Case 1:19-cv-01410-MN Document 199 Filed 02/10/23 Page 1 of 88 PageID #: 7619
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
`
`VB ASSETS, LLC,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`
`AMAZON.COM, INC., AMAZON.COM LLC,
`AMAZON WEB SERVICES, INC., A2Z
`DEVELOPMENT CENTER, INC. d/b/a LAB126,
`RAWLES LLC, AMZN MOBILE LLC, AMZN
`MOBILE 2 LLC, AMAZON.COM SERVICES, INC.
`f/k/a AMAZON FULFILLMENT SERVICES, INC.,
`and AMAZON DIGITAL SERVICES LLC,
`
`Defendants.
`
`C.A. No. 1:19-cv-01410-MN
`
`REDACTED PUBLIC VERSION
`
`DECLARATION OF SAINA S. SHAMILOV IN SUPPORT OF
`DEFENDANTS’ MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT OF INVALIDITY
`AND NON-INFRINGEMENT
`
`(VOLUME IV OF IV)
`Exhibits 18 – 35
`
`{01879215;v1 }
`
`

`

`Case 1:19-cv-01410-MN Document 199 Filed 02/10/23 Page 2 of 88 PageID #: 7620
`
`
`
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`I hereby certify that on the 3rd day of February, 2023, the attached DECLARATION OF
`
`SAINA S. SHAMILOV IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS’ MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY
`
`JUDGMENT OF INVALIDITY AND NON-INFRINGEMENT (VOLUME IV OF IV) was
`
`served upon the below-named counsel of record at the address and in the manner indicated:
`
`
`
`Ian R. Liston, Esquire
`WILSON SONSINI GOODRICH & ROSATI, P.C.
`222 Delaware Avenue, Suite 800
`Wilmington, DE 19801
`
`
`Edward G. Poplawski, Esquire
`WILSON SONSINI GOODRICH & ROSATI, P.C.
`633 West Fifth Street, Suite 1550
`Los Angeles, CA 90071-2027
`
`
`
`James C. Yoon, Esquire
`WILSON SONSINI GOODRICH & ROSATI, P.C.
`650 Page Mill Road
`Palo Alto, CA 94304
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`VIA ELECTRONIC MAIL
`
`VIA ELECTRONIC MAIL
`
`VIA ELECTRONIC MAIL
`
`/s/ Andrew C. Mayo
`
`Andrew C. Mayo
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`{01879215;v1 }
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:19-cv-01410-MN Document 199 Filed 02/10/23 Page 3 of 88 PagelD #: 7621
`
`EXHIBIT 18
`
`

`

`Case 1:19-cv-01410-MN Document 199 Filed 02/10/23 Page 4 of 88 PageID #: 7622
`
`
`
`REDACTED IN
`ITS ENTIRETY
`
`{00925327;v1 }
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:19-cv-01410-MN Document 199 Filed 02/10/23 Page 5 of 88 PagelD #: 7623
`
`EXHIBIT 19
`
`

`

`Case 1:19-cv-01410-MN Document 199 Filed 02/10/23 Page 6 of 88 PageID #: 7624
`
`
`
`REDACTED IN
`ITS ENTIRETY
`
`{00925327;v1 }
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:19-cv-01410-MN Document 199 Filed 02/10/23 Page 7 of 88 PagelD #: 7625
`
`EXHIBIT 20
`
`

`

`Case 1:19-cv-01410-MN Document 199 Filed 02/10/23 Page 8 of 88 PageID #: 7626
`
`
`
`REDACTED IN
`ITS ENTIRETY
`
`{00925327;v1 }
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:19-cv-01410-MN Document 199 Filed 02/10/23 Page 9 of 88 PagelD #: 7627
`
`EXHIBIT 21
`
`

`

`Case 1:19-cv-01410-MN Document 199 Filed 02/10/23 Page 10 of 88 PageID #: 7628
`
`
`
`REDACTED IN
`ITS ENTIRETY
`
`{00925327;v1 }
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:19-cv-01410-MN Document 199 Filed 02/10/23 Page 11 of 88 PagelD #: 7629
`
`EXHIBIT 22
`
`

`

`Case 1:19-cv-01410-MN Document 199 Filed 02/10/23 Page 12 of 88 PageID #: 7630
`
`
`
`REDACTED IN
`ITS ENTIRETY
`
`{00925327;v1 }
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:19-cv-01410-MN Document 199 Filed 02/10/23 Page 13 of 88 PagelD #: 7631
`
`EXHIBIT 23
`
`

