Trials@uspto.gov
`571-272-7822
`
`Paper 37
`Date: September 9, 2021
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`APPLE INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`PARUS HOLDINGS, INC.,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`IPR2020-00686
`Patent 7,076,431 B2
`____________
`
`
`
`Before DAVID C. MCKONE, STACEY G. WHITE, and
`SHELDON M. MCGEE, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`MCKONE, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`
`
`JUDGMENT
`Final Written Decision
`Determining No Challenged Claims Unpatentable
`35 U.S.C. § 318(a)
`Denying Patent Owner’s Motion to Exclude
`37 C.F.R. § 42.64
`
`
`
`
`
`
`571-272-7822
`
`Paper 37
`Date: September 9, 2021
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`APPLE INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`PARUS HOLDINGS, INC.,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`IPR2020-00686
`Patent 7,076,431 B2
`____________
`
`
`
`Before DAVID C. MCKONE, STACEY G. WHITE, and
`SHELDON M. MCGEE, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`MCKONE, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`
`
`JUDGMENT
`Final Written Decision
`Determining No Challenged Claims Unpatentable
`35 U.S.C. § 318(a)
`Denying Patent Owner’s Motion to Exclude
`37 C.F.R. § 42.64
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00686
`Patent 7,076,431 B2
`
`INTRODUCTION
`I.
`Background and Summary
`A.
`Apple Inc. (“Petitioner”) filed a Petition requesting an inter partes
`review of claims 1–7, 9, 10, 13, 14, 18–21, and 25–30 of U.S. Patent
`No. 7,076,431 B2 (Ex. 1001, “the ’431 patent”). Paper 1 (“Pet.”). Parus
`Holdings, Inc. (“Patent Owner”) filed a Preliminary Response to the
`Petition. Paper 6 (“Prelim. Resp.”). Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 314, we
`instituted this proceeding. Paper 9 (“Dec.”).
`Patent Owner filed a Patent Owner’s Response (Paper 15, “PO
`Resp.”), Petitioner filed a Reply to the Patent Owner’s Response (Paper 19,
`“Reply”), and Patent Owner filed a Sur-reply to the Reply (Paper 21, “Sur-
`reply”). Patent Owner filed a Motion to Exclude certain evidence submitted
`by Petitioner (Paper 29, “Mot. Excl.”), to which Petitioner filed an
`Opposition (Paper 30, “Opp. Mot. Excl.”). Patent Owner filed a Reply to
`Petitioner’s Opposition to its Motion to Exclude (styled a “Sur-reply”).
`Paper 32 (“Reply Mot. Excl.”). An oral argument was held in this
`proceeding and IPR2020-00687 on June 22, 2021. Paper 36 (“Tr.”).
`We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6. This Decision is a final
`written decision under 35 U.S.C. § 318(a) as to the patentability of claims 1–
`7, 9, 10, 13, 14, 18–21, and 25–30. Based on the record before us, Petitioner
`has not proved, by a preponderance of the evidence, that claims 1–7, 9, 10,
`13, 14, 18–21, and 25–30 are unpatentable.
`We also deny Patent Owner’s Motion to Exclude.
`
`
`
`Related Matters
`B.
`The parties identify the following district court proceedings as related
`to the ’431 patent: Parus Holdings Inc. v. Apple, Inc., No. 6:19-cv-00432
`
`2
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00686
`Patent 7,076,431 B2
`(W.D. Tex.) (“the Texas case”); Parus Holdings Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc.,
`No. 6:19-cv-00454 (W.D. Tex.); Parus Holdings Inc. v. Samsung
`Electronics Co., Ltd., No. 6:19-cv-00438 (W.D. Tex.); Parus Holdings Inc.
`v. Google LLC, No. 6:19-cv-00433 (W.D. Tex.); and Parus Holdings Inc. v.
`LG Electronics, Inc., No. 6:19-cv-00437 (W.D. Tex.). Pet. 72; Paper 5, 1.
