UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`GOOGLE LLC, SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD., SAMSUNG
`ELECTRONICS AMERICA, INC., LG ELECTRONICS INC., and LG
`ELECTRONICS U.S.A., INC.,
`Petitioners,
`
`v.
`
`PARUS HOLDINGS, INC.,
`Patent Owner.
`
`Case No. IPR2020-00846
`U.S. Patent No. 7,076,431
`
`PATENT OWNER’S RESPONSE
`PURSUANT TO 37 C.F.R. § 42.120(a)
`
`

`

`Case No. IPR2020-00846
`Patent No. 7,076,431
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`Introduction ...................................................................................................... 1
`The ’431 Patent ................................................................................................ 3
`A.
`Prior Art Interactive Voice Systems Suffered From Numerous
`Drawbacks ............................................................................................. 3
`1.
`Typical Prior Art Systems For Accessing Web Sites
`Were Not Sufficiently Portable, Comprehensive, And
`Affordable ................................................................................... 3
`Voice Enabled Options Introduced Additional Problems
`and Drawbacks ............................................................................ 4
`Prior Art “Interactive Voice Response” Systems Suffered
`From A Lack Of Fault Tolerance, Limited Webpage
`Resources, And Generic Search Options And Results ............... 5
`Prior Art Speaker-Dependent and Speaker-Independent
`Systems Suffered from Various Drawbacks ............................... 7
`The ’431 Patent’s Solution .................................................................... 9
`1.
`Overview Of The ʼ431 Patent’s Voice Browser System .......... 11
`2.
`Speaker-Independent Speech Recognition Device ................... 14
`3.
`Sequentially Accessing a Plurality of Pre-selected Web
`Sites ........................................................................................... 15
`The Challenged ’431 Patent Claims .................................................... 17
`C.
`Claim Construction.............................................................................. 18
`D.
`Petitioners’ Petition & Grounds .................................................................... 18
`A.
`Kovatch ................................................................................................ 18
`Neal ...................................................................................................... 23
`B.
`
`4.
`
`B.
`
`I.
`II.
`
`III.
`
`i
`
`

`

`B.
`
`Case No. IPR2020-00846
`Patent No. 7,076,431
`Problems with keyword and classification searching in
`prior art database search engines .............................................. 24
`Neal’s invention ........................................................................ 26
`2.
`DeSimone ............................................................................................. 29
`C.
`Kurganov-262 ...................................................................................... 30
`D.
`IV. Argument ....................................................................................................... 30
`A.
`Grounds 1-4: Conception, Diligence, and a Reduction to
`Practice Removes Kovatch as a Prior Art Reference. ......................... 30
`1.
`The Webley Assistant source code enhancements pre-
`dates Kovatch’s U.S. priority filing date................................... 31
`Grounds 1-4 Further Fail Because The Petition Does Not
`Identify the “sequential[] access” of pre-selected web sites
`Limitation In Every Challenged Claim ............................................... 34
`1.
`Kovatch does not teach sequentially accessing pre-
`selected web sites until the requested information is
`found or all pre-selected web sites have been accessed. .......... 35
`Neal does not teach sequentially accessing pre-selected
`web sites until the requested information is found or all
`pre-selected web sites have been accessed. .............................. 36
`Grounds 1-4 Fail Because the Petition Does Not Provide
`Sufficient Motivation To Combine Kovatch, Neal, and
`DeSimone ............................................................................................. 40
`1.
`A POSITA would not combine Kovatch with Neal. ................. 41
`a.
`A POSITA would not be motivated to optimize or
`speed up HeyAnita .......................................................... 41
`A POSITA would not be motivated to make
`HeyAnita more fault tolerant .......................................... 42
`A POSITA would not further combine DeSimone with
`Kovatch and Neal ...................................................................... 45
`
`C.
`
`b.
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`2.
`
`ii
`
`

`

`D.
`
`Case No. IPR2020-00846
`Patent No. 7,076,431
`Grounds 5-6 Fail Because Kurganov-262 Is Not Prior Art And
`There Is Written Description For All Challenged Claims .................. 46
`1.
`There is written description support for claim 9 ....................... 46
`2.
`There is written description support for claim 14 ..................... 50
`Conclusion ..................................................................................................... 51
`
`V.
`
`iii
`
`

