`
`Paper No. __
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`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. TBD
`Patent No. 7,076,431
`_____________
`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW
`UNDER 35 U.S.C. §§ 311-319 AND 37 C.F.R. § 42.1 et seq
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES ................................................................................... vi
`
`LISTING OF EXHIBITS ......................................................................................... ix
`
`MANDATORY NOTICES ...................................................................................... xi
`
`A. Real Party-In-Interest ............................................................................ xi
`
`B. Related Matters ...................................................................................... xi
`
`1. U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas ................. xi
`
`2. U.S. Patent and Trademark Office ................................................ xi
`
`C. Counsel and Service Information - § 42.8(b)(3) and (4) ..................... xiii
`
`I.
`
`II.
`
`INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................... 1
`
`GROUNDS FOR STANDING ........................................................................ 1
`
`III. GROUNDS FOR UNPATENTABILITY ....................................................... 1
`
`IV.
`
`’431 PATENT .................................................................................................. 2
`
`A. Technology ............................................................................................. 2
`
`B. Prosecution History ................................................................................ 5
`
`C. Challenged Claims ................................................................................. 5
`
`V.
`
`PERSON OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART .......................................... 5
`
`VI. CLAIM INTERPRETATION ......................................................................... 6
`
`VII. EXPLANATION OF GROUNDS................................................................... 6
`
`A. Ground 1: Claims 1-2, 4-7, 10, and 13-14 Would Have Been
`Obvious over Kovatch in View of Neal ................................................. 6
`
`1. Kovatch’s Disclosure ...................................................................... 6
`
`2. Kovatch Is 102(e) Prior Art ............................................................ 8
`
`3. The Kovatch/Neal Combination ...................................................12
`
`4. Claim 1 ..........................................................................................16
`
`a.
`
`[1pre] .................................................................................... 16
`
`(1) “A system for retrieving information from pre-
`selected web sites” ....................................................... 16
`
`
`
`– i –
`
`

`

`(2) “by uttering speech commands into a voice
`enabled device” ............................................................ 17
`
`(3) “and for providing to users retrieved information
`in an audio form via said voice enabled device” ......... 17
`
`[1.a] “a computer… operatively connected to the
`internet” ................................................................................ 18
`
`[1.b] “a voice enabled device operatively connected to
`said computer,…[and] configured to receive speech
`commands from users” ........................................................ 18
`
`[1.c] “at least one speaker-independent speech
`recognition device… operatively connected to said
`computer and to said voice enabled device”........................ 19
`
`[1.d] “at least one speech synthesis device…
`operatively connected to said computer and to said
`voice enabled device” .......................................................... 20
`
`b.
`
`c.
`
`d.
`
`e.
`
`f.
`
`[1.e] ...................................................................................... 21
`
`(1) “at least one instruction set [associated with said
`computer] for identifying said information to be
`retrieved” ..................................................................... 21
`
`(2) “said instruction set comprising: a plurality of
`pre-selected web site addresses, each…
`identifying a web site containing said information
`to be retrieved” ............................................................ 22
`
`g.
`
`[1.f] ....................................................................................... 24
`
`(1) “at least one recognition grammar associated with
`said computer” ............................................................. 24
`
`(2) “each said recognition grammar corresponding to
`each said instruction set and corresponding to a
`speech command… comprising an information
`request selectable by the user ...................................... 25
`
`h.
`
`[1.g] “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” ......................................................... 29
`
`
`
`– ii –
`
`

