognition theory, Apple
`
`claims that Mr. Occhiogrosso agrees with their theory. (Paper 19, 5-8). This is false
`
`and a mischaracterization of Mr. Occhiogrosso’s testimony. The testimony of Mr.
`
`Occhiogrosso identified by Apple highlights the difference between the speech
`
`recognition device of the ’431 Patent claims and the speech recognition unit (ASR
`
`254) of Ladd.
`
`13
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2020-00686
`Patent No. 7,076,431
`Almost all of the citations from Mr. Occhiogrosso’s deposition used by Apple
`
`concern testimony about the ’431 Patent, not Ladd. Mr. Occhiogrosso discusses the
`
`speech recognition device of the ’431 Patent as having two phases: conversion of
`
`speech to text, then applying the converted text to recognition grammars. (Ex. 1039,
`
`11:9-13, 15:4-20, 24:17-25:6, 29:14-23, 31:9-11, 32:24-33:1, 33:6-20, 38:5-39:2,
`
`40:2-22, 49:5-19, 50:17-52:22). None of this testimony applies to a speech
`
`recognition device in general or the speech recognition device of Ladd. It is all given
`
`as an explanation of what happens in the ’431 Patent.
`
`The citations to Mr. Occhiogrosso’s deposition related to a speech recognition
`
`device based on voice pattern matching provided by Apple demonstrate the
`
`difference between the ’431 Patent speech recognition device and the Ladd speech
`
`recognition device. Mr. Occhiogrosso states that the speech recognition device
`
`based on phonemes described by the ’431 Patent is fundamentally different than the
`
`speech recognition device based on voice patterns described by Ladd:
`
`Q. Do you have any opinion on whether there is
`a difference between recognizing a word via
`recognizing phonemes, a voice pattern, or artificial
`intelligence?
`A. Yes.
`
`Q. Are those three different methods of
`recognizing words?
`A. They're three different classes of
`algorithm.
`
`14
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2020-00686
`Patent No. 7,076,431
`(Ex. 1039, 54:24-55:7). Mr. Occhiogrosso goes on to distinguish a speech
`
`recognition device based on voice pattern matching by staying that “[t]he voice
`
`pattern is simply captured in its entirety and then matched to a reference voice
`
`pattern.” (Ex. 1039, 43:16-44:7). It is uncontested that the speech recognition
`
`device of Ladd is reliant on voice pattern matching. See generally, Paper 19. As
`
`can clearly be seen, Mr. Occhiogrosso does not opine that a speech recognition
`
`device based on voice pattern matching must first convert speech to text.
`
`Finally, Mr. Occhiogrosso’s comments about the speech recognition device
`
`and the recognition grammars being uncorrelated is consistent with his opinion.
`
`Putting aside the fact that Mr. Occhiogrosso was not talking about Ladd specifically,
`
`speech recognition happens first and use of grammars happens second. Speech
`
`recognition and use of grammars is uncorrelated because the two processes happen
`
`in series. First, the speech recognition translates speech into text in the case of the
`
`’431 Patent or identifies a recognized voice pattern in the case of Ladd, then the
`
`appropriate recognition grammar is determined.
`
`D.
`
`Ladd’s Disclosed “Voice Patterns” Are The Same “Voice
`Patterns” Excluded By The District Court’s Construction
`Apple’s argument that Ladd’s disclosed “Voice Patterns” are somehow
`
`different than those contemplated by Parus’s and the District Court’s construction,
`
`which Apple has adopted, does not make logical sense for several reasons.
`
`15
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2020-00686
`Patent No. 7,076,431
`First, Apple’s argument that because Ladd’s voice patterns are key words or
`
`key phrases makes them different than the excluded voice patterns of the ’431 Patent
`
`is not tenable. (Paper 19, 8). The ’431 Patent describes recognizing key words. (Ex.