`The parties also identify U.S. Patent No. 6,721,705 and U.S. Patent
`No. 9,451,084 as related to the ’431 patent, and further identify that U.S.
`Patent No. 9,451,084 has been asserted in the district court proceedings
`listed above, and is the subject of IPR2020-00687. Pet. 72; Paper 5, 1.
`
`The ’431 Patent
`C.
`The ’431 patent describes a system that allows users to browse web
`sites and retrieve information using conversational voice commands.
`Ex. 1001, 1:20–23. Figure 1, reproduced below, illustrates an example:
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00686
`Patent 7,076,431 B2
`Figure 1 is a block diagram of a voice browsing system. Id. at 4:16–17.
`Figure 3, reproduced below, shows additional details of media server 106, a
`component shown in Figure 1:
`
`
`Figure 3 is a block diagram of Figure 1’s media server 106. Id. at 4:20–21.
`
`4
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00686
`Patent 7,076,431 B2
`Media server 106 includes speech recognition engine 300, speech
`synthesis engine 302, Interactive Voice Response (IVR) application 304, call
`processing system 306, and telephony and voice hardware 308 to
`communicate with Public Switched Telephone Network (PTSN) 116. Id. at
`5:62–6:1. When a user speaks into voice enable device 112 (e.g., a wireline
`or wireless telephone), speech recognition engine 300 converts voice
`commands into data messages. Id. at 6:4–8. Media server 106 uses results
`(e.g., keywords) generated by speech recognition engine 300 to retrieve web
`site record 200 stored in database 100 that can provide the information
`requested by the user. Id. at 6:44–50. Media server 106 selects the web site
`record of highest rank and transmits it to web browsing server 102 along
`with an identifier indicating what information is being requested. Id. at
`6:52–56. Speech synthesis engine converts the data retrieved by web
`browsing server 102 into audio messages that are transmitted to voice enable
`device 112. Id. at 6:57–60.
`According to the ’431 patent, with its system,
`[u]sers are not required to learn a special language or command
`set in order to communicate with the voice browsing system of
`the present invention. Common and ordinary commands and
`phrases are all that is required for a user to operate the voice
`browsing system. 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.
`Id. at 4:34–43.
`
`5
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00686
`Patent 7,076,431 B2
`Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the invention:1
`1. A system for retrieving information from pre-selected
`web sites by uttering speech commands into a voice enabled
`device and for providing to users retrieved information in an
`audio form via said voice enabled device, said system
`comprising:
`[a] a computer, said computer operatively connected to
`the internet;
`[b] a voice enabled device operatively connected to said
`computer, said voice enabled device configured to
`receive speech commands from users;
`[c] 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;
`[d] at least one speech synthesis device, said speech
`synthesis device operatively connected to said
`computer and to said voice enabled device;
`[e] at least one instruction set for identifying said
`information to be retrieved, said instruction set
`being associated with said computer, said
`instruction set comprising:
`a plurality of pre-selected web site addresses, each
`said web site address identifying a web site
`containing said information to be retrieved;
`[f] at least one recognition grammar associated with said
`computer, each said recognition grammar
`corresponding to each said instruction set and
`corresponding to a speech command;
`[g] said speech command comprising an information
`request selectable by the user;
`
`
`1 For consistency with the parties’ arguments, we add bracketed lettering to
`track the lettering supplied by Petitioner. See Pet. 74–79 (Claims Listing
`Appendix).
`
`6
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00686
`Patent 7,076,431 B2
`[h] said speaker-independent speech recognition device
`configured to receive from users via said voice
`enabled device said speech command and to select
`the corresponding recognition grammar upon
`receiving said speech command;
`[i] said computer configured to retrieve said instruction
`set corresponding to said recognition grammar
`selected by said speaker-independent speech
`recognition device;
`[j] said computer further configured to access at least one
`of said plurality of web sites identified by said
`instruction set to obtain said information to be
`retrieved,
`[k] said computer configured to first access said first web
`site of said plurality of web sites and, if said
`information to be retrieved is not found at said first
`web site, said computer configured to sequentially
`access said plurality of web sites until said
`information to be retrieved is found or until said
`plurality of web sites has been accessed;
`[l] said speech synthesis device configured to produce an
`audio message containing any retrieved
`information from said pre-selected web sites, and
`said speech synthesis device further configured to
`transmit said audio message to said users via said
`voice enabled device.