`

`i.
`
`j.
`
`k.
`
`l.
`
`[1.h] “said computer configured to retrieve said
`instruction set corresponding to said recognition
`grammar selected by said speaker-independent speech
`recognition device” .............................................................. 31
`
`[1.i] “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” .............................................................................. 32
`
`[1.j] “said computer configured to first access said first
`web site… and, if said information to be retrieved is
`not found…,… 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” .............................................................................. 32
`
`[1.k] “said speech synthesis device configured to
`produce an audio message containing any retrieved
`information from said pre-selected web sites, and…
`transmit said audio message to said users via said
`voice enabled device” .......................................................... 34
`
`5. Claim 2: “said internet is the Internet” ........................................34
`
`6. Claim 4: “said voice enabled device is a standard
`telephone, [other devices], or any other device capable of
`transmitting said audio message” ..................................................34
`
`7. Claim 5: “said speaker-independent speech recognition
`device is configured to analyze phonemes to recognize said
`speech commands” ........................................................................35
`
`8. Claim 6: “said speaker-independent speech recognition
`device is configured to recognize naturally spoken speech
`commands” ....................................................................................36
`
`9. Claim 7: “said instruction set further comprises a content
`descriptor associated with each said web site
`address…[and] pre-defining a portion of said web site
`containing said information to be retrieved” ................................36
`
`10. Claim 10: “said instruction set further comprises a ranking
`associated with each said web site address,… indicating the
`
`
`
`– iii –
`
`

`

`order in which the plurality of pre-selected web sites are
`accessed.” ......................................................................................38
`
`11. Claim 13: “said computer is configured to access said
`plurality of web sites in order of ranking to retrieve said
`information requested by said user,…[and] to first access
`said web site having the highest ranking” .....................................38
`
`12. Claim 14: “a database operatively connected to said
`computer,…[and] configured to store said information
`gathered from said web sites in response to said information
`requests.” .......................................................................................39
`
`B. Ground 2: All Challenged Claims Would Have Been Obvious
`over Kovatch in View of Neal and Chakrabarti ................................... 39
`
`1. Chakrabarti ....................................................................................39
`
`2. The Kovatch/Neal/Chakrabarti Combination ...............................41
`
`3. Claim 9: “said computer is further configured to
`periodically search said internet to identify new web sites
`and to add said new web sites to said plurality of web sites.” ......44
`
`4. All Challenged Claims ..................................................................44
`
`C. Ground 3: Claim 14 Would Have Been Obvious over Kovatch in
`View of Neal and DeSimone ................................................................ 45
`
`1. DeSimone ......................................................................................45
`
`2. The Kovatch/Neal/DeSimone Combination .................................46
`
`D. Ground 4: Claim 14 Would Have Been Obvious over Kovatch in
`View of Neal, Chakrabarti, and DeSimone .......................................... 49
`
`E. Ground 5: Claim 9 Would Have Been Obvious Over Kurganov-
`262 in View of Chakrabarti .................................................................. 50
`
`1. Claim 9 Is Not Entitled to the ’431 Patent’s Priority Claim .........50
`
`a. The “First Embodiment” Does Not Provide Written
`Description for Claim 9 ....................................................... 51
`
`b. The “Second Embodiment” Does Not Provide Written
`Description for Claim 9 ....................................................... 51
`
`c. Written Description Cannot Be Found by Plucking
`Elements from the Different Embodiments ......................... 53
`
`
`
`– iv –
`
`

`

`d. The Provisional Applications Do Not Provide Written
`Description for Claim 9 ....................................................... 54
`
`e. Claim 9’s Effective Filing Date Is No Earlier Than
`2004 ...................................................................................... 54
`
`2. Kurganov-262 Is Prior Art to Claim 9 and Discloses All
`Limitations of Claim 1 ..................................................................55
`
`3. Claim 9 Would Have Been Obvious over Kurganov-262 in
`View of Chakrabarti ......................................................................62
`
`F. Ground 6: Claim 14 Would Have Been Obvious over Kurganov-
`262 in View of DeSimone .................................................................... 63
`
`VIII. NO BASIS EXISTS FOR DISCRETIONARY DENIAL ............................69
`
`A. Discretionary Denial Under 35 U.S.C. § 325(d) Would Be
`Inappropriate ......................................................................................... 69
`
`B. Discretionary Denial Under § 314(a) Would Be Inappropriate ........... 70
`
`IX. CONCLUSION ..............................................................................................73
`
`CLAIM LISTING ....................................................................................................74
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`– v –
`
`

