APPLE INC.,
`Petitioner,
`v.
`PARUS HOLDINGS, INC.,
`Patent Owner
`
`IPR2020-00686; Patent 7,076,431 B2
`IPR2020-00687; Patent 9,451,084 B2
`Paper 25 – Order Setting Oral Argument
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Parus IPR-
`
`1
`
`
`Petitioner,
`v.
`PARUS HOLDINGS, INC.,
`Patent Owner
`
`IPR2020-00686; Patent 7,076,431 B2
`IPR2020-00687; Patent 9,451,084 B2
`Paper 25 – Order Setting Oral Argument
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Parus IPR-
`
`1
`
`
`
`Grounds
`
`IPR2020-00686
`Ground Reference
`Ladd, Kurosawa, and Goedken
`I
`Ladd, Kurosawa, Goedken, and Madnick
`II
`Ladd, Kurosawa, Goedken, and Houser
`III
`Ladd, Kurosawa, Goedken, and Rutledge
`IV
`
`Basis Challenged Claims
`§103 1-6, 9-10, 13-14, 18, 20-21, and 25
`§103 7, 19, and 26-30
`§103 5 and 6
`§103 9 and 25
`
`IPR2020-00687
`Ground Reference
`Ladd, Kurosawa, and Goedken
`I
`Ladd, Kurosawa, Goedken, and Madnick
`II
`Ladd, Kurosawa, Goedken, and Houser
`III
`Ladd, Kurosawa, Goedken, and Rutledge
`IV
`Ladd, Kurosawa, Goedken, Rutledge, and Madnick
`V
`Ladd, Kurosawa, Goedken, Rutledge, and Houser
`VI
`
`Basis Challenged Claims
`§103
`1-6, 10, and 14
`§103
`7
`§103
`5 and 6
`§103
`1-6, 10, and 14
`§103
`7
`§103
`5 and 6
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Parus IPR-
`
`2
`
`
`
`“Speaker Independent Speech Recognition Device”
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Parus IPR-
`
`3
`
`
`
`Speaker Independent – All Grounds Fail
`
` All Grounds Fail Because The Petition Does Not Identify Any Reference That
`Teaches The “at least one speaker-independent speech recognition device,
`said speaker-independent speech recognition device operatively connected to
`said computer and to said voice enabled device” Limitation Found In Every
`Challenged Claim
`
`of Ladd, Kurosawa, and Goedken or by any other combination
`
`‒ The Petition does not establish that Claim 1(c) is taught by the combination
`‒ As mapped by the Petition, Claim 1(c) reads as follows:
`‒ At least one speaker-independent speech recognition device, said speaker-
`
`independent speech recognition device operatively connected to said
`computer and to said voice enabled device
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Parus IPR-
`
`4
`
`
`
`Every Ground Of The Petition Relies On Ladd To Teach The Speaker-Independent
`Speech Recognition Device (Petition, 22-25)
`
` Ladd’s disclosure of speaker-independent speech recognition is different and
`significantly inferior to the speaker-independent speech recognition device
`disclosed by the ’431 and ’084 Patents, therefore this claim limitation is not
`disclosed or taught by Ladd.
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Parus IPR-
`
`5
`
`
`
`Claim Construction – “speaker-independent speech recognition device”
`
` “speaker-independent speech recognition device” should be construed as a “speech recognition
`device that recognizes spoken words without using predefined voice patterns”
` The ’431 and ’084 patents disclaimed the use of voice patterns to recognize a spoken command.
`
`Ex. 1001 (Kurganov)
`’431 Patent at 4:34-43
` The Western District of Texas in a parallel district court litigation Parus v. Apple, 6:19-00432-ADA,
`agreed with this understanding of the ’431 and ’084 Patents when it construed “speaker-independent
`speech recognition device” to mean “speech recognition device that recognizes spoken words
`without adapting to individual speakers or using predefined voice patterns.”
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Parus IPR-
`
`6
`
`
`
`Ladd Does Not Disclose Speaker-Independent In The Context Of The Application
`Described in the ’431 and ’084 Patents
`
` Ladd is an application where specific pre-defined voice patterns are
`recognized as disclaimed by the ’431 and ’084 Patents.
` Ladd does not recognize phonemes, and is not speaker-independent as
`specifically defined by the ’431 and ’084 Patents.
`
`Ex. 1004 (Ladd)
`’336 Patent at 9:36-39
`
` Ladd makes clear that its ASR recognizes a predefined speech pattern.
` Ladd does not describe identifying discrete segments in speech or voice
`patterns but identifies a selected speech pattern of the speech.
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Parus IPR-
`
`7
`
`
`
`Ladd Does Not Disclose Speaker-Independent In The Context Of The Application
`Described in the ’431 and ’084 Patents
`
` Ladd makes clear that the audio input is compared to the vocabulary.
`
`Ex. 1004 (Ladd)
`’336 Patent at 10:3-20
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Parus IPR-
`
`8
`
`
`
`Ladd Does Not Disclose Speaker-Independent In The Context Of The Application
`Described in the ’431 and ’084 Patents
`
` If the ASR unit 254 could translate speech to text, as asserted by Apple,
`there is no need for a STT unit 256.