`
`
`Evidence
`D.
`Petitioner relies on the references listed below.
`Reference
`Date
`
`Exhibit
`No.
`July 31, 2001 1004
`
`Ladd
`
`US 6,269,336 B1
`
`7
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00686
`Patent 7,076,431 B2
`Reference
`
`Date
`
`Kurosawa2
`
`JP H9-311869 A
`
`Dec. 2, 1997
`
`Exhibit
`No.
`1005
`
`Goedken
`
`US 6,393,423 B1
`
`Madnick
`
`US 5,913,214
`
`Houser
`
`US 5,774,859
`
`Rutledge
`
`US 6,650,998 B1
`
`May 21, 2002 1006
`
`June 15, 1999 1007
`
`June 30, 1998 1008
`
`Nov. 18, 2003 1010
`
`
`Petitioner also relies on the Declaration of Loren Terveen, Ph.D.
`(Ex. 1003) and the Supplemental Declaration of Dr. Terveen (Ex. 1040).
`Patent Owner relies on the Declaration of Benedict Occhiogrosso
`(Ex. 2025).
`
`
`The Instituted Grounds of Unpatentability
`E.
`Claims Challenged
`35 U.S.C. §
`References
`1–6, 9, 10, 13, 14, 18,
`103(a)3
`Ladd, Kurosawa, Goedken
`20, 21, 25
`Ladd, Kurosawa, Goedken,
`7, 19, 26–30
`Madnick
`Ladd, Kurosawa, Goedken,
`Houser
`Ladd, Kurosawa, Goedken,
`Rutledge
`
`103(a)
`
`103(a)
`
`103(a)
`
`5, 6
`
`9, 25
`
`
`
`
`2 We rely on the certified translation of JP H09-311869 (Ex. 1005).
`3 The Leahy-Smith America Invents Act (“AIA”), Pub. L. No. 112-29, 125
`Stat. 284, 287–88 (2011), amended 35 U.S.C. § 103. Because the ’431
`patent was filed before March 16, 2013, the effective date of the relevant
`amendment, the pre-AIA version of § 103 applies.
`
`8
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00686
`Patent 7,076,431 B2
`
`II. ANALYSIS
`Claim Construction
`A.
`For petitions filed after November 13, 2018, we construe claims
`“using the same claim construction standard that would be used to construe
`the claim in a civil action under 35 U.S.C. 282(b), including construing the
`claim in accordance with the ordinary and customary meaning of such claim
`as understood by one of ordinary skill in the art and the prosecution history
`pertaining to the patent.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b) (2019); see also Phillips v.
`AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc).
`In the Petition, Petitioner contended that we should give the claim
`terms their plain and ordinary meaning, and did not identify any claim term
`for construction. Pet. 11.
`In the Institution Decision, we made clear that the plain and ordinary
`meaning of “instruction set,” as recited in each of the independent claims,
`does not require “[a] set of machine language instructions that a processor
`executes,” rejecting Patent Owner’s arguments to the contrary. Dec. 22–23;
`Prelim. Resp. 48.
`After the pre-institution briefing was completed, but before we issued
`the Institution Decision, the court in the Texas case issued a claim
`construction ruling, construing “speaker-independent speech recognition
`device” to mean “speech recognition device that recognizes spoken words
`without adapting to individual speakers or using predefined voice patterns.”
`Ex. 1041, 2. 4 The parties agree that this term at least requires a “speech
`
`
`4 The court in the Texas case issued other constructions pertaining to the
`challenged claims, but the parties do not advance them in this proceeding
`and we do not find it necessary to adopt them in order to resolve the parties’
`dispute.