`

`Case No. IPR2020-00846
`Patent No. 7,076,431
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
` Page(s)
`
`Cases
`Mahurkar v. C.R. Bard, Inc.,
`79 F.3d 1572 (Fed. Cir. 1996) ................................................................ 30, 31, 32
`Monsanto Co. v. Mycogen Plant Science, Inc.,
`261 F.3d 1356 (Fed. Cir. 2001) .......................................................................... 32
`Naber v. Cricchi,
`567 F.2d 382 (C.C.P.A. 1977) ...................................................................... 33, 34
`Singh v. Brake,
`317 F.3d 1334 (Fed. Cir. 2003) .......................................................................... 31
`Townsend v. Smith,
`36 F.2d 292 (C.C.P.A. 1929) .............................................................................. 31
`Statutes
`35 U.S.C. §282(b) .................................................................................................... 18
`Other Authorities
`37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b) .............................................................................................. 18
`
`iv
`
`

`

`Case No. IPR2020-00846
`Patent No. 7,076,431
`
`TABLE OF EXHIBITS
`
`Description
`Order Denying Motion to Stay Pending Inter Partes Review, C.A.
`No. 6-18-cv-00201
`Exhibit A9 Kovatch Claim Chart 7076431
`Exhibit C Obviousness Claim Chart 7076431 (Corrected)
`Reserved
`Reserved
`Standing Order Re Scheduled Hearings in Civil Cases, 19-cv-00432
`Claim Construction Order, 1-20-cv-00351
`Claim Construction Order, 6-19-cv-00532
`Claim Construction Order, 6-18-cv-00308
`U.S. Patent No. 6,157,705 (Perrone)
`Defendants’ Corrected Invalidity Contentions, 6-19-cv-00432
`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
`Markman Hearing Transcript, 6-19-cv-00432-ADA
`Claim Construction Order, 6-19-cv-00432-ADA
`Order Consolidating Cases, 6-19-cv-00432-ADA
`10/13/2020 Email from the Court
`Excerpt of Case Docket Sheet, 6:18-cv-00308-ADA
`Kurganov Declaration
`10/13/1998 Email from Alex Nash to Alex Kurganov et al
`4/22/1999 Email from Alex Kurganov to Susan Kelley et al
`www.pl PERL source code file
`RCRWireless Article on Webley
`mc_vm.c C source code file
`menuNew.grammar grammar file
`U.S. Patent No. 7,076,431 Reduction to Practice Chart
`U.S. Patent No. 9,451,084 Reduction to Practice Chart
`Wayback Machine page of Webley Homepage
`Wayback Machine page of Webley How to Use
`Wayback Machine page of Frequently Asked Questions
`webget.pl PERL source code file
`weather.ini file
`
`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
`2028
`2029
`2030
`2031
`2032
`2033
`
`v
`
`

`

`Case No. IPR2020-00846
`Patent No. 7,076,431
`
`2034
`2035
`2036
`2037
`2038
`2039
`2040
`2041
`2042
`2043
`2044
`2045
`2046
`2047
`2048
`2049
`2050
`2051
`2052
`2053
`2054
`
`2055
`2056
`2057
`2058
`
`2059
`2060
`
`Wayback Machine page of Webley Index
`Nuance 6 Product Brochure
`mc_vr.c C source code file
`Wayback Machine page of Lernout & Hauspie’s Homepage
`Lernout & Hauspie Press Release
`Wayback Machine page of Nuance customers
`menuProto.grammar grammar file
`mcall.h C source code file
`url.pl PERL source code file
`html2csv.pl PERL source code file
`8/24/1999 email from Alex Kurganov to Valery Zhukov et al
`10/28/1999 email from Valery Zhukov to Alex Kurganov
`10/29/1999 email from Valery Zhukov to Alex Kurganov
`11/1/1999 email from Valery Zhukov to Alex Kurganov
`10/29/1999 email from Valery Zhukov to Alex Kurganov
`12/10/1999 email from Valery Zhukov to Alex Kurganov
`12/17/1999 email from Valery Zhukov to Alex Kurganov
`11/10/1999 email from Hal Poel to Susan Kelley et al
`Nuance Grammar Order Form
`12/9/1999 email from Alex Leykekhman to Alex Kurganov
`Attachment to 12/9/1999 email from Alex Leykekhman to Alex
`Kurganov that lists stock symbols
`11/29/1999 email from Alex Mansour to Alex Kurganov
`February, 2000 Webley Press Release
`12/14/1999 email from Valery Zhukov to Alex Kurganov
`CVS Source Code – Activity Log and Exhibit A to Malka
`Declaration
`Occhiogrosso Declaration
`Mulka Declaration
`
`vi
`
`