`

`Case 1:19-cv-01410-MN Document 199 Filed 02/10/23 Page 14 of 88 PageID #: 7632
`
`
`
`REDACTED IN
`ITS ENTIRETY
`
`{00925327;v1 }
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:19-cv-01410-MN Document 199 Filed 02/10/23 Page 15 of 88 PagelD #: 7633
`
`EXHIBIT 24
`
`

`

`Case 1:19-cv-01410-MN Document 199 Filed 02/10/23 Page 16 of 88 PageID #: 7634
`
`
`
`REDACTED IN
`ITS ENTIRETY
`
`{00925327;v1 }
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:19-cv-01410-MN Document 199 Filed 02/10/23 Page 17 of 88 PageID #: 7635
`Case 1:19-cv-01410-MN Document 199 Filed 02/10/23 Page 17 of 88 PagelD #: 7635
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`EXHIBIT 25
`EXHIBIT 25
`
`

`

`Case 1:19-cv-01410-MN Document 199 Filed 02/10/23 Page 18 of 88 PageID #: 7636
`
`From:
`Sent:
`To:
`Cc:
`Subject:
`
`Liston, Ian <iliston@wsgr.com>
`Friday, June 3, 2022 3:19 PM
`Vigen Salmastlian; Jeffrey Ware
`Amazon-VB Assets; WSGR - VB Assets v. Amazon
`19-cv-01410-MN VB Assets, LLC v. Amazon.com, Inc. - Plaintiff’s Asserted Claims
`
`** EXTERNAL EMAIL ** 
`
`Counsel, 
`
`Pursuant to the Scheduling Order and the parties’ agreement, Plaintiff reduces its asserted claims to
`the following: 
`
`Claims 1, 13, 25, 26, 29, 30, 31, 33, 34, 36 
`Claims 15, 16, 19, 20, 21, 22, 25, 26, 30, 33 
`Claims 1, 14, 27, 29, 35, 36, 40, 43, 45, 46 
`Claims 1, 3, 5, 12, 30, 38, 50, 52, 53 
`Claims 1, 4, 8, 15, 20, 23 
`
`'681 patent 
`'703 patent 
`'176 patent 
`'536 patent 
`'097 patent 
`
`Regards, 
`Ian 
`
`Ian R. Liston 
`WILSON SONSINI GOODRICH & 
`ROSATI, P.C. 
`222 Delaware Avenue, Suite 800 
`(302)304‐7606 (direct)
`(302)430‐1360 (cell)
`
`Sent from my iPhone 
`
`Begin forwarded message: 
`
`From: ded_nefreply@ded.uscourts.gov 
`Date: May 20, 2022 at 10:58:53 AM EDT 
`To: ded_ecf@ded.uscourts.gov 
`Subject: Activity in Case 1:19‐cv‐01410‐MN VB Assets, LLC v. Amazon.com, Inc. et al SO ORDERED 
`
`EXT ‐ ded nefreply@ded.uscourts.gov
`
`This is an automatic e‐mail message generated by the CM/ECF system. Please DO NOT RESPOND to 
`this e‐mail because the mail box is unattended.  
`***NOTE TO PUBLIC ACCESS USERS*** Judicial Conference of the United States policy permits 
`attorneys of record and parties in a case (including pro se litigants) to receive one free electronic copy 
`1
`
`

