Filed: June 2, 2020
`
`Filed on behalf of: Amazon.com, Inc.
`By:
`Joseph R. Re
`Colin B. Heideman
`Jeremy A. Anapol
`Cheryl T. Burgess
`Christie R.W. Matthaei
`KNOBBE, MARTENS, OLSON & BEAR, LLP
`925 Fourth Avenue, Suite 2500
`Seattle, WA 98104
`Telephone: 206-405-2000
`Facsimile: 206-405-2001
`Email: BoxSEAZNL1623LP7@knobbe.com
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`__________________________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`__________________________________
`
`AMAZON.COM, INC.
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`HAMMOND DEVELOPMENT INTERNATIONAL, INC.
`Patent Owner.
`
`Case No. IPR2020-01029
`U.S. Patent No. 10,264,032
`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW OF
`U.S. PATENT NO. 10,264,032
`
`
`
`Filed on behalf of: Amazon.com, Inc.
`By:
`Joseph R. Re
`Colin B. Heideman
`Jeremy A. Anapol
`Cheryl T. Burgess
`Christie R.W. Matthaei
`KNOBBE, MARTENS, OLSON & BEAR, LLP
`925 Fourth Avenue, Suite 2500
`Seattle, WA 98104
`Telephone: 206-405-2000
`Facsimile: 206-405-2001
`Email: BoxSEAZNL1623LP7@knobbe.com
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`__________________________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`__________________________________
`
`AMAZON.COM, INC.
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`HAMMOND DEVELOPMENT INTERNATIONAL, INC.
`Patent Owner.
`
`Case No. IPR2020-01029
`U.S. Patent No. 10,264,032
`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW OF
`U.S. PATENT NO. 10,264,032
`
`
`
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`I.
`II.
`
`INTRODUCTION ------------------------------------------------------------------ 1
`BACKGROUND OF THE ’032 PATENT -------------------------------------- 7
`A. Overview --------------------------------------------------------------------- 7
`Prosecution History --------------------------------------------------------- 8
`B.
`C.
`Challenged Claims ---------------------------------------------------------- 8
`D.
`Priority ------------------------------------------------------------------------ 9
`E.
`Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art----------------------------------------- 9
`F.
`Claim Construction --------------------------------------------------------- 9
`III. STATEMENT OF PRECISE RELIEF REQUESTED ----------------------- 10
`A. Grounds --------------------------------------------------------------------- 10
`B.
`Status of References as Prior Art ---------------------------------------- 11
`IV. SPECIFIC PROPOSED GROUNDS FOR REJECTION -------------------- 12
`A. Ground 1a: Claims 1-23 Are Unpatentable Under 35 U.S.C.
`§ 103(a) in view of Maes -------------------------------------------------- 12
`1.
`Overview of Maes --------------------------------------------------- 12
`2.
`Claim 1 --------------------------------------------------------------- 15
`a.
`Limitation [a]: “a speaker” --------------------------------- 16
`b.
`Limitation [b]: “an input device” -------------------------- 16
`c.
`Limitations [c] and [d]: “one or more
`processors; and a memory having stored
`thereon a software program that, when executed
`by the one or more processors, causes the
`communication device to” ---------------------------------- 16
`
`-i-
`
`
`
`
`
`i.
`
`ii.
`
`iii.
`
`Limitation [d][i]: “capture a voice input
`from a user via the input device” ------------------ 17
`Limitation [d][ii]: “generate packetized
`voice data by packetizing at least a part
`of the voice input” ----------------------------------- 18
`Limitation [d][iii][1]: “transmit a request
`to establish a communication session
`over a first communication link to an
`application server coupled to the first
`communication link and adapted to
`establish the communication session in
`response to the request to establish the
`communication session” ---------------------------- 18
`(a)
`Limitation [d][iii][2]: “the first
`communication link comprising a
`data connection” ------------------------------ 24
`Limitation [d][iii][3]: “wherein the
`application server resides at a
`location remote from the
`communication device” --------------------- 24
`Limitation [d][iii][4]: “wherein the
`application server is either (a)
`configured to receive an
`application via a second
`communication link, or (b)
`configured to cause execution of
`the application via the second
`communication link” ------------------------- 24
`Limitation [d][iii][5]: “wherein the
`application server is configured to
`generate a voice representation of
`information derived from the
`application” ----------------------------------- 27
`
`(b)
`
`(c)
`
`(d)
`
`-ii-
`
`
`
`(e)
`
`iv.