`
`9
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00686
`Patent 7,076,431 B2
`recognition device that recognizes spoken words without . . . using
`predefined voice patterns,” but disagree as to whether it should require a
`device that recognizes spoken words “without adapting to individual
`speakers.” PO Resp. 21 (“The proper construction of ‘speaker-independent
`speech recognition device’ is consistent with the construction issued by the
`Western District of Texas, though it does not include all of that court’s
`construction, and requires at least ‘speech recognition device that recognizes
`spoken words without using predefined voice patterns.’”); Reply 2 (“For
`purposes of this IPR, Apple submits the Court’s construction should be
`applied.”).
`The dispute as to whether the term should preclude adapting to
`individual speakers does not impact any issue in this proceeding, and
`Petitioner has agreed to Patent Owner’s construction in this proceeding, so
`long as we do not resolve the dispute over adapting to individual speakers.
`Tr. 12:24–13:4 (“JUDGE McKONE: So you’d be happy if we essentially
`adopted Parus’s construction with a footnote or some kind of note that we’re
`not resolving the issue of adapting to individual speakers? MS. BAILEY:
`That would be fine for purposes of this IPR, Your Honor.”). We adopt the
`parties’ agreed approach. For purposes of this proceeding, “speaker-
`independent speech recognition device” means “speech recognition device
`that recognizes spoken words without using predefined voice patterns.” This
`is consistent with the ’431 patent’s statement (relied on by both parties) that
`“[t]he 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 PO Resp. 21–22 (citing Ex. 1001, 4:34–43);
`
`10
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00686
`Patent 7,076,431 B2
`Reply 2–3 (citing Ex. 1001, 4:38–43). We take no position on whether the
`construction also should include “without adapting to individual speakers.”
`Based on the record before us, we do not find it necessary to provide
`express claim constructions for any other terms. See Nidec Motor Corp. v.
`Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017)
`(noting that “we need only construe terms ‘that are in controversy, and only
`to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy’”) (quoting Vivid Techs.,
`Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999)).
`
`B. Obviousness of Claims 1–6, 9, 10, 13, 14, 18, 20, 21, and 25
`over Ladd, Kurosawa, and Goedken
`Petitioner contends that claims 1–6, 9, 10, 13, 14, 18, 20, 21, and 25
`would have been obvious over Ladd, Kurosawa, and Goedken. Pet. 17–61.
`For the reasons given below, Petitioner has not shown obviousness by a
`preponderance of the evidence.
`A claim is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103 (pre-AIA) if the
`differences between the claimed subject matter and the prior art are “such
`that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the
`invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said
`subject matter pertains.” We resolve the question of obviousness on the
`basis of underlying factual determinations, including (1) the scope and
`content of the prior art; (2) any differences between the claimed subject
`matter and the prior art; (3) the level of skill in the art; and (4) objective
`evidence of nonobviousness, i.e., secondary considerations. 5 See Graham v.
`John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 17–18 (1966).
`
`5 The record does not include allegations or evidence of objective indicia of
`nonobviousness or obviousness.
`
`11
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00686
`Patent 7,076,431 B2
`Level of Skill in the Art
`1.
`Petitioner, relying on the testimony of Dr. Terveen, contends that a
`person of ordinary skill in the art “would have had a Bachelor’s degree in
`Electrical Engineering, Computer Engineering, Computer Science, or
`equivalent degree, with at least two years of experience in interactive voice
`response systems, automated information retrieval systems, or related
`technologies, such as web-based information retrieval systems.” Pet. 6
`(citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 28). Patent Owner does not contest Petitioner’s proposal
`or offer an alternative. Also, neither party argues that the outcome of this
`case would differ based on our adoption of any particular definition of one
`of ordinary skill in the art. Petitioner’s proposal is consistent with the
`technology described in the Specification and the cited prior art. On the
`complete record, we adopt Petitioner’s proposed level of skill.
`
`
`2.