`

`Case 1:19-cv-01410-MN Document 199 Filed 02/10/23 Page 19 of 88 PageID #: 7637
`
`of all documents filed electronically, if receipt is required by law or directed by the filer. PACER access 
`fees apply to all other users. To avoid later charges, download a copy of each document during this 
`first viewing. However, if the referenced document is a transcript, the free copy and 30 page limit do 
`not apply.  
`
`U.S. District Court 
`
`District of Delaware 
`
`Notice of Electronic Filing  
` 
`The following transaction was entered on 5/20/2022 at 10:58 AM EDT and filed on 5/20/2022  
`Case Name:  
`VB Assets, LLC v. Amazon.com, Inc. et al 
`Case Number: 
`1:19‐cv‐01410‐MN 
` 
`Filer: 
`Document Number: No document attached  
`
`Docket Text:  
`SO ORDERED re [143] Stipulation and Order (to extend Scheduling Order
`deadlines) (Set/Reset Scheduling Order Deadlines: Fact Discovery completed by
`6/24/2022. Opening Expert Reports due by 7/22/2022. Rebuttal Expert Reports due
`by 8/25/2022). ORDERED by Judge Maryellen Noreika on 5/20/2022. (dlw)  
`
` 
`1:19‐cv‐01410‐MN Notice has been electronically mailed to:  
` 
`Steven J. Balick     sbalick@ashbygeddes.com, amayo@ashbygeddes.com, jday@ashbygeddes.com, 
`mkipp@ashbygeddes.com, nlopez@ashbygeddes.com, nmyers@ashbygeddes.com, 
`nstarzi@ashbygeddes.com 
` 
`J. David Hadden     dhadden@fenwick.com, icampos@fenwick.com 
` 
`Saina S. Shamilov     sshamilov@fenwick.com, icampos@fenwick.com 
` 
`Andrew Colin Mayo     amayo@ashbygeddes.com, jday@ashbygeddes.com, mkipp@ashbygeddes.com, 
`nlopez@ashbygeddes.com, nmyers@ashbygeddes.com, nstarzi@ashbygeddes.com, 
`sbalick@ashbygeddes.com 
` 
`Ian Robert Liston     IListon@wsgr.com, kramos@wsgr.com, rdean@wsgr.com, 
`rfinnimorepierce@wsgr.com 
` 
`Edward G. Poplawski     epoplawski@wsgr.com, labrown@wsgr.com 
` 
`James C. Yoon     jyoon@wsgr.com, kramos@wsgr.com 
` 
`Jeffrey A. Ware     jware@fenwick.com, kbrown@fenwick.com 
` 
`Erik J. Carlson     ecarlson@wsgr.com, ctong@wsgr.com 
` 
`Johnson Kuncheria     jkuncheria@fenwick.com, johnson‐‐kuncheria‐0953@ecf.pacerpro.com 
` 
`
`2
`
`

`

`Case 1:19-cv-01410-MN Document 199 Filed 02/10/23 Page 20 of 88 PageID #: 7638
`
`Ravi R. Ranganath     rranganath@fenwick.com, icampos@fenwick.com 
` 
`Ryan R. Smith     rsmith@wsgr.com, kramos@wsgr.com 
` 
`Rebecca A.E. Fewkes     rfewkes@fenwick.com, bwalrod@fenwick.com 
` 
`Vigen Salmastlian     vsalmastlian@fenwick.com, bwalrod@fenwick.com 
` 
`Jamie Y. Otto     jotto@wsgr.com, rpezzimenti@wsgr.com 
` 
`Ryan S. Benyamin     rbenyamin@wsgr.com, labrown@wsgr.com 
` 
`Min Wu     min.wu@fenwick.com, min‐wu‐2673@ecf.pacerpro.com 
` 
`1:19‐cv‐01410‐MN Filer will deliver document by other means to:  
`
` 
` 
`This email and any attachments thereto may contain private, confidential, and privileged material for the sole use of the 
`intended recipient. Any review, copying, or distribution of this email (or any attachments thereto) by others is strictly 
`prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender immediately and permanently delete the 
`original and any copies of this email and any attachments thereto.  
`
`3
`
`

`

`Case 1:19-cv-01410-MN Document 199 Filed 02/10/23 Page 21 of 88 PageID #: 7639
`Case 1:19-cv-01410-MN Document 199 Filed 02/10/23 Page 21 of 88 PagelD #: 7639
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`EXHIBIT 26
`EXHIBIT 26
`
`