`
`v.
`
`vi.
`
`
`
`3.
`4.
`
`5.
`
`c.
`
`d.
`
`e.
`
`Limitation [d][iii][6]: application
`server “configured to …
`communicate a request for
`processing service to the
`communication device” --------------------- 29
`Limitation [d][iv]: “transmit the
`packetized voice data to the application
`server via the first communication link” ---------- 32
`Limitation [d][v]: “receive the request for
`processing service from the application
`server over the first communication link,
`wherein the request for processing
`service comprises an instruction to
`present the user the voice representation” -------- 32
`Limitation [d][vi]: “present the voice
`representation to the user via the
`speaker” ----------------------------------------------- 33
`Claim 9 --------------------------------------------------------------- 33
`Claim 16 -------------------------------------------------------------- 34
`a.
`Limitations addressed in claim 1 -------------------------- 34
`b.
`“wherein the packetized audio data is used to
`determine the request for processing service” ----------- 35
`“wherein the request for processing service
`comprises one or more instructions to the client
`device to retrieve content from a source located
`remote from the client device” ----------------------------- 36
`“requesting the content from the source located
`remote from the client device” ----------------------------- 38
`“presenting, via the speaker, an audio output
`corresponding to the content from the source
`located remote from the client device” ------------------- 39
`Claim 2 --------------------------------------------------------------- 39
`
`-iii-
`
`
`
`
`
`6.
`Claim 3 --------------------------------------------------------------- 40
`Claims 4, 13 and 20 ------------------------------------------------- 41
`7.
`Claims 5, 14 and 21 ------------------------------------------------- 42
`8.
`Claims 6, 15 and 22 ------------------------------------------------- 42
`9.
`10. Claims 7 and 12 ------------------------------------------------------ 43
`a.
`Limitations 7[a] and 12[a] ---------------------------------- 43
`b.
`Limitations 7[b] and 12[b] ---------------------------------- 44
`11. Claim 8 --------------------------------------------------------------- 44
`12. Claim 10 -------------------------------------------------------------- 45
`13. Claim 11 -------------------------------------------------------------- 45
`14. Claim 17 -------------------------------------------------------------- 45
`15. Claim 18 -------------------------------------------------------------- 45
`16. Claim 19 -------------------------------------------------------------- 46
`17. Claim 23 -------------------------------------------------------------- 47
`Ground 1b: Claims 1-23 Are Unpatentable Under 35 U.S.C.
`§ 103(a) in view of Maes and Maes 2 ----------------------------------- 47
`Ground 2a: Claims 1-23 Are Unpatentable Under 35 U.S.C.
`§ 103(a) in view of Bharedwaj ------------------------------------------- 48
`1.
`Overview of Bharedwaj -------------------------------------------- 48
`2.
`Claim 1 --------------------------------------------------------------- 49
`a.
`Limitation [a]: speaker -------------------------------------- 49
`b.
`Limitation [b]: input device -------------------------------- 49
`c.
`Limitation [c]: processor(s) -------------------------------- 50
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`-iv-
`
`
`
`
`
`d.
`
`ii.
`
`iii.
`
`(b)
`
`(c)
`
`Limitation [d]: memory storing a software
`program ------------------------------------------------------- 50
`i.
`Limitation [d][i]: “capture a voice input
`from a user via the input device” ------------------ 50
`Limitation [d][ii]: “generate packetized
`voice data by packetizing at least a part
`of the voice input” ----------------------------------- 50
`Limitation [d][iii][1]: transmit a request
`to establish a communication session ------------- 51
`(a)
`Limitation [d][iii][2]: “first
`communication link comprising a
`data connection” ------------------------------ 53
`Limitation [d][iii][3]: “wherein the
`application server resides at a
`location remote from the
`communication device” --------------------- 53
`Limitation [d][iii][4]: application
`server is either (a) configured to
`receive an application via a second
`communication link, or (b)
`configured to cause execution of
`the application via the second
`communication link -------------------------- 53
`Limitation [d][iii][5]: application
`server configured to generate a
`voice representation -------------------------- 54
`Limitation [d][iii][6]: application
`server configured to “communicate
`a request for processing service to
`the communication device” ----------------- 55
`Limitation [d][iv]: “transmit the
`packetized voice data to the application
`server via the first communication link” ---------- 56
`
`(d)
`
`(e)
`
`iv.