`

`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`
`
`CASES
`
`Advanced Bionics, LLC v. MED-EL Elektromedizinische Geräte GmbH,
`IPR2019-01469, Paper 6 (Feb. 13, 2020) .............................................................71
`
`Amgen v. Sanofi,
`872 F.3d 1367 (Fed. Cir. 2017) .............................................................................. 9
`
`Baldwin Graphic Sys., Inc. v. Siebert, Inc.,
`512 F.3d 1338 (Fed. Cir. 2008) ............................................................................56
`
`Becton, Dickinson & Co. v. B. Braun Melsungen AG,
`IPR2017-01586, Paper 8 (Dec. 15, 2017) ............................................................70
`
`Chegg Inc. v. NetSoc, LLC,
`IPR2019-01165, Paper 14 (Dec. 5, 2019) ............................................................72
`
`Dynamic Drinkware, LLC, v. Nat’l Graphics, Inc.,
`800 F.3d 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2015) .............................................................................. 9
`
`General Plastic Industrial Co., Ltd. v. Canon Kabushiki Kaisha,
`IPR2016-01357, Paper 19 (Sep. 6, 2017) .............................................................70
`
`Hyatt v. Dudas,
`492 F.3d 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2007) ..................................................................... 53, 54
`
`Hybrigenics v. Forma Therapeutics, Inc.,
`PGR2018-00098, Paper 10 (Mar. 20, 2019) ........................................................70
`
`KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc.,
`550 U.S. 398 (2007) .............................................................................................43
`
`Lockwood v. Am. Airlines, Inc.,
`107 F.3d 1565 (Fed. Cir. 1997) ............................................................... 53, 54, 62
`
`Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC v. Carucel Investments, L.P.,
`IPR2019-01404, Paper 12 (Jan. 22, 2020) .................................................... 70, 71
`
`
`
`– vi –
`
`

`

`Microsoft Corp. v. Iron Oak Tech’s., LLC,
`IPR2019-00107, Paper 8 (May 15, 2019) ............................................................72
`
`NHK Spring Co. v. Intri-Plex Techs., Inc.,
`IPR2018-00752, Paper 8 (Sep. 12, 2018) .............................................................72
`
`Polaris Indus., Inc. v. Arctic Cat Inc.,
`IPR2016-01713, Paper 9 (Feb. 27, 2017) ............................................................... 9
`
`PPC Broadband, Inc. v. Corning Optical Commc’ns RF, LLC,
`815 F.3d 747 (Fed. Cir. 2016) ..............................................................................35
`
`Precision Planting LLC v. Deere & Co.,
`IPR2019-01048, Paper 17 (Dec. 4, 2019) ............................................................72
`
`Purdue Pharma L.P. v. Recro Tech., LLC,
`694 F. App’x 794 (Fed. Cir. 2017) .......................................................................54
`
`Sling TV LLC v. Uniloc 2017 LLC,
`IPR2019-01270, Paper 11 (Jan. 9, 2020) ...................................................... 69, 71
`
`Toshiba Corp. v. Imation Corp.,
`681 F.3d 1358 (Fed. Cir. 2012) ............................................................................21
`
`Trans Video Elecs., Ltd. v. Sony Elecs., Inc.,
`822 F. Supp. 2d 1020 (N.D. Cal. 2011) ...............................................................54
`
`Valve Corp. v. Elec. Scripting Prods., Inc.,
`IPR2019-00062, Paper 11 (Apr. 2, 2019) ............................................................70
`
`STATUTES
`
`35 U.S.C. § 120 ................................................................................................. 50, 54
`
`35 U.S.C. § 282(b) ..................................................................................................... 6
`
`35 U.S.C. § 311(a) ...................................................................................................71
`
`35 U.S.C. § 314(a) ...................................................................................................70
`
`35 U.S.C. § 315(b) ...................................................................................................71
`
`35 U.S.C. § 325(d) ...................................................................................................70
`
`
`
`– vii –
`
`

`

`REGULATIONS
`REGULATIONS
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b) ................................................................................................ 6
`37 CPR. § 42.100(b) ................................................................................................ 6
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.104(a) ................................................................................................. 1
`37 CPR. § 42.104(a) ................................................................................................. 1
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`– viii –
`— Viii —
`
`