`

`Case No. IPR2020-00846
`Patent No. 7,076,431
`
`I.
`
`Introduction
`Parus began developing its voice response systems in the mid-1990’s. In
`
`developing those systems, which are still in use today, the inventors at Parus realized
`
`that combining a speaker-independent speech recognition device designed to process
`
`voice of any and every individual with flexible and fast access to multiple websites
`
`was a powerful tool. The Patent and Trademark Office issued Parus several patents
`
`on this technology including the ’431 Patent. Petitioner resorts to combining
`
`multiple references, without any motivation to combine those references, in order to
`
`attempt to render Parus’s invention ovbious. It fails to do so. The primary reference
`
`relied upon by Petitioner, Kovatch, isn’t even prior art. Petitioner’s other primary
`
`argument is that the addition of new websites claimed by the ’431 Patent isn’t
`
`described by the ‘431 Patent, even though Google’s own expert admits that web
`
`crawling and discovering new websites was pervasive by 2000 and the provisional
`
`patent application that led to the ‘431 Patent discloses getting information from
`
`Lycos and Yahoo, which include web crawling functionality.
`
`Grounds 1-4 fail to invalidate any of the claims of the ’431 Patent because
`
`Kovatch is not prior art, in fact none of the prior art disclose the element of
`
`sequentially accessing websites until an answer to a query is found, and there is no
`
`motivation to combine Kovatch, Neal and/or DeSimone. Kovatch is not prior art.
`
`The inventors conceived of and reduced the claimed system to practice prior to the
`
`1
`
`

`

`Case No. IPR2020-00846
`Patent No. 7,076,431
`priority date of Kovatch. Further, none of the identified references disclose the idea
`
`of sequentially accessing websites until an answer is found. Neal’s disclosure of
`
`sequentially accessing database records falls short. The issues in accessing curated
`
`database records are fundamentally different than accessing uncontrolled websites.
`
`Finally, there is no motivation to combine Kovatch with Neal or DeSimone. The
`
`identified motivation to combine the teachings of Neal or DeSimone with Kovatch
`
`essentially is to make Kovatch faster. The whole point of Kovatch is to take
`
`advantage of latency in the network to play ads to users. Kovatch doesn’t want to
`
`be faster. It wants to use the latency time to play ads.
`
`Grounds 5-6 fail to invalidate the claims of the ‘431 Patent because the patent
`
`provides sufficient written description regarding identifying of new websites and
`
`storing information in a website. The ’431 Patent describes a system for searching
`
`websites on the Internet. A POSITA, after reading the ‘431 Patent disclosure, would
`
`understand that web crawling or identifying new websites was part of any such
`
`search system. Similarly, a POSITA would also understand that the ‘431 Patent
`
`adequately describes storing information gathered from web sites in a database.
`
`Patent Owner asks the Board to find that none of the challenged claims are
`
`unpatentable based on the asserted grounds.
`
`2
`
`

`

`Case No. IPR2020-00846
`Patent No. 7,076,431
`
`II.
`
`The ’431 Patent
`The ’431 Patent is directed to an “interactive voice system” that allows a user
`
`to request information from a voice web browser, which fulfills the requeswt by
`
`performing a context-based search through a list of pre-selected websites using voice
`
`commands and, in turn, provides retrieved information to the user in audio form.
`
`More specifically, the claims of the ’431 Patent combine the use of a flexible
`
`speaker-independent speech recognition device with an information retrieval from
`
`web sites to provide an adaptable and effective way to get information from the
`
`Internet using your voice.
`
`A.
`
`Prior Art Interactive Voice Systems Suffered From Numerous
`Drawbacks
`1.
`Typical Prior Art Systems For Accessing Web Sites Were
`Not Sufficiently Portable, Comprehensive, And Affordable
`At the time of the ʼ431 Patent’s inventions, there was a need for a system that
`
`allowed a user to quickly access web sites from various locations, rather than being
`
`tied down to the permanent site of a non-portable desktop computer. As the ʼ431
`
`Patent describes, portable options existed for users wishing to quickly gather
`
`information from a web site accessible over the Internet were limited, each having
`
`distinct drawbacks. (Ex. 1001, 1:30-43). These limited options included (1) heavy
`
`and bulky laptop computers with limited access to power and communication lines;
`
`(2) very expensive Personal Digital Assistants (PDAs), which required expensive
`
`3
`
`