`
`-v-
`
`
`
`
`
`3.
`4.
`
`5.
`6.
`7.
`
`Limitation [d][v]: receive request for
`processing service comprising an
`instruction to present the user the voice
`representation ----------------------------------------- 57
`Limitation [d][vi]: “present the voice
`representation to the user via the
`speaker” ----------------------------------------------- 57
`Claim 9 --------------------------------------------------------------- 57
`Claim 16 -------------------------------------------------------------- 58
`a.
`Limitations addressed in claim 1 -------------------------- 58
`b.
`“wherein the application server is configured to
`communicate a request for processing service to
`the client device” -------------------------------------------- 59
`“sending the packetized audio data to the
`application server via the first communication
`link, wherein the packetized audio data is used
`to determine the request for processing service” -------- 60
`“receiving the request for processing service
`from the application server, wherein the request
`for processing service comprises one or more
`instructions to the client device to retrieve
`content from a source located remote from the
`client device” ------------------------------------------------- 61
`“request[] the content from the source located
`remote from the client device” ----------------------------- 62
`“presenting, via the speaker, an audio output
`corresponding to the content from the source
`located remote from the client device” ------------------- 62
`Claim 2 --------------------------------------------------------------- 63
`Claim 3 --------------------------------------------------------------- 64
`Claims 4, 13 and 20 ------------------------------------------------- 65
`
`c.
`
`d.
`
`e.
`
`f.
`
`v.
`
`vi.
`
`-vi-
`
`
`
`
`
`8.
`Claims 5, 14 and 21 ------------------------------------------------- 66
`Claims 6, 15 and 22 ------------------------------------------------- 66
`9.
`10. Claim 7 and 12 ------------------------------------------------------- 66
`a.
`Limitations 7[a] and 12[a] ---------------------------------- 66
`b.
`Limitations 7[b] and 12[b] ---------------------------------- 67
`11. Claim 8 --------------------------------------------------------------- 68
`12. Claim 10 -------------------------------------------------------------- 68
`13. Claim 11 -------------------------------------------------------------- 68
`14. Claim 17 -------------------------------------------------------------- 68
`15. Claim 18 -------------------------------------------------------------- 68
`16. Claim 19 -------------------------------------------------------------- 69
`17. Claim 23 -------------------------------------------------------------- 69
`D. Ground 2b: Claim 3 Is Unpatentable Under 35 U.S.C.
`§ 103(a) in view of Bharedwaj and Thelen ----------------------------- 70
` SECONDARY CONSIDERATIONS ------------------------------------------ 72
`V.
`VI. DISCRETIONARY FACTORS FAVORING INSTITUTION ------------- 73
`VII. MANDATORY NOTICES PURSUANT TO 37 C.F.R.
`§ 42.8(A)(1) ------------------------------------------------------------------------ 75
`A.
`Real Party-In-Interest (37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(1)) ------------------------ 75
`B.
`Related Matters (37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(2)) ------------------------------- 75
`1.
`Related IPRs --------------------------------------------------------- 75
`2.
`Related District Court Litigation ---------------------------------- 76
`Lead and Backup Counsel (37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(3)) ------------------- 76
`Service Information (37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(4)) -------------------------- 77
`
`C.
`D.
`
`-vii-
`
`
`
`
`
`E.
`Payment of Fees Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.103 ---------------------- 78
`Grounds for Standing Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(a) ------------------- 78
`F.