`
`Scope and Content of the Prior Art
`a) Overview of Ladd
`Ladd describes a voice browser for allowing a user to access
`information from an information source. Ex. 1004, 1:20–25. Figure 3,
`reproduced below, illustrates an example:
`
`12
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00686
`Patent 7,076,431 B2
`
`
`
`Figure 3 is a block diagram of a system that enables a user to access
`information. Id. at 4:62–64.
`A user accesses electronic network 206 by dialing a telephone number
`from communication device 202 (e.g., a landline or wireline device, or a
`wireless device). Id. at 5:20–23, 5:29–35. Communication node 212
`answers the incoming call from carrier network 216 and plays an
`announcement to the user. Id. at 6:13–17. In response to audio inputs from
`the user, communication node 212 retrieves information from content
`providers 208 and 209. Id. at 6:17–21. For example, voice recognition
`(VRU) client 232 generates pre-recorded voice announcements and
`messages to prompt the user to provide inputs using speech commands.
`Id. at 7:48–51. VRU client 232 receives and processes speech
`communications and routes them to VRU server 234, which processes the
`communications and compares them to a vocabulary or grammar stored in
`database server unit 244. Id. at 8:3–9, 8:55–61.
`
`13
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00686
`Patent 7,076,431 B2
`According to Ladd,
`The ASR [automatic speech recognition] unit 254 of the VRU
`server 234 provides speaker independent automatic speech
`recognition of speech inputs or communications from the
`user. . . . The ASR unit 254 processes the speech inputs from
`the user to determine whether a word or a speech pattern
`matches any of the grammars or vocabulary stored in the
`database server unit 244 or downloaded from the voice browser.
`When 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. The ASR unit 254 is preferably a speaker
`independent speech recognition software package, Model No.
`RecServer, available from Nuance Communications. It is
`contemplated that the ASR unit 254 can be any suitable speech
`recognition unit to detect voice communications from a user.
`Id. at 9:27–44.
`After receiving information from content providers 208, 209,
`communication node 212 provides a response to the user based on the
`retrieved information. Id. at 6:21–24. Specifically, text-to-speech (TTS)
`unit 252 of VRU server 234 receives textual data (e.g., web pages) from
`application server unit 242, processes the textual data to voice data, and
`provides the voice data to VRU client 232, which reads or plays the voice
`data to the user. Id. at 9:1–23.
`
`
`b) Overview of Kurosawa
`Kurosawa describes an Internet search server that obtains requested
`information from a plurality of URLs, and delivers a search report to a
`client. Ex. 1005, Abst. Figure 2 of Kurosawa, reproduced below, illustrates
`an example:
`
`14
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00686
`Patent 7,076,431 B2
`
`
`Figure 2 is a functional block diagram of an Internet search server. Id. ¶ 20.
`Internet search server 10 includes URL database 11, which has a
`comparison table (URL table 22, shown in Figure 6) that compares a
`plurality of keywords representing search condition elements to URLs that
`relate to the keywords. Id. ¶¶ 20–21. Figure 5 is reproduced below:
`
`15
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00686
`Patent 7,076,431 B2
`
`
`Figure 5 is a picture of keyword table 21 in URL database 11. Id. ¶ 21.
`According to Kurosawa, “anything that is not listed in the keyword table 21
`cannot be searched for.” Id. Figure 6 is reproduced below:
`
`16
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00686
`Patent 7,076,431 B2
`
`
`Figure 6 is a picture of URL table 22 in URL database 11. Id. ¶ 21. Search
`server 10 regularly updates URL table 22 in URL database 11 using
`automatic search tools, such as Internet web crawlers. Id. ¶ 23.
`When a client sends a search request to Internet search server 10,
`search condition element extraction unit 13 extracts search condition
`elements from the client’s search request, and URL search unit 14 extracts
`keywords (included in the search condition elements) that match those of
`keyword table 21 and selects URLs (from URL table 22) having the
`extracted keywords listed therein. Id. ¶¶ 26–28. URL listing order
`arranging unit 15 determines a listing order for the selected URLs based on
`priority conditions for efficient searching. Id. ¶ 29. Thereafter, URL listing
`unit 16 sequentially lists the addresses of the respective URLs in the
`
`17
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00686
`Patent 7,076,431 B2
`determined order, and accesses the respective webpages of the URLs.