`

`LISTING OF EXHIBITS
`
`Exhibit Description
`
`1001
`1002
`1003
`1004
`1005
`1006
`1007
`1008
`1009
`1010
`1011
`1012
`1013
`1014
`1015
`1016
`
`1017
`
`1018
`
`1019
`
`1020
`
`1021
`1022
`1023
`1024
`
`1025
`
`
`
`U.S. Patent 7,076,431 (“’431 patent”)
`Declaration of Stuart J. Lipoff (“Lipoff”)
`Curriculum Vitae of Stuart J. Lipoff
`U.S. Patent Publication 2001/0047262 (“Kurganov-262”)
`PCT Publication WO2001/050453 (“Kovatch”)
`U.S. Provisional Application 60/174,371 (“Kovatch-Provisional”)
`U.S. Patent 6,324,534 (“Neal”)
`U.S. Patent 6,418,433 (“Chakrabarti”)
`U.S. Patent 5,787,470 (“DeSimone”)
`U.S. Patent 5,855,020
`U.S. Patent 6,085,160
`U.S. Patent 6,434,524
`McGraw-Hill Electronics Dictionary (6th ed. 1997) (“McGraw-Hill”)
`American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language (3d ed. 1996)
`Dictionary of Computing (4th ed. 2002)
`Scheduling Order (Dkt. 85), Parus v. Apple Inc., 6:19-cv-00432-ADA
`(consolidated cases) (W.D. Tex. Jan. 17, 2020)
`Parus Holding’s Inc.’s First Amended Complaint for Patent
`Infringement, Parus Holdings Inc. v. Apple Inc., 6:19-cv-00432-ADA
`(W.D. Tex. Oct. 21, 2019)
`Parus Holding’s Inc.’s First Amended Complaint for Patent
`Infringement, Parus Holdings Inc. v. Google LLC, 6:19-cv-00433-
`ADA (W.D. Tex. Oct. 21, 2019)
`Parus Holding’s Inc.’s First Amended Complaint for Patent
`Infringement, Parus Holdings Inc. v. LG Electronics, Inc. et al., 6:19-
`cv-00437-ADA (W.D. Tex. Dec. 5, 2019)
`Parus Holding’s Inc.’s First Amended Complaint for Patent
`Infringement, Parus Holdings Inc. v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et
`al., 6:19-cv-00438-ADA (W.D. Tex. Nov. 19, 2019)
`U.S. Patent 9,451,084 (“’084 patent”)
`U.S. Provisional Application 60/180,344
`U.S. Provisional Application 60/233,068
`Prosecution History of U.S. Patent Application 09/776,996
`(U.S. Patent 6,721,705)
`Prosecution History of U.S. Patent Application 10/821,690
`(U.S. Patent 7,076,431)
`
`– ix –
`
`

`

`Exhibit Description
`
`1026
`
`1027
`
`1028
`
`1029
`
`1030
`
`1031
`
`Prosecution History of U.S. Patent Application 11/409,703
`(U.S. Patent 7,386,455)
`Prosecution History of U.S. Patent Application 12/030,556
`(U.S. Patent 7,881,941)
`Prosecution History of U.S. Patent Application 12/973,475
`(U.S. Patent 8,185,402)
`Prosecution History of U.S. Patent Application 13/462,819
`(U.S. Patent 9,451,084)
`Prosecution History of U.S. Patent Application 15/269,776
`(U.S. Patent 10,096,320)
`Prosecution History of U.S. Patent Application 16/155,523
`(pending)
`
`
`
`– x –
`
`