`VIII. CONCLUSION -------------------------------------------------------------------- 78
`
`
`
`-viii-
`
`
`
`
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`Cases
`Abbot Vascular, Inc. v. FlexStent, LLC,
`IPR2019-00882, Paper 11 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 7, 2019) ----------------------- 73
`
`Page(s):
`
`Amazon.com, Inc. v. CustomPlay, LLC,
`IPR2018-01496, Paper 12 (P.T.A.B. 2019) -------------------------------- 74
`
`Bumble Trading Inc. v. Match Group, LLC,
`IPR2019-01583, Paper 13 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 11, 2020) --------------------- 73
`
`Callaway Golf Co. v. Acushnet Co,
`576 F.3d 1331 (Fed. Cir. 2009) ---------------------------------------------- 10
`
`Comcast Cable Commc’ns, LLC v. Veveo, Inc.,
`IPR2019-00239 Paper 15 (P.T.A.B. July 5, 2019) ------------------------ 73
`
`Ericsson Inc. v. Intellectual Ventures II, LLC,
`IPR2018-01689 Paper 15 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 16, 2019) ---------------------- 74
`
`Leapfrog Enters., Inc. v. Fisher-Price, Inc.,
`485 F.3d 1157 (Fed. Cir. 2007) ---------------------------------------------- 72
`
`Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co. Ltd.,
`868 F.3d 1013 (Fed. Cir. 2017) ------------------------------------------------ 9
`
`In re Nilssen,
`851 F.2d 1401 (Fed. Cir. 1988) ---------------------------------------------- 12
`
`Unwired Planet, LLC v. Google Inc.,
`841 F.3d 995 (Fed. Cir. 2016) ------------------------------------------------ 11
`
`Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc.,
`200 F.3d 795 (Fed. Cir. 1999) -------------------------------------------------- 9
`
`Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v. United Servs. Auto. Ass’n,
`IPR2019-01082, Paper 9 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 13, 2019) ----------------------- 73
`
`-ix-
`
`
`
`
`
`Statutes and Rules
`
`35 U.S.C. § 102 -------------------------------------------------------------------- 11
`
`35 U.S.C. § 103 --------------------------------------------------------------- passim
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.8 ---------------------------------------------------------- 75, 76, 77
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.10 ------------------------------------------------------------------ 77
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.15 ------------------------------------------------------------------ 78
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.103 ---------------------------------------------------------------- 78
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.104 ---------------------------------------------------------------- 78
`
`
`
`
`
`-x-
`
`
`
`Amazon.com, Inc. v. Hammond Development Int’l, Inc.
`IPR Petition – U.S. Patent No. 10,264,032
`
`TABLE OF EXHIBITS
`
`
`
`Description
`
`Exhibit No.
`
`1001
`1002
`1003
`1004
`1005
`1006
`1007
`1008
`1009
`1010
`1011
`1012
`1013
`1014
`1015
`1016
`
`1017
`
`U.S. Patent No. 10,264,032 (“the ’032 patent”)
`File History of U.S. Patent No. 9,264,483
`Declaration of Philip Greenspun, Ph.D.
`CV of Philip Greenspun, Ph.D.
`U.S. Patent No. 6,934,756 (“Maes”)
`International Appl. No. PCT/US99/23008 (“Maes 2”)
`International Appl. No. PCT/US01/17274 (“Bharedwaj”)
`Exhibit Number Not Used
`Exhibit Number Not Used
`Exhibit Number Not Used
`VoiceXML Version 2.0, W3C (March 16, 2004)
`Exhibit Number Not Used
`Exhibit Number Not Used
`Exhibit Number Not Used
`Exhibit Number Not Used
`Exhibit Number Not Used
`Multimedia Messaging Service Encapsulation Protocol, Open
`Mobile Alliance (July 15, 2004)
`
`Table of Exhibits, Page 1
`
`
`
`Amazon.com, Inc. v. Hammond Development Int’l, Inc.
`IPR Petition – U.S. Patent No. 10,264,032
`
`Exhibit No.
`
`Description
`
`1018
`
`1019
`
`1020
`
`1021
`
`1022
`
`1023
`1024
`
`1025
`
`1026
`
`1027
`
`1028
`
`1029
`1030
`1031
`
`1032
`
`Excerpts from Patent Owner’s Infringement Contentions in
`Hammond Dev. Int’l, Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc., No. 6:19-cv-
`00355 (W.D. Texas) (“Infringement Contentions”)
`Exhibit Number Not Used
`Excerpts from James H. Pence, How to Do Everything with
`HTML, Osborne/McGraw-Hill (2001)
`Excerpts from Handbook for the PalmTM TungstenTM T3
`Handheld, Palm (2003)
`Excerpts from Using Your Palm Treo 700w Smartphone, Palm
`(2005)
`Exhibit Number Not Used
`Exhibit Number Not Used
`Joel F. Bartlett, W4 - the Wireless World Wide Web, Workshop
`on Mobile Computing Systems and Applications, IEEE Com-
`puter Society Press 176 (December 8-9, 1994)
`Todd Courtois, Portal: A PDA-to-World-Wide-Web Interface, 3
`PDA Developers (January/February 1995)
`Michael Moeller, Motorola Newton device set to take wireless
`Notes, MacWeek (October 24, 1994)
`GloMop: Global Mobile Computing By Proxy, GloMop Group
`(1995)
`Exhibit Number Not Used
`U.S. Patent 7,383,303 (“Bort”)
`Tim Berners-Lee, World-Wide Web: The Information Universe,
`2 Elec. Networking 52 (1992)
`Exhibit Number Not Used
`
`Table of Exhibits, Page 2
`
`
`
`Amazon.com, Inc. v. Hammond Development Int’l, Inc.