`

`Case 1:19-cv-01410-MN Document 199 Filed 02/10/23 Page 22 of 88 PageID #: 7640
`
`From:
`Sent:
`To:
`Cc:
`
`Subject:
`
`Yoon, James <JYoon@wsgr.com>
`Sunday, August 14, 2022 5:36 PM
`Vigen Salmastlian
`Liston, Ian; Jeffrey Ware; Mayo, Andrew C.; Balick, Steven J.; Carlson, Erik; WSGR - VB Assets v.
`Amazon; Amazon-VB Assets; Smith, Ryan
`VB Assets v. Amazon: Opening Expert Reports - Asserted Claims
`
`** EXTERNAL EMAIL ** 
`
`Vigen,  
`
`Thank you for your email and consideration.  
`
`To further streamline the case and reduce the burden on the parties and the Court, VB Assets hereby drops 
`the following claims from the case: 
`’681 patent, claim 34; 
`
`’703 patent, claim 19; 
`
`’176 patent, claim 36; 
`
`’536 patent, claim 5. 
`
`
`An updated list of VB Assets’ currently asserted claims is provided below: 
`
`Patent 
`’681 Patent 
`’703 Patent 
`’176 Patent 
`’536 Patent 
`’097 Patent 
`
`Asserted Claims 
`1, 13, 25, 26, 29–31, 33, and 36 
`15, 16, 20–22, 25, 26, and 30, 33 
`1, 14, 27, 29, 35, 40, 43, 45, and 46 
`1, 3, 12, 30, 38, 50, 52, and 53 
`1, 4, 8, 15, 20, and 23 
`
`Talk to you soon, 
`
`Jim 
`
`James Yoon  
`Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati 
`650 Page Mill Road 
`Palo Alto, CA 94304 
`650‐320‐4726 (Direct) 
`650‐714‐8493 (Cell) 
`
`On Aug 14, 2022, at 5:31 PM, Vigen Salmastlian <vsalmastlian@fenwick.com> wrote: 
`
`EXT ‐ vsalmastlian@fenwick.com
`
`We agree to the 9 ET exchange. 
`
`1
`
`

`

`Case 1:19-cv-01410-MN Document 199 Filed 02/10/23 Page 23 of 88 PageID #: 7641
`
` 
`Vigen Salmastlian 
`Partner | Fenwick & West | 650‐335‐7853 
`vsalmastlian@fenwick.com 
`________________________________ 
`From: Liston, Ian <iliston@wsgr.com> 
`Sent: Sunday, August 14, 2022 4:54:52 PM 
`To: Jeffrey Ware <jware@fenwick.com>; Mayo, Andrew C. <AMayo@ashbygeddes.com>; Balick, Steven 
`J. <SBalick@ashbygeddes.com> 
`Cc: Carlson, Erik <ecarlson@wsgr.com>; WSGR ‐ VB Assets v. Amazon <vbassets@wsgr.com>; Amazon‐
`VB Assets <Amazon‐VBAssets@fenwick.com> 
`Subject: VB Assets v. Amazon: Opening Expert Reports 
` 
`** EXTERNAL EMAIL ** 
` 
`Counsel, 
` 
`We propose exchanging opening expert reports at 9pm ET tomorrow.  Could you please let us know if 
`Amazon agrees? 
` 
`Best, 
`Ian 
` 
`Ian R. Liston 
`WILSON SONSINI GOODRICH & 
`ROSATI, P.C. 
`222 Delaware Avenue, Suite 800 
`(302)304‐7606 (direct) 
`(302)430‐1360 (cell) 
` 
` 
` 
` 
`This email and any attachments thereto may contain private, confidential, and privileged material for 
`the sole use of the intended recipient. Any review, copying, or distribution of this email (or any 
`attachments thereto) by others is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please 
`contact the sender immediately and permanently delete the original and any copies of this email and 
`any attachments thereto. 
`
` 
` 
`This email and any attachments thereto may contain private, confidential, and privileged material for the sole use of the 
`intended recipient. Any review, copying, or distribution of this email (or any attachments thereto) by others is strictly 
`prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender immediately and permanently delete the 
`original and any copies of this email and any attachments thereto.  
`
`2
`
`

`

`Case 1:19-cv-01410-MN Document 199 Filed 02/10/23 Page 24 of 88 PageID #: 7642
`
`
`
`EXHIBIT 27
`
`
`
`
`
`
`{00396086;v1}
`
`

`

`Case 1:19-cv-01410-MN Document 199 Filed 02/10/23 Page 25 of 88 PageID #: 7643
`
`0001
`
`VB ASSETS - EXHIBIT 2005
`Amazon.com, Inc. et al. v. VB Assets, LLC
`IPR2020-01367
`
`

`

`Case 1:19-cv-01410-MN Document 199 Filed 02/10/23 Page 26 of 88 PageID #: 7644
`Case 1:19-cv-01410-MN Document 199 Filed 02/10/23 Page 26 of 88 PagelD #: 7644
`
`Electronic Patent Application Fee Transmittal
`
`Title of Invention:
`
`SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR A COOPERATIVE CONVERSATIONAL VOICE USER
`INTERFACE
`
`Quantity
`
`mee
`
`First Named Inventor/Applicant Name:
`
`Larry Baldwin
`
`Attorney Docket Number:
`
`62KC-218162
`
`Filed as Large Entity
`
`Filing Fees for Utility under 35 USC 111(a)
`
`Description
`
`Fee Code
`
`Sub-Total in
`
`USD(S)
`
`0002
`
`0002
`
`