`
`1001, 6:44-56). Ladd provides many examples of users using a single word to move
`
`onto the next step of the dialogue with Ladd’s IVR system. For example, at the
`
`initial state of the Ladd’s IVR, “[t]he user can respond with a choice of ‘weather’,
`
`‘market’, ‘news’ or ‘exit,’” in order to select the weather, market, or news
`
`application, or to just exit. (Ex. 1004 38:4-11). The system only recognizes the
`
`specifically allowed keywords. During his deposition, Dr. Terveen agreed that Ladd
`
`discloses applications that step through a prompt in which a user enters a selection
`
`at each step. (Ex. 2024, 54:23-56:18). The ’431 Patent recognizes these keywords
`
`based on phonemes, not voice patterns. Ladd recognizes the keywords based on
`
`voice patterns. The voice patterns of both references are the same.
`
`Second, Apple again argues that Ladd’s speech patterns cannot be the same
`
`as the excluded speech patterns from the ’431 Patent because Ladd detects the speech
`
`patterns using a grammar. (Paper 19, 10-11). Apple’s argument fails. Ladd
`
`discloses using grammars based on voice patterns. (Ex. 1004, 8:23-25, 9:32-39, and
`
`10:3-21). The ’431 Patent discloses using grammars based on phonemes, not voice
`
`patterns. (Ex. 1001, 4:30-58, 6:21-56).
`
`16
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2020-00686
`Patent No. 7,076,431
`Finally, Dr. Terveen’s arguments that Ladd’s voice patterns are different than
`
`the excluded voice patterns from the ’431 Patent are contradictory to Dr. Terveen’s
`
`and Apple’s arguments. For example, Dr. Terveen contends that Ladd’s speech
`
`patterns are key words or phrases determined using a grammar. (Ex. 1040, 18). But
`
`the examples cited by Dr. Terveen demonstrate that speech patterns would have to
`
`be analyzed at the speech recognition process step, not the natural language
`
`processing step that Dr. Terveen, and Apple, allude to when they discuss Ladd’s
`
`comparing speech commands to grammars.
`
`In one example, Dr. Terveen claims that Ladd was advanced enough to select
`
`a grammar based on the accent of the caller. (Ex. 1040, 17). But, a POSITA would
`
`understand that if Ladd is comparing a textual keyword to a grammar, as Dr. Terveen
`
`and Apple contend, then there would be no way to determine if the user has an
`
`accent. The only way to determine if the user had an accent would be at the speech
`
`recognition step when the voice pattern is analyzed, but Apple and Dr. Terveen
`
`contend that this does not occur in Ladd’s IVR system.
`
`Similarly, Dr. Terveen claims that Ladd can choose a speech recognition
`
`model based on the user’s speech patterns. (Ex. 1040, 16). Dr. Terveen indicates
`
`that based on the user’s speech patterns Ladd’s system could select the Spanish
`
`accent model, or the English accent model. Id. But if Ladd’s speech patterns are
`
`keywords as contended by Dr. Terveen and Apple, and the keyword is compared to
`
`17
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2020-00686
`Patent No. 7,076,431
`a grammar after it has been converted to text in step one of Apple’s two step
`
`recognition theory, there would be no way for the system to detect an accent. For
`
`example, if Dr. Terveen, who has an American accent, spoke the word “boat” to
`
`Ladd’s IVR system, when Ladd compared the word “boat” to a grammar, there
`
`would be no way of determining if Dr. Terveen has an American or English accent.
`
`Similarly, if a British person spoke “boat” to Ladd’s IVR system, when Ladd
`
`compared the text word “boat” to a grammar, there would be no way of determining
`
`if the British person has an English or American accent based on comparing the text
`
`word “boat” with a grammar. Because Ladd’s voice patterns cannot be analyzed at
`
`the second step of Apple’s purported two-step theory of speech recognition, and
`
`because the Ladd system discloses stilted speech consisting of singular commands,
`
`Ladd’s voice patterns are the very voice patterns excluded from the ’431 Patent.
`
`III. MR. OCCHIOGROSSO’S OPINIONS SHOULD BE GIVEN
`GREATER WEIGHT THAN DR. TERVEEN’S
`Mr. Occhiogrosso’s opinions have been consistent
`
`throughout
`
`this
`
`proceeding. In contrast, Dr. Terveen opinions have shifted markedly. Dr. Terveen
`
`had ample opportunity to argue his and Apple’s new two-step speech recognition
`
`theory in his initial
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