`Id. ¶ 30. URL information gathering unit 17 sequentially accumulates
`information from the URL pages for presentation to the client. Id. ¶¶ 30–31.
`
`
`c) Overview of Goedken
`Goedken describes a method and apparatus for facilitating information
`exchange, via a network, between an information requestor/searcher and one
`or more information custodians, who are persons that “know[] where to
`locate and/or ha[ve] custody of the information that interests the searcher.”
`Ex. 1006, Abst, 1:42–44. The searcher creates an information request
`message and sends it to the apparatus, and the apparatus determines an
`appropriate custodian and sends a request message to that custodian. Id.
`The identified custodian replies to the request message with an intermediate
`answer message or with a reroute message. Id. Based on the messages, the
`apparatus provides a final answer message to the searcher, and may also
`record the answer message for subsequent retrieval. Id. For example, the
`apparatus may record portions of final answer messages developed by
`information custodians and store those records in a knowledge database.
`Id. at 19:43–48. “Preferably, the knowledge database 136 is populated by
`earlier questions and answers routed through the apparatus 10, as well as any
`number of preprogrammed questions and answers (e.g., an existing help line
`database).” Id. at 25:15–19.
`Petitioner relies on the embodiment of Goedken relating to searching
`the knowledge database for previously stored answers. Pet. 41–44 (citing
`Ex. 1006, 25:9–26:23, Fig. 18). Figure 18 of Goedken, reproduced below,
`illustrates this embodiment:
`
`18
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00686
`Patent 7,076,431 B2
`
`Figure 18 is a flowchart of a program implementing the apparatus of
`Goedken’s Figure 1 (an apparatus for facilitating information exchange
`
`
`
`19
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00686
`Patent 7,076,431 B2
`between an information requester and an information custodian via a
`network). Ex. 1006, 7:39–42, 8:13–15.
`“Once the category of a received information request message 18 has
`been determined, the database manager 140 is activated to search the
`knowledge database 136 for a responsive answer.” Id. at 25:19–22. The
`database manager retrieves the category associated with a first file from the
`knowledge database (block 332). Id. at 15:24–26. The database manager
`compares the retrieved category to the requested category (block 334) and, if
`there is no match, the database manager determines whether there are more
`files to consider (block 336). Id. at 25:26–32. If there are more files to
`consider (block 338), the category of the next file is retrieved and compared
`to the category of the file (blocks 334, 336). Id. at 25:32–35. “The database
`manager 140 continues to loop through blocks 332–338 until all of the
`categories of all of the files in the knowledge database 136 are compared to
`the category associated with the information request message 18 or until a
`match is found at block 334.” Id. at 25:35–40.
`After a file corresponding to the category has been found, Goedken’s
`algorithm similarly loops through a set of “synonyms” for the user’s
`question to identify whether there is a match for those synonyms in the
`identified file (blocks 340, 342, 344, 348, 348). Id. at 25:4–26:7. “If a
`question synonym is found at block 344, the database manager 140 passes
`the answer associated with that file to the message composer 122, and the
`message composer 122 preferably attaches the ‘canned’ answer from the
`knowledge database 136 to the information request message 18 (block
`350).” Id. at 26:8–13.
`
`
`20
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00686
`Patent 7,076,431 B2
`Claims 1–6, 9, 10, 13, 14, 18, 20, 21, and 25, Differences
`3.
`Between the Claimed Subject Matter and Ladd, Kurosawa, and
`Goedken
`The Parties’ Contentions for Claim 1
`a)
`Petitioner contends that Ladd teaches claim limitations 1[a]–1[d],
`1[f]–1[j], and 1[l]; that Kurosawa teaches limitation 1[e] and aspects of
`limitation 1[i]; and that Goedken teaches limitation 1[k].