`

`MANDATORY NOTICES
`
`A. Real Party-In-Interest
`
`Petitioners are the real parties-in-interest.
`
`B. Related Matters
`
`A decision in this proceeding could affect or be affected by the following:
`
`1.
`
`U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas
`
`(i) Parus Holdings Inc. v. Amazon.Com, Inc., Civil Action No. 6:19-cv-
`
`00454; (ii) Parus Holdings Inc. v. LG Electronics, Inc. et al., Civil Action No.
`
`6:19-cv-00437; (iii) Parus Holdings Inc. v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al.,
`
`Civil Action No. 6:19-cv-00438; (iv) Parus Holdings Inc. v. Apple Inc., Civil
`
`Action No. 6:19-cv-00432; (v) Parus Holdings Inc. v. Google LLC, Civil Action
`
`No. 6-19-cv-00433.
`
`2.
`
`U.S. Patent and Trademark Office
`
`The application from which U.S. Patent No. 7,076,431 issued is a
`
`Continuation of U.S. Patent Application No. 09/776,996 (U.S. Patent No.
`
`6,721,705), filed February 5, 2001.
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,076,431 also claims priority to two provisional
`
`applications: No. 60/233,068, filed September 15, 2000 and No. 60/180,344, filed
`
`February 4, 2000.
`
`
`
`– xi –
`
`

`

`The following U.S. patent applications claim the benefit of priority to U.S.
`
`Patent 7,076,431 and to U.S. Provisional Application No. 60/233,068 and U.S.
`
`Provisional Application No. 60/180,344:
`
`(i) U.S. Patent Application No. 11/409,703 (U.S. Patent No. 7,386,455),
`
`filed April 24, 2006; (ii) U.S. Patent Application No. 12/030,556 (U.S. Patent No.
`
`7,881,941), filed February 13, 2008; (iii) U.S. Patent Application No. 12/973,475
`
`(U.S. Patent No. 8,185,402), filed December 20, 2010; (iv) U.S. Patent Application
`
`No. 13/462,819 (U.S. Patent No. 9,451,084), filed May 3, 2012; (v) U.S. Patent
`
`Application No. 15/269,776 (U.S. Patent No. 10,096,320), filed September 19,
`
`2016; (vi) U.S. Patent Application No. 15/436,377, filed February 17, 2017; (vii)
`
`U.S. Patent Application No. 16/155,523, filed October 9, 2018.
`
`IPR2020-00686 (Apple Inc. v. Parus Holdings, Inc.) is currently pending
`
`against U.S. Patent No. 7,076,431.
`
`IPR2020-00687 (Apple Inc. v. Parus Holdings, Inc.) is currently pending
`
`against U.S. Patent No. 9,451,084.
`
`Concurrently with this Petition, Petitioners Google LLC, Samsung
`
`Electronics Co., Ltd., Samsung Electronics America, Inc., LG Electronics Inc., and
`
`LG Electronics U.S.A., Inc., are also filing a petition for Inter Partes review of
`
`U.S. Patent 9,451,084. Petitioners request that this Petition and Petitioners’
`
`
`
`– xii –
`
`

`

`concurrently filed petition against U.S. Patent 9,451,084 be reviewed by the same
`
`panel.
`
`C. Counsel and Service Information - § 42.8(b)(3) and (4)
`
`Lead Counsel
`
`Elisabeth H. Hunt, Reg. No. 67,336
`
`Backup Counsel
`
`Gregory S. Nieberg, Reg. No. 57,063
`Richard F. Giunta, Reg. No. 36,149
`
`Service
`Information
`
`E-mail: EHunt-PTAB@wolfgreenfield.com
` GNieberg-PTAB@wolfgreenfield.com
` RGiunta-PTAB@wolfgreenfield.com
`
`Post and hand delivery: Wolf, Greenfield & Sacks, P.C.
`
`
`
`
`600 Atlantic Avenue
`
`
`
`
`Boston, MA 02210-2206
`
`Telephone: 617-646-8000
`
`Facsimile: 617-646-8646
`
`Powers of attorney are submitted with the Petition. Counsel for Petitioners
`
`consent to service of all documents via electronic mail.
`
`
`
`– xiii –
`
`