`IPR Petition – U.S. Patent No. 10,264,032
`
`Exhibit No.
`
`Description
`
`1033
`1034
`1035
`1036
`1037
`1038
`
`1039
`
`1040
`
`1041
`1042
`
`1043
`1044
`1045
`
`1046
`1047
`
`1048
`
`Exhibit Number Not Used
`U.S. Patent 4,425,099 (“Naden”)
`U.S. Patent 3,278,685 (“Harper”)
`Exhibit Number Not Used
`U.S. Patent 4,783,803 (“Baker”)
`Bruce Lucas, VoiceXML for Web-Based Distributed
`Conversatonal Applications, 43 Commc'ns. of the ACM 53
`(September 2000)
`Michael F. McTear, Spoken Dialogue Technology: Enabling the
`Conversational User Interface, 34 ACM Computing Surveys 90
`(March 2002)
`Philip R. Cohen, The role of voice input for human-machine
`communication, 92 Proc. Nat’l Acad. Sci. USA 9921 (October
`1995)
`Exhibit Number Not Used
`E. A. Johnson, Touch display—a novel input/output device for
`computers, 1 Elec. Letters 219 (October 1965)
`Exhibit Number Not Used
`Exhibit Number Not Used
`Simon Says “Here’s How!”: Simon Users Manual, IBM (Febru-
`ary 1994)
`U.S. Patent 5,546,538 (“Cobbley”)
`Joel F. Bartlett, Experience with a Wireless World Wide Web
`Client, IEEE COMPCON95 (March 5-9, 1995)
`Excerpts from File History of U.S. Patent No. 10,264,032
`
`Table of Exhibits, Page 3
`
`
`
`Amazon.com, Inc. v. Hammond Development Int’l, Inc.
`IPR Petition – U.S. Patent No. 10,264,032
`
`Exhibit No.
`
`Description
`
`1049
`1050
`1051
`1052
`1053
`
`1054
`
`1055
`1056
`
`1057
`1058
`
`1059
`1060
`1061
`1062
`
`U.S. Patent 6,487,534 (“Thelen”)
`Exhibit Number Not Used
`Excerpts from HTML 4.01 Specification (August 24, 1999)
`Exhibit Number Not Used
`Patent Owner’s Responsive Claim Construction Brief in Ham-
`mond Dev. Int’l, Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc., No. 6:19-cv-00355
`(W.D. Texas)
`RFC 1831, RPC: Remote Procedure Call Protocol Specification
`Version 2 (August 1995)
`Exhibit Number Not Used
`Excerpts from Patent Owner’s Infringement Contentions in
`Hammond Dev. Int’l, Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc., No. 6:19-cv-
`00355 (W.D. Texas) (“’032 Patent Infringement Contentions”)
`157 Conf. Rec. S402-43 (daily ed. Sept. 8, 2011)
`Patent Owner’s Preliminary Election of Asserted Claims in
`Hammond Dev. Int’l, Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc., No. 6:19-cv-
`00355 (W.D. Texas)
`Exhibit Number Not Used
`Exhibit Number Not Used
`U.S. Patent No. 7,068,643 (“Hammond”)
`3rd Generation Partnership Project; Technical Specification
`Group Terminals; Multimedia Messaging Service (MMS); Func-
`tional description (2001)
`
`
`
`
`
`Table of Exhibits, Page 4
`
`
`
`Amazon.com, Inc. v. Hammond Development Int’l, Inc.
`IPR Petition – U.S. Patent No. 10,264,032
`Amazon.com, Inc. (“Amazon” or “Petitioner”) requests inter partes review
`
`(“IPR”) of claims 1-23 of U.S. Patent No. 10,264,032 (“the ’032 patent”), which is
`
`purportedly owned by Hammond Development International, Inc. (“Patent Owner”
`
`or “PO”).