`Regarding the preamble of claim 1, Petitioner contends that Ladd
`describes a system for retrieving information by uttering speech commands
`into a voice-enabled device and for providing retrieved information in audio
`form to users via the voice-enabled device. Pet. 17–18 (citing Ex. 1004,
`1:22–25, 2:19–64, 3:8–23, 3:40–53, 3:58–4:3, 4:62–64, 5:30–36, 9:1–10,
`9:19–21, 11:50–63, Figs. 1, 3). As to claim elements 1[a] and 1[b],
`Petitioner maps Ladd’s communication node 212 to the “computer
`operatively connected to the internet” and Ladd’s communication devices
`201, 202, 203, 204 to “a voice enabled device operatively connected to said
`computer.” Id. at 18–22 (citing Ex. 1004, 1:48–54, 1:61–64, 2:59–64, 4:62–
`5:11, 5:12–39, 6:50–55, 7:7–17, 7:24–32, 7:52–56, 10:34–36).
`Petitioner contends that Ladd’s ASR 254 within VRU server 234 is
`“at least one speaker-independent speech recognition device,” as recited in
`claim element 1[c]. Id. at 22–23 (citing Ex. 1004, 6:65–7:7, 7:28–33, 8:19–
`28, 8:55–67, 9:1–3, 9:28–44). As to claim element 1[d], Petitioner contends
`that Ladd’s TTS unit 252 within VRU server 234 is “at least one speech
`synthesis device.” Id. at 23–25 (citing Ex. 1004, 3:40–57, 4:51–5:20, 5:24–
`29, 5:34–35, 7:28–33, 8:55–56, 9:1–23).
`Regarding claim element 1[f], Petitioner, inter alia, points to Ladd’s
`description of VRU server 234 “process[ing] the speech communications
`
`21
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00686
`Patent 7,076,431 B2
`and compar[ing] the speech communications against a vocabulary or
`grammar.” Id. at 32–34 (quoting Ex. 1004, 8:55–61; citing id. at 4:36–49,
`9:28–44, 10:12–17, 14:13–28, 19:12–36). As to claim element 1[g],
`Petitioner argues that Ladd describes a user speaking a request to access
`information such as news, weather, and traffic. Id. at 34–35 (citing
`Ex. 1004, 2:48–58, 4:62–5:11, 7:49–56, 10:58–66). As to claim element
`1[h], Petitioner argues that Ladd describes VRU server 234 (including ASR
`unit 254) receiving speech commands from a communication device and
`determining whether a word or speech pattern matches any of the grammars
`or vocabulary stored in database server unit 244. Id. at 35–36 (citing
`Ex. 1004, 4:62–5:35, 6:65–7:7, 7:27-32, 8:3–28, 8:55–58, 9:1–3, 9:28–39).
`As to claim element 1[l], Petitioner argues that the text TTS unit 252
`converts to speech can be information retrieved from web sites. Id. at 47–48
`(citing Ex. 1004, 4:51–5:36, 6:13–25, 7:27–33, 8:55–56, 9:1–26).
`As to claim element 1[e], Petitioner contends that Kurosawa teaches
`this limitation. Pet. 25–32. In particular, Petitioner contends that URL table
`22, shown in Kurosawa’s Figure 6 (reproduced above), illustrates a plurality
`of web site addresses, each matching keywords in a user’s search condition
`and identifying a web site containing information to be retrieved related to
`the keywords. Id. at 25–29 (citing Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 9, 11, 12, 21, 24, 27, 28, 37).
`Petitioner contends that the URLs are “pre-selected” because they are
`known, cross-referenced to keywords, and stored in URL database 11 before
`the search. Id. at 28 (citing Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 20–21). Petitioner contends that the
`“instruction set” is Kurosawa’s plurality of URLs picked out based on
`keyword matching, and argues that this instruction set is associated with
`search server 10 shown in Kurosawa’s Figure 1. Id. at 29 (citing Ex. 1005
`
`22
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00686
`Patent 7,076,431 B2
`¶ 21). Petitioner contends that Ladd’s system would have been modified to
`include the plurality of URLs in Kurosawa’s database. Id. at 29–30.