`

`Case No. IPR2020-00846
`Patent No. 7,076,431
`service plans for Internet access and could only access web sites specially designed
`
`to be compatible with PDAs (which many web sites were not); and (3) web-phones
`
`or web-pagers that suffered from similar drawbacks. (Ex. 1001, 1:42-2:24).
`
`There was thus a need for an alternative and improved system that could
`
`provide more portable, ubiquitous, and comprehensive access to web sites to any
`
`and every one without adding additional expenses.
`
`2.
`
`Voice Enabled Options Introduced Additional Problems
`and Drawbacks
`People used phone lines to access the Internet through dial-up connections,
`
`which tethered any access to a static environment. There existed no way for a person
`
`on the move to access the internet from any location. One potential alternative to
`
`expand internet use to a dynamic environment in which a person moving locations
`
`could access the internet from anywhere was to use voice enabled devices to connect
`
`to the Internet and access web sites. However, voice enabled devices at the time
`
`introduced a number of additional considerations and problems that had to be
`
`addressed that did not exist with typical computers. Mobile users expected results
`
`quickly and would not tolerate latency. Moreover, systems would have to be built
`
`to provide a user with Internet search results quickly and mobile users could not
`
`quickly browse through search results to select from them what they desired.
`
`4
`
`

`

`Case No. IPR2020-00846
`Patent No. 7,076,431
`For example, when a user accesses a web site with a desktop or laptop
`
`computer, delays in fetching and rendering the web site are tolerated and even
`
`expected. (Ex. 1001, 2:42-45). In contrast, when a user communicates using a
`
`telephone, users expect the communications to occur immediately with a minimal
`
`amount of delay. (Ex. 1001, 2:45-48).
`
`In addition, using a typical desktop or laptop computer, a user is able to search
`
`the Internet, quickly read the resulting list of possible web sites, and then choose and
`
`open the most pertinent web site to access the desired information. But using a list
`
`of possible web sites in this manner is not feasible with a voice enabled device that
`
`provides the requested information as audio to the user—the user would have neither
`
`the time nor the patience to listen to a long list of potential web sites before choosing
`
`the appropriate one to receive the desired information. Therefore, voice enabled
`
`devices needed to present the requested information from a website without
`
`providing the traditional list of relevant web sites.
`
`3.
`
`Prior Art “Interactive Voice Response” Systems Suffered
`From A Lack Of Fault Tolerance, Limited Webpage
`Resources, And Generic Search Options And Results
`Some prior art attempts to develop a voice enabled system to meet and solve
`
`the foregoing problems used an “Interactive Voice Response” (IVR) system. An
`
`IVR system allows a user to place a phone call into a system and navigate through a
`
`number of options in response to guiding voice prompts and retrieve information
`
`5
`
`

`

`Case No. IPR2020-00846
`Patent No. 7,076,431
`stored in a computer database. Well-known examples of IVR systems include a
`
`voicemail system and automated customer service call centers.
`
`During the prosecution of the ʼ431 Patent, the Examiner cited—but allowed
`
`the challenged claims over—U.S. Patent No. 6,157,705 (“Perrone”), which
`
`discloses a typical prior art attempt to use an IVR system to retrieve information
`
`from a web site. In Perrone, a user places a telephone call to the IVR system, issues
`
`a voice command requesting information from the Internet, and (ideally) receives an
`
`audio message containing the requested information. (Ex. 2010 Perrone, Abstract).
`
`In the Perrone system, the IVR system utilizes a table that maps specific voice
`
`commands to a specific web site resource. When the Perrone IVR system receives
`
`a voice command (such as “stocks”), it determines whether it can be mapped to a
`
`web site resource in the table. If so, the Perrone IVR system accesses one specific
`
`web site resource to retrieve its information, converts that information into speech,
`
`and delivers it to the user in audio form. Id.
`
`But Perrone’s and similar attempts to address the problems associated with a
`
`voice enabled web browser (the aforementioned increased need for speed and the
`
`user’s inability to quickly browse through Internet search results) suffered from a
`
`variety of additional drawbacks.
`
`First, these systems were not fault tolerant. Speech commands mapped to
`
`specific resources on specific web sites. If the web site mapped to a given speech
`
`6
`
`