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`The ’032 patent describes a conventional client (e.g., cell phone, PDA, PC)
`
`connected via a conventional network (e.g., Internet) to a conventional “application
`
`server” that runs programs for the client:
`
`(Ex. 1001, FIG. 1D.) 1 The application server receives the application over a network
`
`from a repository. The application may be a standard VoiceXML application that
`
`the server executes to produce speech output that is sent back to the client.
`
`
`
`
`1 Figures have been annotated for clarity.
`
`-1-
`
`
`
`Amazon.com, Inc. v. Hammond Development Int’l, Inc.
`IPR Petition – U.S. Patent No. 10,264,032
`
`The ’032 patent claims are directed to a conventional client device that trans-
`
`mits user speech inputs to the server and outputs audio sent back from the server.
`
`The client comprises: a speaker, an input device (e.g., microphone), a processor,
`
`memory, and software. The client performs entirely conventional functions, includ-
`
`ing: (1) capturing a voice input from a user; (2) packetizing a portion of the voice
`
`input; (3) transmitting the packetized voice data to the server via a first network; (4)
`
`receiving a “request for processing service” (e.g., instruction to present information
`
`to the user) from the server; and (5) presenting a voice representation (e.g., speech
`
`generated by the server) to the user. The server performs the conventional functions
`
`of: (1) receiving an application via a second network; (2) generating a “voice repre-
`
`sentation” based on the application; and (3) sending a “request for processing ser-
`
`vice” (e.g., instruction to output the voice representation) to the client. The claims
`
`do not recite—and PO did not invent—any new client device, server, input/output
`
`device, or software. Nor did PO invent any new way of performing these standard
`
`functions.
`
`The Patent Office allowed the claims because they recite that the server estab-
`
`lishes a communication session in response to a client request. But that limitation
`
`merely refers to a server receiving a client request, executing an application, and
`
`sending information back to the client. For example, the specification describes a
`
`user calling a server to obtain his bank account balance. The server establishes a
`
`-2-
`
`
`
`Amazon.com, Inc. v. Hammond Development Int’l, Inc.
`IPR Petition – U.S. Patent No. 10,264,032
`communication session by executing a banking application and asking the user to
`
`input his account number. In so doing, the server generates a voice representation
`
`and sends a request for processing service to the client, i.e., an instruction to output
`
`audio to the user. Another embodiment involves a user checking flight schedules.
`
`Such basic client-server interactions were not inventive in 2007.
`
`
`
`PO asserts that its patents are an improvement over “traditional IVR systems”
`
`because the patented system uses “digital links” (rather than traditional phone lines)
`
`with some “data processing on the client device” (rather than a standard telephone).
`
`(Ex. 1053, 4.) Even accepting PO’s characterization, having clients such as smart
`
`phones, PDAs, and computers communicate with IVR systems over a digital net-
`
`work such as the Internet, and having the client process data to output information,
`
`was not new in 2007.
`
`The references relied on herein describe such systems. For example, Maes
`
`describes a client (e.g., smart phone, PDA, or PC) communicating via speech with a
`
`server that executes applications for “flight schedules,” “banking transactions” and
`
`other IVR systems. (Ex. 1005, 1:36-40, 3:40-55). Like the ’032 patent, Maes’ sys-
`
`tem includes a client connected to a server via a first communication link, and the
`
`server receives applications (e.g., VoiceXML pages) via a second communication
`
`link from a repository:
`
`-3-
`
`
`
`Amazon.com, Inc. v. Hammond Development Int’l, Inc.
`IPR Petition – U.S. Patent No. 10,264,032
`
`
`
`(Ex. 1005, FIG. 17.)
`
`Maes incorporates Maes 2, which specifically describes improving traditional
`
`IVR systems by allowing smart devices (e.g., smart phone, PDA, or PC) to connect
`
`to IVR servers via the Internet. (Ex. 1006, 1:14-5:18, 27:1-4.) Maes 2 describes
`
`obtaining information via banking and airline applications. (Id., 21:19-21.) Maes
`
`2’s client is connected to a server via a first communication link and the server re-
`
`ceives applications (e.g., VoiceXML pages) via a second communication link:
`
`-4-
`
`
`
`Amazon.com, Inc. v. Hammond Development Int’l, Inc.