`Regarding claim element 1[i], Petitioner contends that Ladd describes
`communication node 212 (including ASR unit 254) as monitoring speech
`commands to detect keywords (such as “weather”) corresponding to
`information the user desires. Pet. 36–37 (citing Ex. 1004, 4:36–49, 5:37–39,
`6:14–29, 7:52–56, 8:55–67, 9:35–39, 11:50–63). Petitioner pairs this
`teaching with Kurosawa, which Petitioner contends teaches accessing a
`plurality of pre-selected URLs from a database table to sequentially access
`websites to retrieve information desired by users. Id. (citing Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 9,
`10, 15, 20, 21). As to claim element 1[j], Petitioner argues that Ladd teaches
`accessing websites based on speech commands and that Kurosawa teaches
`sequentially accessing URLs to gather information. Id. at 37–39 (citing
`Ex. 1004, 3:7–39, 4:37–49, 6:18–25, 6:65–7:7, 7:44–56, 11:31–36, 14:1–9;
`Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 9, 15, 40).
`As to claim element 1[k], Petitioner contends that Kurosawa teaches
`sequentially accessing the URL addresses listed in URL table 22 in a priority
`order determined by URL listing order arranging unit 15. Pet. 39–40 (citing
`Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 15, 29, 35, 40). According to Petitioner,
`Goedken discloses a procedure that accesses a first file of a
`plurality of files for an answer to a question. If the information
`to be retrieved is not found at the first file (it fails to match the
`category or synonym), the procedure sequentially accesses the
`next file of the plurality of files until the information to be
`retrieved is found (matching both the category and synonym) or
`until all files have been accessed via repeated application.
`Id. at 43–44 (citing Ex. 1006, 25:59–26:7; Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 119–120). Petitioner
`contends that, in combination, “[t]he Ladd system as further modified by
`Goedken sequentially accesses the plurality of preselected websites
`
`23
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00686
`Patent 7,076,431 B2
`efficiently and quickly via the Goedken procedure, which returns an answer
`once found or continues accessing information sources (websites, when
`applied to the system of Ladd modified by Kurosawa), until all websites are
`accessed.” Id. at 46–47.
`
`Patent Owner argues that Goedken does not teach sequentially
`accessing pre-selected web sites (PO Resp. 38–39); that Kurosawa does not
`teach sequentially accessing pre-selected web sites until requested
`information is found or all pre-selected web sites have been accessed (id. at
`40–41); that Petitioner’s obviousness combinations are based on
`impermissible hindsight (id. at 41–43); that Petitioner has not shown a
`motivation to combine Ladd and Kurosawa (id. at 43–45); that Petitioner has
`not shown a motivation to combine Goedken with Ladd and Kurosawa
`(id. at 46–48); and that the prior art teaches away from the proposed
`combination (id. at 48–56). Patent Owner contends that Ladd does not teach
`the “speaker-independent speech recognition device” of claim limitation
`1[c]. Id. at 34–38; Sur-reply 2–18. For the reasons given below, Petitioner
`has not made the requisite showing as to claim limitation 1[c]; thus, it is
`unnecessary to resolve the remaining disputes raised by Patent Owner.
`
`
`Petitioner has not shown that Ladd teaches the
`b)
`“speaker-independent speech recognition device” of
`claim limitation 1[c]
`Claim limitation 1[c] recites “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.”
`(emphasis added). The parties dispute whether Ladd teaches this limitation.
`
`24
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00686
`Patent 7,076,431 B2
`In the Petition, Petitioner contended that Ladd’s ASR 254 is a
`“speaker-independent speech recognition device.” Pet. 22. Petitioner (id. at
`22–23) referred to Ladd’s statement that “[t]he ASR unit 254 of the VRU
`server 234 provides speaker independent automatic speech recognition of
`speech inputs or communications from the user.” Ex. 1004, 9:27–29.
`Petitioner also expressly quoted Ladd’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