`

`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`Petitioners request inter partes review and cancellation of claims 1-2, 4-7, 9-
`
`10, and 13-14 (the “challenged claims”) of U.S. Patent 7,076,431 (“the ’431
`
`patent”).
`
`II. GROUNDS FOR STANDING
`
`Petitioners certify that the ’431 patent is available for IPR and Petitioners are
`
`not barred or estopped from requesting IPR of the challenged claims. 37 C.F.R.
`
`§ 42.104(a)
`
`III. GROUNDS FOR UNPATENTABILITY
`
`Each reference below, other than Kurganov-262, is 102(e) prior art to the
`
`’431 patent. Kurganov-262 is 102(b) prior art to claims 9 and 14 because their
`
`earliest effective filing date is 2004 or later. See §§ VII.E-F below.
`
`
`
`
`
`Prior Art
`
`Kovatch
`Neal
`Chakrabarti
`DeSimone
`Kurganov-262
`
`Ex. 1005
`Ex. 1007
`Ex. 1008
`Ex. 1009
`Ex. 1004
`
`The challenged claims would have been obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
`
`demonstrated in the following grounds. Declaration of Stuart J. Lipoff (Ex. 1002)
`
`(“Lipoff”) ¶¶ 81-247.
`
`– 1 –
`
`

`

`Ground Number and References
`
`Claim(s)
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`
`
`Kovatch, Neal
`
`1, 2, 4-7, 10, 13-14
`
`Kovatch, Neal, Chakrabarti
`
`1, 2, 4-7, 9-10, 13-14
`
`Kovatch, Neal, DeSimone
`
`Kovatch, Neal, Chakrabarti, DeSimone
`
`Kurganov-262, Chakrabarti
`
`Kurganov-262, Chakrabarti, DeSimone
`
`
`
`14
`
`14
`
`9
`
`14
`
`
`
`IV.
`
`’431 PATENT
`
`A. Technology
`
`The ’431 patent’s “Voice Browser System” “allow[s] users to gather
`
`information from web sites by using voice enabled devices, such as… telephones”
`
`(shown in grey below). ’431-patent (Ex. 1001), Title, 2:62-65.1 Users input
`
`spoken information requests to a server system (blue below) containing a “speech
`
`recognition software engine” (green) that recognizes spoken commands using
`
`“recognition grammars.” ’431-patent, 4:30-53, 5:60-6:8, 15:39-16:5, FIGs. 1, 3
`
`(reproduced below, coloring added); Lipoff ¶¶ 49-52. The “preferred speech
`
`
`
` The specification also discloses a “Voice Activated Device Controller” “for using
`
` 1
`
`voice commands to control and monitor devices.” ’431-patent, Title, 3:20-23.
`
`None of the challenged claims are directed to that concept. Lipoff ¶¶ 50, 208-209.
`
`– 2 –
`
`

`

`recognition engine” is prior-art software “by Nuance Communications.” ’431-
`
`patent, 6:16-21.
`
`
`
`
`
`– 3 –
`
`

`

`Database 100 contains “Uniform Resource Locator[s] (URL[s])” of a set of
`
`web sites, organized into categories “according to the type of information provided
`
`by each web site”—e.g., “web sites that provide ‘weather’ information,” “web sites
`
`that provide ‘stock’ information.” ’431-patent, 5:3-32. A ranking determines the
`
`order in which a category’s web sites are accessed to retrieve requested
`
`information. ’431-patent, 16:31-43. If the information cannot be found at the
`
`highest-ranked web site, the second web site is searched, “and so forth down the
`
`line until the requested information is retrieved or no more web sites left to check.”
`
`’431-patent, 16:36-43. A “polling mechanism” periodically re-ranks web sites
`
`“listed in the database” based on their “response times.” ’431-patent, 16:56-17:28,
`
`7:2-9; Lipoff ¶¶ 53-70.
`
`Information retrieved from a web site is “conver[ted] into audio messages”
`
`using “speech synthesis software” (shown in brown above) and “transmitted to the
`
`user’s voice enabled device.” ’431-patent, 16:23-30, 15:31-36. The “preferred
`
`speech synthesis engine” is prior-art third-party software. ’431-patent, 6:60-63.
`
`Together with the pink/purple components above, the speech-recognition and
`
`speech-synthesis engines “function as [a] user interface” for telephone
`
`communication with the server system. ’431-patent, 5:60-6:1; Lipoff ¶ 68.
`
`While conceding that non-voice-based Internet information-retrieval systems
`
`were known, the ’431 patent alleges it fulfilled “a need… for a system that allows
`
`– 4 –
`
`