`IPR Petition – U.S. Patent No. 10,264,032
`
`
`
`(Ex. 1006, FIG. 4A.)
`
`Just as in the ’032 patent, Maes 2 explains that the user can send a “request”
`
`to the server by speaking a command (e.g., “food ordering” or “stock quotes”) and
`
`that the server executes the appropriate application and sends voice representations
`
`back to the client for output (e.g., asking for type of sandwich or stock symbol). (Ex.
`
`1006, 40:8-28, 41:25-42:9.) Thus, Maes and Maes 2 describe the same system, per-
`
`forming the same functions, as the ’032 patent.
`
`Bharedwaj, the other primary reference relied on herein, likewise describes a
`
`“thin client” device (e.g., PDA, cell phone, computer) connected to a remote server
`
`-5-
`
`
`
`Amazon.com, Inc. v. Hammond Development Int’l, Inc.
`IPR Petition – U.S. Patent No. 10,264,032
`via a network (first communication link), where the server obtains applications over
`
`the Internet (second communication link):
`
`
`
`
`
`(Ex. 1007, Fig. 2.) Bharedwaj’s server waits for client “requests” (Ex. 1007, 6:6-7,
`
`12:16-17) and, in response, executes an application and “establish[es] a session with
`
`a remote client.” (Ex. 1007, claim 29.)
`
`Rather than advancing the art, the ’032 patent provides PO with a limited mo-
`
`nopoly on conventional client-server systems that were widely-known and that PO
`
`did not invent. In 2007, there was nothing inventive about a client transmitting
`
`speech data to a server so that the server could execute an application and transmit
`
`speech data back to the device for output. PO’s claims should never have issued.
`
`They should be canceled.
`
`-6-
`
`
`
`Amazon.com, Inc. v. Hammond Development Int’l, Inc.
`IPR Petition – U.S. Patent No. 10,264,032
`II. BACKGROUND OF THE ’032 PATENT.
`A. Overview
`The ’032 patent is a continuation of, and shares a specification with, U.S. Pa-
`
`tent No. 9,264,483 (“the ’483 patent”), which was the subject of Petitioner’s prior
`
`petition (IPR2020-00460). The specification describes clients connected to an ap-
`
`plication server via a network:
`
`
`
`(Ex. 1001, FIG. 1D.) The system 10 includes clients 18a-n [orange] coupled to a
`
`network 12 through communications links 32a-n. (Id., 4:7-12.)2 An application
`
`server 24 [yellow] executes applications 28, such as VoiceXML or HTML applica-
`
`tions. (Id., 3:30-34, 4:52-56.) The application server retrieves the applications
`
`over a second communication link 36 from repository 20. (Id., 4:33-43.)
`
`
`2 Citations to patents are provided in column:line format. Where possible,
`
`citations to applications are provided in page:line format.
`
`-7-
`
`
`
`Amazon.com, Inc. v. Hammond Development Int’l, Inc.
`IPR Petition – U.S. Patent No. 10,264,032
`The patent describes a client sending a request to the server. (Id., 6:13-18.)
`
`The server retrieves an application from the repository, executes the application, and
`
`begins a communication session with the client. (Id., 6:45-47.) For example, the
`
`server can request that the user respond to queries. (Id., 7:6-12.) The user’s response
`
`is sent back to the server. (Id., 7:12-21.)
`
`The ’483 patent claims were directed to the system. The ’032 patent claims
`
`are generally directed to the client device.
`
`B.
`
`Prosecution History
`The Examiner allowed the claims of the parent application (the ’483 patent)
`
`because the Board found that the relied-upon reference did not disclose a server that
`
`(a) remotely executes an application and (b) establishes a communication session
`
`with the client. (Ex. 1002, 214-219, 231-236.) During prosecution of the ’032 pa-
`
`tent, the Examiner proposed amendments “to add the allowable subject matter from
`
`the parent and sibling cases to the instant claims” and allowed the claims. (Ex. 1048,
`
`14, 1.)
`
`The references relied on herein were never submitted to, or considered by, the
`
`Examiner.