`

`Case No. IPR2020-00846
`Patent No. 7,076,431
`command was inaccessible, there would be no way for the system to retrieve the
`
`requested information from anywhere else. For example, in Perrone’s IVR system,
`
`if the resource identifier “news” corresponded to “www.news.com,” and the
`
`news.com site was currently not accessible, there would be no way to get the news.
`
`Further, these systems were limited to get a specific resource from a specific
`
`web site. For example, if a user wanted to get a traffic update, they were limited to
`
`the traffic resource that is mapped to the traffic update command. This traffic
`
`resource may not be the user’s preferred resource for traffic information, may not be
`
`the best traffic source with current traffic conditions, or perhaps the user desires the
`
`traffic updates from a plurality of different resources. IVR systems like that in
`
`Perrone did not offer an avenue to solve this problem.
`
`Finally, these systems provided only generic information in response to a
`
`mapped command. If a user was searching for specific information, such as an
`
`answer to a question, unless the question was mapped to a resource identifier, there
`
`would be no way to get the specific answer to the specific question.
`
`4.
`
`Prior Art Speaker-Dependent and Speaker-Independent
`Systems Suffered from Various Drawbacks
`Prior art voice response systems generally fell into two broad categories,
`
`speaker-dependent and speaker-independent. Speaker-dependent systems required
`
`training by individual users prior to being able to be used. (Ex. 2025, at ¶¶ 50-52).
`
`7
`
`

`

`Case No. IPR2020-00846
`Patent No. 7,076,431
`Without advance training of the system by each individual user, such systems could
`
`not recognize what was spoken. Speaker-independent systems did not require
`
`training by each individual in order to operate and came in various flavors. Id., (Ex.
`
`1001, 4:38-42).
`
`Many prior art speaker-independent systems used voice patterns to recognize
`
`spoken voice commands. The speaker-independent system of Ladd is an example
`
`of such a speaker-independent system. Specifically, the speaker-independent system
`
`of Ladd was described as “[w]hen the ASR unit 254 identifies a selected speech
`
`pattern of the speech input, the ASR unit 254 sends an output signal to implement
`
`the specific function associated with the recognized voice pattern.” (Ex. 1004, 9:35-
`
`40). Such a speaker-independent system is an improvement over speaker-dependent
`
`systems because no training by individual users is necessary, however it still has
`
`significant drawbacks. Recognizing a speech pattern is resource intensive, in that
`
`such systems also required advanced training for each spoken word and could only
`
`recognize a word that the system was familiar with in advance. For this, many
`
`different sounds have to be analyzed together in order to recognize the spoken word
`
`in a voice command. (Ex. 2025, at ¶¶ 52-55). Another, more significant drawback
`
`to this type of speaker-independent system is that it sharply restricts the library of
`
`phrases that can be used with the system, requiring highly structured and specific
`
`8
`
`

`

`Case No. IPR2020-00846
`Patent No. 7,076,431
`commands to be used. (Ex. 1004, 17:1-33, 18:15-32, and 38:4-11; Ex. 2025, at ¶
`
`82).
`
`The ’431 Patent’s Solution
`B.
`The ʼ431 inventors were able to overcome the drawbacks of prior art
`
`traditional systems (lack of portability, comprehensive coverage, expensive), voice
`
`enabled systems (need for increased speed to provide results quickly from reliable
`
`sources and inability to provide search results as a list of web pages that a user must
`
`remember and then select a desired resource) and IVR systems (lack of fault
`
`tolerance, limited web site resources, and generic search options and results and
`
`more).
`
`To this end, the ’431 Patent discloses “a robust and highly reliable system that
`
`allows users to browse web sites and retrieve information by using conversational
`
`voice commands,” where the retrieved information is “converted into an audio
`
`message [and] transmitted to the user’s voice enabled device.” (Ex. 1001, 1:20-24,
`
`3:41-56). For purposes of this Response, material improvements over prior art IVR
`
`systems include the following:
`
` An ability to access a first web site of a plurality of pre-selected web sites
`
`and, if the information to be retrieved is not found at the first web site, the
`
`computer configured to sequentially access the plurality of web sites until
`
`the information to be retrieved is found or until the plurality of web sites
`
`9
`
`