`
`Ex. 1004 (Ladd) ’336 Patent at 9:28-30
`
`Ex. 1004 (Ladd) ’336 Patent at 9:45-47
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Parus IPR-
`
`9
`
`Ex. 1004 (Ladd) ’336 Patent at Fig. 3
`
`
`
`“Sequential Access”
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Parus IPR-
`
`10
`
`
`
`None Of The Cited References Disclose Sequential Access
`
` In every Ground, the Petition relies on Goedken to provide this limitation, which is exemplary in
`the ’431 and mapped by Apple as follows:
`
` Goedken does not disclose sequentially accessing pre-selected web sites; rather, the Goedken
`disclosure relied on an identified by Petitioner discloses the accessing of internal database files,
`not web sites.
`
` The Petition expressly admits this failure conceding that Goedken is “searching files rather than
`websites.” (Petition, 46).
`
`Ex. 1001 (Kurganov)
`’431 Patent at 20:24-34
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Parus IPR-
`
`11
`
`
`
`Sequential Access Of Websites Is Very Different
`Than Sequential Access Of A Database
`
` A database is controlled by a system administrator. The administrator can
`update the data in the database whenever they please.
` In contrast, when one accesses a website one discovers information that is
`there at that moment.
` Information on websites can be dynamic and change often, and is out of the
`control of the user.
` Sequentially accessing websites where one cannot control the data that may
`be there at that moment is very different than accessing files in a database
`that are in a controlled environment under the control of the system
`administrator.
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Parus IPR-
`
`12
`
`
`
`“No Motivation to Combine”
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Parus IPR-
`
`13
`
`
`
`There Is No Motivation To Combine Ladd With Kurosawa
`Or Ladd With Kurosawa And Goedken
`
` The Petition relies on impermissible hindsight in order to combine the references and the
`Federal Circuit has been clear that this is not proper:
` One cannot “stitch together an obviousness finding from discrete portions of prior art
`references without considering the references as a whole.”
`In re Enhanced Security Research, LLC, 739 F.3d 1347, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2014).
`
` The “[d]etermination of obviousness cannot be based on the hindsight combination of
`components selectively culled from the prior art to fit the parameters of the patented
`invention.” ATD Corp. v. Lydall, Inc., 159 F.3d 534, 546 (Fed. Cir. 1998).
` “One cannot use hindsight reconstruction to pick and choose among isolated disclosures in the
`prior art to deprecate the claimed invention.” In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 1075 (Fed. Cir. 1988).
` “It is impermissible, however, simply to engage in a hindsight reconstruction of the claimed
`invention, using the applicant’s structure as a template and selecting elements from the
`references to fill the gaps.” In re Gorman, 983 F.2d 982, 987 (Fed. Cir. 1991).
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Parus IPR-
`
`14
`
`
`
`There Is No Motivation To Combine Ladd With Kurosawa
`
` Ladd is an IVR system that has to mitigate latencies to provide near real-time communications.
` Kurosawa teaches a system that accesses data from a plurality of URLs, creates a search report with all
`of the data from a plurality of URLs, and returns the search report with all of the data from the plurality
`of URLs to the user.
`
`Ex. 1005 (Kurosawa Certified
`Translation) at Abstract
` Accessing a plurality of URLs instead of the single URL that Ladd accesses would create undue latencies
`in Ladd’s system and make it slower.
` A POSITA would not combine Kurosawa with Ladd to make Ladd slower.
` This is impermissible hindsight.
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Parus IPR-
`
`15
`
`
`
`There Is No Motivation To Combine Ladd With Kurosawa And Goedken
`
` The Petition relies on Bennett as its motivation to combine Goedken with Ladd and
`Kurosawa indicating that real-time responses to spoken questions should be within
`3-5 seconds to provide the appearance of a real-time discourse. (Petition, 45).
` Combining Ladd with Kurosawa, where multiple URLs are accessed before
`returning a search report to the user, runs counter to the motivation in
`Bennett, because accessing multiple URLs before returning the search report
`would take much longer than 3-5 seconds and would not provide the
`appearance of real-time disclosure.
` The Petition suggests that it would be obvious to slow down Ladd with Kurosawa,
`and then speed it back up with Goedken.
` This is impermissible hindsight reconstruction.
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Parus IPR-
`
`16
`
`
`
`Goedken Teaches Away From Kurosawa
`
` The explicit teachings of Goedken teach away from Kurosawa because Goedken teaches away from
`using web search engines, and Kurosawa is a specialized web search engine.
` “while Internet searching is a powerful resource, it is often inferior to having the capability of posing
`a direct question to a human expert who can provide a direct answer.”
`
`Ex. 1006 (‘Goedken)
`’423 Patent at 1:51-54
` “[s]earch engines results can be over-inclusive, overwhelming, and may not contain the
`appropriate information.”
`
`Ex. 1006 (‘Goedken)
`’423 Patent at 5:22-25
` Apple uses the basic structure of Ladd, an IVR system, as a template and selects elements from
`Kurosawa and Goedken to fill in the gaps.
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Parus IPR-
`
`17
`
`
`
`End
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Parus IPR-
`
`18
`
`
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