`

`users to easily access and browse the Internet from… any type of telephone.”
`
`’431-patent, 2:25-29. However, such systems were already known in the prior
`
`art—e.g., Kovatch. Lipoff ¶ 71.
`
`B.
`
`Prosecution History
`
`After the ’431 patent’s application’s original claims were rejected over U.S.
`
`Patent 6,157,705 (“Perrone”), Patent Owner amended extensively and argued that
`
`(1) Perrone’s “users cannot retrieve desired information from a plurality of pre-
`
`selected web sites by uttering speech commands,” and (2) Perrone “does not access
`
`a plurality of pre-selected web sites in a sequential manner until the desired
`
`information is found.” Ex. 1025, 37-51, 47. The Examiner allowed the amended
`
`claims without providing reasoning. Id., 26.
`
`C. Challenged Claims
`
`The challenged claims (1-2, 4-7, 9-10, and 13-14) are reproduced in the
`
`Claim Listing table at page 74 below, with independent claim 1 annotated to label
`
`claim elements.
`
`V.
`
`PERSON OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART
`
`A POSA relative to the ’431 patent would have had a Bachelor’s Degree in
`
`electrical engineering, computer science or a related field, and at least two years of
`
`experience with voice interfaces and information processing. More education
`
`could substitute for less experience, and vice versa. Lipoff ¶¶ 41-48.
`
`– 5 –
`
`

`

`VI. CLAIM INTERPRETATION
`
`Claim terms are construed herein using the standard used in civil actions
`
`under 35 U.S.C. § 282(b), in accordance with the ordinary and customary meaning
`
`as understood by a POSA and the prosecution history. 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b).
`
`VII. EXPLANATION OF GROUNDS
`
`A. Ground 1: Claims 1-2, 4-7, 10, and 13-14 Would Have Been
`Obvious over Kovatch in View of Neal
`
`1. Kovatch’s Disclosure
`
`Kovatch describes a “voice response system” called “HeyAnita” that
`
`“accept[s] telephone calls” and “browses the… web… to retrieve information
`
`requested by the user.” Kovatch, Abstract, 13:23, 18:32, 18:1-2. HeyAnita can be
`
`“implemented on one physical box” (“Anita Server”) or on “multiple physical
`
`boxes;” one example multiple-box implementation includes a Phone Server and an
`
`Application Server. Kovatch, 18:18-19:10; FIGs. 1-2 (reproduced below with
`
`coloring added analogous to coloring of ’431 patent figures above); Lipoff ¶¶ 83-
`
`86.
`
`– 6 –
`
`

`

`.w’
`up
`.-..__.
`
`Aniia Query
`Engine
`
`
`_IL
`
`I, AnitaProfilerE AnitaAd J
`
`.
`Genera tor
`
`10
`
`(Data)
`
`Anita
`_
`Mann er_
`
`L
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Repository
`/
`
`FIG. 2
`
`Database Server
`
`1"
`
`Amy.
`qusllory
`
`T1 Lines
`(Voice)
`
`-'
`
`"
`
`‘
`
`"
`
`Anita
`l’rafiler
`
`Anita
`Replication
`Engine
`
`f‘
`
`')
`w 3-
`
`T1 Lines
`
`– 7 –
`
`