`

`.
`US
`Case 1:19-cv-01410-MN Document 199 Filed 02/10/23 Page 27 of 88 PageID #: 7645
`Sub-Total in
`Description
`Fee Code
`Quantity
`
`Total in USD ($)
`
`USD(S)
`
`Miscellaneous:
`
`0003
`
`0003
`
`

`

`International Application Number:
`
`Confirmation Number:
`
`6670
`
`Title of Invention:
`
`SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR A COOPERATIVE CONVERSATIONAL VOICE USER
`INTERFACE
`
`Case 1:19-cv-01410-MN Document 199 Filed 02/10/23 Page 28 of 88 PageID #: 7646
`Electronic AcknowledgementReceipt
`
`Application Number:
`
`11580926
`
`
`
`ee
`
`Paymentinformation:
`
`The Director of the USPTO is hereby authorized to charge indicated fees and credit any overpaymentas follows:
`
`[Pepostacount——SSCSCSCSCS~*idSCSS
`
`0004
`
`0004
`
`

`

`Case 1:19-cv-01410-MN Document 199 Filed 02/10/23 Page 29 of 88 PageID #: 7647
`
`File Listing:
`
`Pages
`Multi
`File Size(Bytes)/
`DocumentDescription
`Document
`
`
`
`Number Message Digest|Part/.zip|P (if appl.)
`454581
`
`1
`
`Terminal Disclaimer Filed
`
`62KC-218162_Disclaimer.pdf
`
`42a3273ccdacd979f6b0e3bOb4dccfd4ef99}
`0a07
`
`Information:
`
`2
`
`Fee Worksheet (SB06)
`
`fee-info.pdf
`
`3c632d83e18d6b2f765887ec699693ccead
`c9bfe
`
`1
`
`2
`
`
`
`
`New Applications Under 35 U.S.C. 111
`If a new application is being filed and the application includes the necessary componentsfora filing date (see 37 CFR
`1.53(b)-(d) and MPEP 506), a Filing Receipt (37 CFR 1.54) will be issued in due course and the date shown onthis
`AcknowledgementReceiptwill establish thefiling date of the application.
`
`National Stage of an International Application under 35 U.S.C. 371
`If a timely submission to enter the national stage of an international application is compliant with the conditions of 35
`U.S.C. 371 and other applicable requirements a Form PCT/DO/EO/903indicating acceptanceof the application asa
`national stage submission under35 U.S.C. 371 will be issued in addition to the Filing Receipt, in due course.
`New International Application Filed with the USPTO as a Receiving Office
`If a new international application is being filed and the international application includes the necessary components for
`an international filing date (see PCT Article 11 and MPEP 1810), a Notification of the International Application Number
`and of the International Filing Date (Form PCT/RO/105)will be issued in due course, subject to prescriptions concerning
`national security, and the date shownon this AcknowledgementReceiptwill establish the international filing date of
`the application.
`
`Information:
`
`This AcknowledgementReceipt evidences receipt on the noted date by the USPTO ofthe indicated documents,
`characterized by the applicant, and including page counts, where applicable.It serves as evidence of receipt similar to a
`Post Card, as described in MPEP 503.
`
`0005
`
`0005
`
`

`

`Case 1:19-cv-01410-MN Document 199 Filed 02/10/23 Page 30 of 88 PageID #: 7648
`
`
`
`EXHIBIT 28
`
`
`
`
`
`
`{00396086;v1}
`
`

`

`Case 1:19-cv-01410-MN Document 199 Filed 02/10/23 Page 31 of 88 PageID #: 7649
`Paper No. ___
`Filed: December 17, 2020
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`_____________________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`_____________________________
`
`AMAZON.COM, INC.; AMAZON.COM LLC; AMAZON WEB
`SERVICES, INC.; A2Z DEVELOPMENT CENTER, INC. D/B/A LAB126;
`RAWLES LLC; AMZN MOBILE LLC; AMZN MOBILE 2 LLC;
`AMAZON.COM SERVICES, INC. F/K/A AMAZON FULFILLMENT
`SERVICES, INC.; and AMAZON.COM SERVICES LLC (formerly
`AMAZON DIGITAL SERVICES LLC),
`Petitioners,
`
`v.
`
`VB ASSETS, LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`_____________________________
`
`Case IPR2020-01367
`Patent No. 8,073,681
`_____________________________
`
`
`PATENT OWNER’S PRELIMINARY RESPONSE
`PURSUANT TO 37 C.F.R. § 42.107
`
`