`

`Case No. IPR2020-00846
`Patent No. 7,076,431
`has been accessed. This ability allowed the system to adjust for
`
`unavailable web sites and provide more responsive and accurate
`
`information to more specific requests, while allowing for a rapid response,
`
`thereby solving prior art IVR system’s lack of fault tolerance, limited web
`
`site resources, and generic search options and results.
`
` A flexible and highly adaptable speaker-independent speech recognition
`
`device that “use[s] phonemes to recognize spoken words and not
`
`predefined voice patterns,” which substantially increases the adaptability
`
`of the system.
`
`The ability to sequentially access pre-selected web sites in their ranked order
`
`until the requested information is retrieved resolves many issues in the prior art. (Ex.
`
`1001, 20:4-33). This sequential accessing of pre-selected web sites allows the ʼ431
`
`Patent’s system to provide the speed and audio response required by a voice enabled
`
`system, while still utilizing the plurality of web sites that improve upon prior art IVR
`
`systems.
`
`The speaker-independent speech recognition system allows a user to leverage
`
`the flexibility of the voice recognition system. The ’431 Patents do not require a
`
`user “to learn a special language or command set in order to communicate with the
`
`voice browsing system.” (Ex. 1001, 4:34-36). Instead, the phoneme based speaker-
`
`independent speech recognition device of the ’431 Patent allows users to use natural
`
`10
`
`

`

`Case No. IPR2020-00846
`Patent No. 7,076,431
`language in a flexible way that is not possible with other speech recognition systems
`
`that rely on recognition of predefined voice patterns. (Ex. 1001, 4:38-43).
`
`Overview Of The ʼ431 Patent’s Voice Browser System
`1.
`In one embodiment, the ʼ431 Patent describes “a browsing system and method
`
`that allows users to browse web sites using conversational voice commands spoken
`
`into any type of voice enabled device … These spoken commands are then converted
`
`into data messages by a speech recognition software engine.” (Ex. 1001, 3:41-46).
`
`Figure 1 (reproduced below) depicts media servers 106, which include (among
`
`other things) the speech recognition software engine 300. (Ex. 1001, 3:41-46, 5:60-
`
`6:24).
`
`11
`
`

`

`Case No. IPR2020-00846
`Patent No. 7,076,431
`After converting the spoken commands to data messages, the media server
`
`106 then processes the resulting data message to recognize keywords by using sub-
`
`words and/or phonemes. (Ex. 1030, 4:34-43, 5:54-59). For example, if the request
`
`was “what is the weather in Chicago?”, the converted data messages may be used to
`
`identify the keywords “weather” and “Chicago.” (Ex. 1001, 6:44-54).
`
`The media server 106 then uses those keywords to search website records
`
`stored in database 100 (also shown in Figure 1 above). (Ex. 1001, 6:44-56). This
`
`process and database are explained in more detail below, but as a result of this search,
`
`the media server 106 identifies a first web site likely to have the requested
`
`information.
`
`A web browsing server 106 (Figure 1 above) receives a website record 200
`
`concerning both the web site found in the search (including its URL) as well as
`
`information concerning the user’s request. (Ex. 1001, 5:5-11, 6:52-56, 7:14-36). For
`
`example, the website record (illustrated in Figure 2 below) includes “extraction
`
`agent” commands 206 that identify which information should be retrieved from the
`
`web site to fulfill the user’s request, and how to accomplish that retrieval. (Ex. 1001,
`
`5:5-11, 6:52-56, 7:14-36).
`
`12
`
`

`

`Case No. IPR2020-00846
`Patent No. 7,076,431
`
`The web browsing server 106 uses this web site record to access the identified
`
`web site and extract the information identified for retrieval, through a process known
`
`as “content extraction.” (Ex. 1001, 6:65-7:36). The web browsing server invokes
`
`the “extraction agent command” 206 contained in the record to identify which
`
`information (i.e., “content”) to retrieve from the web site, where to find that content
`
`at the web site, and how to request and extract that content. (Ex. 1001, 7:14-37).
`
`Once the web browsing server 102 accesses the web site specified in the URL
`
`to obtain the identified information to be retrieved, it forwards that retrieved
`
`information to media sever 106. (Ex. 1001, 15:32-34). Media server 106 further
`
`comprises a speech synthesis engine 302, which it uses the retrieved information “to
`
`create an audio message that is transmitted to the user’s voice enabled device 112.”
`
`(Ex. 1001, 15:32-337).
`
`13
`
`