`

`
`Like the ’431 patent, HeyAnita uses a Nuance Speech Recognition Engine to
`
`“listen to [the] user’s voice as commands” and “convert[] [the] spoken utterance
`
`into text” which a Natural Language Engine converts to a “structured command[],”
`
`using a “voice recognition grammar.” Kovatch, 13:27-31, 14:18-15:7, 17:19-27;
`
`Lipoff ¶ 87. The user’s information request is “matched with an index of
`
`destinations” (“destination tree”) to produce “[a] list of valid destinations” (“web
`
`site[s] on the Internet”—e.g., “Yahoo! web site”) that could satisfy the request.
`
`Kovatch, 4:25-27, 13:33-34, 15:9-34, 28:17-18; Lipoff ¶¶ 88, 91-93. The Query
`
`Engine provides an identified web site’s URL to the Web Parser which
`
`“[n]avigate[s] to the destination and retrieve[s] [the] requested information.”
`
`Kovatch, 15:9-34, 14:1, 17:31-18:3; Lipoff ¶ 89. A Prompt Generator
`
`“[t]ranslate[s] [the] retrieved information into voice prompts… [r]eturn[ed]… back
`
`to the user in the form of concatenated speech fragments and/or synthesized
`
`voice.” Kovatch, 14:2-8, 16:19-26, 18:13-15; Lipoff ¶ 90.
`
`2. Kovatch Is 102(e) Prior Art
`
`Kovatch is an international PCT application designating the United States
`
`and published in English, and the claim chart below demonstrates that Kovatch’s
`
`claim 1 is supported in U.S. 60/174,371 (Ex. 1006) (“Kovatch-Provisional”) to
`
`which Kovatch claims priority. Lipoff ¶¶ 94-95. Therefore Kovatch is 102(e) prior
`
`art based on Kovatch-Provisional’s January 4, 2000, filing date. Dynamic
`
`– 8 –
`
`

`

`Drinkware, LLC, v. Nat’l Graphics, Inc., 800 F.3d 1375, 1381 (Fed. Cir. 2015);
`
`Amgen v. Sanofi, 872 F.3d 1367, 1380 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (extending Dynamic
`
`Drinkware to published PCT applications); Polaris Indus., Inc. v. Arctic Cat Inc.,
`
`IPR2016-01713, Paper 9 at 13 (Feb. 27, 2017) (“[O]nly one claim in the prior art
`
`patent needs to have support in the provisional.”).
`
`Kovatch-Provisional
`Kovatch-Provisional discloses “[a] voice response
`system (HeyAnita)” that provides “interaction” with
`“[u]ser responses and queries.” (Kovatch-Provisional,
`1.)2 HeyAnita “listen[s] to user’s voice” and
`“[r]eturn[s] information back to the user in the form of
`concatenated speech fragments and/or synthesized
`voice.” (Kovatch-Provisional, 2.) A POSA would
`have understood this to disclose an interactive audio
`response system that permits users to access
`information, as claimed. Lipoff, page 46.
`
`HeyAnita permits users to retrieve information from
`“any conventional web site on the Internet” that “was
`not modified to support the operations nor… aware that
`a voice-enabled application was using its HTML based
`services.” (Kovatch-Provisional, 3.)
`
` A
`
` POSA would have understood this is accessing
`information that is not originally formatted for voice
`interfacing to an information exchange network.
`Lipoff, pages 46-47.
`
`See also Kovatch-Provisional, 3 (“not mandatory to
`make changes to existing web sites”).
`
`Kovatch’s Claim 1
`1. An interactive audio
`response system that
`permits users to access
`information that is not
`originally formatted for
`voice interfacing to an
`information exchange
`network, comprising:
`
`
`
` All emphases added unless otherwise indicated.
`
` 2
`
`– 9 –
`
`

`

`Kovatch-Provisional
`Kovatch-Provisional, 2: “Telephone Interface…
`detect[s] user utterances.”
`
`Kovatch-Provisional, 7-8: The user can input a request
`for information, such as “What’s the weather like in
`New York?” or “Please tell the traffic conditions.”
`
`Lipoff, page 48.
`
`Kovatch-Provisional, 4: “Telephone Interface(1)
`receives the call and hands it over to… Speech
`Recognition Engine(2)…[which] converts spoken
`utterance into text.”
`
`Lipoff, page 48.
`
`Kovatch-Provisional, 4: “Speech Recognition
`engine(2) converts spoken utterance into text and sends
`it to… Natural Language Engine(3)…[which]
`interprets Natural Language text and sends structured
`commands to… Query Engine(4).”
`
`
`
` A
`
` POSA would have understood that interpreting
`Natural Language text is interpreting the meaning
`embodied in the converted text as claimed. Lipoff,
`page 49.
`
`Kovatch-Provisi