`

`Case 1:19-cv-01410-MN Document 199 Filed 02/10/23 Page 32 of 88 PageID #: 7650
`
`
`I. 
`II. 
`
`INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................... 1 
`PETITIONERS’ DEFICIENT CLAIM CONSTRUCTION SIGNALS
`GAMESMANSHIP ......................................................................................... 2 
`III.  THE PETITION FAILS TO DEMONSTRATE THAT THE
`CHALLENGED CLAIMS ARE OBVIOUS .................................................. 4 
`A. 
`Petitioners Fail to Show a Reasonable Likelihood that Claim 1
`is Obvious .............................................................................................. 5 
`1.  Limitation 1.a – “receiving an utterance at a voice input
`device during a current conversation with a user, wherein
`the utterance includes one or more words that have
`different meanings in different contexts” ....................................... 5 
`2.  Limitation 1.d – “determining an intended meaning for the
`utterance,” ....................................................................................... 9 
`3.  Limitation 1.e – “wherein determining the intended
`meaning for the utterance includes: identifying, at a
`conversational speech engine, a context associated with the
`utterance from the short-term shared knowledge and the
`long-term shared knowledge” ......................................................... 9 
`4.  Limitation 1.f – “establishing the intended meaning within
`the identified context, wherein the conversational speech
`engine establishes the intended meaning within the
`identified context to disambiguate an intent that the user
`had in speaking the one or more words that have the
`different meanings in the different contexts” ............................... 10 
`5.  Limitation 1.g – “generating a response to the utterance,
`wherein the conversational speech engine grammatically or
`syntactically adapts the response based on the intended
`meaning established within the identified context” ...................... 14 
`Petitioners Fail to Show a Reasonable Likelihood that Claim 13
`Is Obvious ............................................................................................ 16 
`Petitioners Fail to Show a Reasonable Likelihood that Claim 25
`Is Obvious ............................................................................................ 16 
`
`B. 
`
`C. 
`
`i
`
`

`

`Case 1:19-cv-01410-MN Document 199 Filed 02/10/23 Page 33 of 88 PageID #: 7651
`
`
`D. 
`
`Petitioners Fail to Show a Reasonable Likelihood that Claim 37
`Is Obvious ............................................................................................ 17 
`1.  Limitation 37.f – “inferring additional information about
`the utterance from the short-term shared knowledge and the
`long-term shared knowledge in response to determining
`that the utterance contains insufficient information to
`complete a request in the identified context” ............................... 17 
`2.  Limitation 37.g – “establishing the intended meaning
`within the identified context based on the additional
`information inferred about the utterance” .................................... 20 
`Petitioners Fail to Show a Reasonable Likelihood that Claim 39
`Is Obvious ............................................................................................ 21 
`Petitioners Fail to Show a Reasonable Likelihood that Claim 41
`Is Obvious ............................................................................................ 21 
`IV.  CONCLUSION .............................................................................................. 21 
`
`E. 
`
`F. 
`
`ii
`
`

`

`Case 1:19-cv-01410-MN Document 199 Filed 02/10/23 Page 34 of 88 PageID #: 7652
`
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`The Board should not institute inter partes review (IPR) on claims 1–41 of
`
`U.S. Patent No. 8,073,681 (“the ’681 patent”) because Petitioners have not met
`
`their burden of showing that they have a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on
`
`their proposed grounds of unpatentability.
`
`Petitioners assert that Kennewick renders all six independent claims
`
`obvious. In doing so, Petitioners fail to provide disclosure in Kennewick to support
`
`their arguments but instead resort to improper gap filling using unsupported and
`
`conclusory expert opinions. Additionally, Petitioners improperly conflate discrete
`
`aspects of Kennewick to bridge other gaps in their analysis. Kennewick separately
`
`discloses a context determination step and a subsequent question formulation step
`
`but Petitioners lump them together, mixing and matching the disclosures in an
`
`effort to map to the challenged claims without providing any explanation why it
`
`would have been obvious to do so.
`
`For example, Claims 1, 13, and 25 require receiving a specific type of
`
`utterance, one that has “different meanings in different contexts” and processing it
`
`in a specific way to disambiguate an intent that the user had in speaking the
`
`utterance. Petitioners base their argument for these limitations on two examples,
`
`one from the context determination step and another from the question formulation
`
`step. Neither example has the claimed utterance with different meanings in
`
`1
`
`