`

`Case No. IPR2020-00846
`Patent No. 7,076,431
`The foregoing is merely a general high-level description of an embodiment of
`
`the ʼ431 Patent’s system. Additional details and innovations concerning the
`
`database 100, media server 106, and web browsing server 102 are relevant to the
`
`claimed invention and the substantive failings of the Petition, and are discussed in
`
`the next section.
`
`Speaker-Independent Speech Recognition Device
`2.
`The ’431 Patent requires the use of a specific type of speaker-independent
`
`speech recognition device. The speaker-independent speech recognition device
`
`recognizes natural speech commands without needing to be “trained to recognize the
`
`voice patterns of each individual user.” (Ex. 1001, 4:34-43). The intrinsic record of
`
`the ’431 patent teaches that the “speaker-independent speech recognition device” is,
`
`at a minimum, a “speech recognition device that recognizes spoken words without
`
`using predefined voice patterns.” (Ex. 1001, 4:42-43).
`
`The specification disclaims the use of predefined voice patterns and states that
`
`the speaker-independent system “use[s] phonemes to recognize spoken words and
`
`not predefined voice patterns.” (Ex. 1001, 4:42-43 (emphasis added)). Therefore,
`
`in the context of the ’431 Patent’s specification, “speaker-independent” refers to a
`
`system that uses a segmental modeling approach based on recognizing discrete
`
`phonetic units or “phonemes” that the system uses to construct words. (Ex. 2025, at
`
`¶ 53). This approach is able to recognize large vocabularies and allows for natural
`
`14
`
`

`

`Case No. IPR2020-00846
`Patent No. 7,076,431
`language commands. Id. The specification further explains that the system “is
`
`speaker-independent; it does not have to be trained to recognize the Voice patterns
`
`of each individual users.” (Ex. 1001, 4:38-42).
`
`Sequentially Accessing a Plurality of Pre-selected Web Sites
`3.
`Unlike Perrone and other prior art IVR systems—including Ladd, the
`
`Petition’s primary reference—the ʼ431 Patent system did not rely on a single web
`
`site to retrieve information in response to a particular request. Rather, the ʼ431
`
`Patent discloses an “instruction set” for identifying a plurality of web sites
`
`containing the information to be retrieved. Identifying and using multiple potential
`
`web sites to satisfy the user’s verbal command or question allows the system to
`
`adjust for unavailable web sites and provide more responsive and accurate
`
`information in a manner that the prior art IVR systems could not.
`
`But where typical desktop and laptop web browsers could return a plurality of
`
`web sites without issue, a voice enabled browser could not because of the
`
`aforementioned need for speed and an audio response. To achieve these ends and
`
`still effectively use a plurality of web sites in a voice enabled system, the ʼ431 Patent
`
`further disclosed that the instruction set includes a database of pre-selected web
`
`sites that are ranked both for speed and the usefulness of the information stored
`
`thereon, so that the web sites may be sequentially accessed in their ranked order
`
`until the identified information is retrieved.
`
`15
`
`

`

`Case No. IPR2020-00846
`Patent No. 7,076,431
`For example, the ʼ431 Patent describes that database 100 contains web site
`
`information for not just a single web site for answering a particular command or
`
`request, but a plurality of pre-selected possible sites. (Ex. 1001, 5:3-53 (including
`
`Table 1, depicting stored data for two distinct web sites, each for potential use in
`
`answering a query concerning “weather”), 16:31-43). In addition, each of these pre-
`
`selected potential web sites is ranked, on a continual basis, based on aspects such as
`
`speed of response speed and the accuracy and completeness of the data to be
`
`provided. (Ex. 1001, 16:56-17:28).
`
`As described, “the database 100 contains a separate set of records for each
`
`web site accessible by the system”:
`
`An example of a web site record is shown in FIG. 2. Each web site
`record 200 contains the rank number of the web site 202, the
`associated Uniform Resource Locator (URL) 204, and a command that
`enables the appropriate “extraction agent” 206 that is required in order
`to generate proper requests sent to[,] and to format data received from[,]
`the web site.
`(Ex. 1001, 16:56-17:28 (emphasis added)).
`
`Thus, when the media server uses keywords generated from the user’s vocal
`
`request to search the database 100’s web site records to identify the different pre-
`
`selected web sites that may be used to retrieve information for the user, it will only
`
`select and forward to the web browsing server 102 the web site r