`
`C. Challenged Claims
`This petition challenges all 23 claims in the ’032 patent. The claims generally
`
`recite a communication device (client) having conventional components (e.g.,
`
`speaker, input device, processors, and memory storing software for execution) and
`-8-
`
`
`
`Amazon.com, Inc. v. Hammond Development Int’l, Inc.
`IPR Petition – U.S. Patent No. 10,264,032
`performing conventional tasks (e.g., capturing voice input, packetizing it, and send-
`
`ing it to the server, receiving requests from the server, and outputting audio). The
`
`server likewise performs conventional tasks (e.g., executing an application, generat-
`
`ing a voice representation, and sending it to the client.
`
`D.
`
`Priority
`The earliest possible priority date of the ’032 patent is the earliest possible
`
`priority date of the ’483 patent, which is July 18, 2007.
`
`E.
`
`Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art.
`A person of ordinary skill in the art (“POSITA”) of the ’032 patent would
`
`have had at least a bachelor’s degree in Computer or Electrical Engineering, Com-
`
`puter Science, or equivalent engineering discipline, and approximately three years
`
`of experience working on client-server systems for operating applications, including
`
`HTML and voice dialogue applications. (Ex. 1003 ¶¶30-32.) If a slightly different
`
`standard applies, it would not change the analysis herein. (Id. ¶34.)
`
`F. Claim Construction
`No claim terms require an express construction to resolve the obviousness
`
`challenges here. Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co. Ltd.,
`
`868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017); Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc.,
`
`200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999); Consolidated Trial Practice Guide at 44. Alt-
`
`hough the district court recently held a claim construction hearing in the co-pending
`
`-9-
`
`
`
`Amazon.com, Inc. v. Hammond Development Int’l, Inc.
`IPR Petition – U.S. Patent No. 10,264,032
`district court litigation (“the Litigation”), none of the constructions impact the obvi-
`
`ousness issues presented here. For purposes of this proceeding only, Petitioner: (a)
`
`assumes the claims are not invalid under § 112; and (b) interprets the claims con-
`
`sistent with PO’s Infringement Contentions in the Litigation (Exs. 1018, 1056).
`
`III. STATEMENT OF PRECISE RELIEF REQUESTED.
`A. Grounds
`Petitioner requests cancellation of claims 1-23 as follows:
`
`Ground 1a: Claims 1-23 are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) in view
`
`of Maes.
`
`Ground 1b: Claims 1-23 are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) in view
`
`of Maes and Maes 2.
`
`Ground 2a: Claims 1-23 are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) in view
`
`of Bharedwaj.
`
`Ground 2b: Claim 3 is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) in view of in
`
`view of Bharedwaj and Thelen.
`
`Ground 1a relies upon Maes and Maes 2, which Maes incorporates by refer-
`
`ence. (Ex. 1005, 29:9-14.) These disclosures are considered a single reference for
`
`purposes of invalidity. Callaway Golf Co. v. Acushnet Co, 576 F.3d 1331, 1346
`
`(Fed. Cir. 2009). Maes identifies with detailed particularity what specific material
`
`from Maes 2 it incorporates, “the architecture and operation of the speech browser,”
`
`-10-
`
`
`
`Amazon.com, Inc. v. Hammond Development Int’l, Inc.
`IPR Petition – U.S. Patent No. 10,264,032
`indicates where the material is found, and states that the material is “fully incorpo-
`
`rated herein by reference.” (Ex. 1005, 29:9-14.) Thus, Maes and Maes 2 are con-
`
`sidered a single reference and Ground 1a is based on single-reference obviousness
`
`in view of Maes (with Maes 2 incorporated into it).
`
`To the extent Maes and Maes 2 are not considered a single reference, Peti-
`
`tioner relies on Ground 1b, in which Petitioner contends that the claims would have
`
`been obvious over Maes and Maes 2 even if the references are considered distinct
`
`and separate references.
`
`The Declaration of Dr. Philip Greenspun (Ex. 1003), a Ph.D. in Electrical En-
`
`gineering and Computer Science who teaches at the Massachusetts Institute of Tech-
`
`nology and Harvard University (Ex. 1004, 1), provides further support.
`
`B.
`
`Status of References as Prior Art.
`The relied-upon references are prior art under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) because they
`
`published more than one year before the ’032 patent’s earliest possible priority date
`
`(July 18, 2007): (i) Maes issued on August 23, 2005; (ii) Maes 2 published on April
`
`13, 2000; (i
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