`

`Case 1:19-cv-01410-MN Document 199 Filed 02/10/23 Page 35 of 88 PageID #: 7653
`
`
`different contexts, and neither discloses disambiguating an intent that the user had
`
`in speaking the utterance. Petitioners point only to expert opinions to fill these
`
`gaps. Claims 1, 13, and 25 also require grammatically or syntactically adapting a
`
`response based on intended meaning. But again, Petitioners fail to show any
`
`adaptation based on intended meaning and improperly attempt to fill this gap with
`
`expert opinions.
`
`The remaining independent claims (37, 39, and 41) require inferring
`
`additional information about an utterance and establishing an intended meaning
`
`based on the inferred information. Petitioners cite numerous disparate bits of
`
`disclosure from Kennewick for these limitations but never explain how the pieces
`
`fit together to disclose the limitations. Instead, Petitioners rely on unsupported
`
`expert opinions to supply disclosure missing from Kennewick in the guise of what
`
`a POSITA would purportedly understand.
`
`Accordingly, institution of inter partes review should be denied.
`
`II.
`
`PETITIONERS’ DEFICIENT CLAIM CONSTRUCTION SIGNALS
`GAMESMANSHIP
`A petition “must identify … [h]ow the challenged claim is to be construed.”
`
`37 CFR §42.104(b)(3) (emphasis added). In a boilerplate section, Petitioners cite
`
`the Philips standard and merely state that claims terms “should be given the
`
`meaning ‘a person of ordinary skill in the art in question at the time of the
`
`invention’ would ascribe them based on the patent and its file history.” Pet., 7
`
`2
`
`

`

`Case 1:19-cv-01410-MN Document 199 Filed 02/10/23 Page 36 of 88 PageID #: 7654
`
`
`(quoting Philips). Yet Petitioners do not explicitly construe any terms, except for
`
`one term (“implicit hypothesis”) from three dependent claims (38, 40, 42). For the
`
`independent claims, Petitioners appear to rely on broad, unstated constructions of
`
`the claim limitations in order to stretch the prior art to cover the claims. For
`
`example, Petitioners argue that determining the content and format of a response
`
`meets Claim 1’s limitation relating to “grammatically or syntactically adapt[ing]
`
`the response based on the intended meaning.” Pet., 21–23. As discussed in more
`
`detail below, Petitioners never explain how determining content and format of a
`
`response is adapting the response based on the intended meaning, let alone a
`
`grammatical or syntactic adaptation. As another example, Petitioners argue that
`
`asking a user for additional information meets Claim 37’s limitation relating to
`
`“inferring additional information about the utterance.” Pet., at 30. Again, as
`
`discussed in more detail below, Petitioners do not explain how asking a user for
`
`additional information involves any inference about an utterance. Patent Owner
`
`and the Board should not bear the burden of guessing at Petitioners’ underlying
`
`claim interpretation when deciphering the prior art mapping.
`
`Rather than explicitly address their applied interpretations of the claim
`
`elements, Petitioners telegraph claim construction gamesmanship by purporting
`
`that “nothing in this Petition is a waiver of any arguments, positions, or appellate
`
`3
`
`

`

`Case 1:19-cv-01410-MN Document 199 Filed 02/10/23 Page 37 of 88 PageID #: 7655
`
`
`rights of Petitioners, including, but not limited to, claim construction.” Pet., 7 n.6.1
`
`In other words, Petitioners reserve the right to rely on new claim constructions
`
`later in this proceeding as well as take inconsistent positions before the Board and
`
`in court. Yet this runs directly counter to the Patent Office’s intent to “reduce the
`
`potential for inconsistent results between different fora” and “promote a more fair
`
`and balanced system because parties will no longer be able to argue for a broader
`
`claim scope in PTAB proceedings than that used by federal courts.” Claim
`
`Construction Final Rule, 83 Fed. Reg. 51340, 51348-350 (Oct. 11, 2018). When
`
`reviewing the grounds of challenge, the Board should consider Petitioners’ failure
`
`to provide a substantive discussion of its claim interpretations and its signaling of
`
`future gamesmanship, which should weigh heavily against granting institution.
`
`III. THE PETITION FAILS TO DEMONSTRATE THAT THE
`CHALLENGED CLAIMS ARE OBVIOUS
`Petitioners’ only ground challenging Claims 1, 13, 25, 37, 39, and 41 of the
`
`’681 patent (the six independent claims) is based on Kennewick, alone or in
`
`combination with the knowledge of a person of ordinary skill in the art
`
`(“POSITA”). Pet., 15. But Petitioners fail to meet their burden to show a
`
`reasonable likelihood that the Petitioners would prevail. All remaining claims
`
`depend from one of the independent claims. Thus, institution should be denied.
`
`
`1 All emphasis added unless otherwise noted.
`
`4
`
`

`

`Case 1:19-cv-01410-MN Document 199 Filed 02/10/23 Page 38 of 88 PageID #: 7656
`
`
`A.
`
`Petitioners Fail to Show a Reasonable Likelihood that Claim 1 is
`Obvious
`The petition fails to establish that Claim 1 is obvious. Petitioners rely
`
`entirely on Kennewick in their arguments regarding Claim 1. Pet., 15–23. For the
`
`reasons explained below, Petitioners have failed to show Kennewick discloses
`
`limitations 1.a and 1.d–1.g. As to limitation 1.a, Petitioners fail to show that
`
`Kennewick discloses the specific type of utterance required by the limitation, one
`
`that has different meanings in different contexts. As to limitations 1.d–1.f,
`
`Petitioners fail to show that Kennewick discloses the specific claimed steps for
`
`determining an intended meaning, including by disambiguating an intent of the
`
`user. Finally, for limitation 1.g, Petitioners fail to identify disclosure of
`
`grammatically or syntactically adapting the response based on the intended
`
`meaning of the utterance.
`
`1.
`
`Limitation 1.a – “receiving an utterance at a voice input
`device during a current conversation with a user, wherein
`the utterance includes one or more words that have
`different meanings in different contexts”
`The petition fails to show that Kennewick discloses limitation 1.a. of the
`
`’681 patent, which recites “receiving an utterance at a voice input device during a
`
`current conversation with a user, wherein the utterance includes one or more words
`
`that have different meanings in different contexts.” This limitation recites a
`
`specific type of ambiguity that is resolved in a specific way in the remaining
`
`5
`
`

`

`Case 1:19-cv-01410-MN Document 199 Filed 02/10/23 Page 39 of 88 PageID #: 7657
`
`
`limitations of Claim 1. The utterance “includes one or more words that have
`
`different meanings in different contexts.” Petitioners cite no disclosure in
`
`Kennewick describing this specific type of ambiguity. Instead, Petitioners cite a
`
`“temperature” example that does not have two different meanings, and a “flight”
`
`example that relates to determining which of two different words that sound the
`
`same is the correct word in a single context.
`
`Petitioners argue that the “temperature” example shows that “received
`
`utterances can contain words that mean different things based on the context of the
`
`utterance in a conversation.” Pet., 16. But Kennewick discloses this temperature
`
`example in its context determination step, where a parser uses the keyword
`
`“temperature” to determine context—not meaning. EX1003, [0160]. Kennewick
`
`explains that after a speech recognition engine recognizes words and phrases of the
`
`utterance, the parser runs two distinct steps: “determin[ing] a context for an
`
`utterance” (EX1003, [0160]–[0161]) and, subsequently, “formulat[ing] a question
`
`or command” (Id., [0162]–[0164]). The former step relates to determining a
`
`context so that the parser can invoke “the correct agent.” Id., [0161]. The latter step
`
`occurs after the “context for the question or command has been determined” when
`
`the parser formulates the question or command “in the regular grammar used by
`
`agents” by determining values for “criteria or parameters.” Id., [0162].
`
`6
`
`

`

`Case 1:19-cv-01410-MN Document 199 Filed 02/10/23 Page 40 of 88 PageID #: 7658
`
`
`Notably, the temperature example does not appear in the latter step that
`
`relates to formulating a question or command after context has been determined.
`
`Id., [0162]–[0164]. Unable to find support in Kennewick for two different
`
`meanings of “temperature,” Petitioners rely on their expert to improperly attempt
`
`to fill the gap by supplying a “body temperature” meaning that is not in
`
`Kennewick. Pet., 16 citing EX1002, ¶69.
`
`Moreover, even if Petitioners’ argument had support in Kennewick, it would
`
`still fail to show two different meanings of “temperature.” Petitioners’ expert
`
`hypothesizes that “‘temperature’ could be interpreted as an outdoor temperature or
`
`as a body temperature depending on the context.” EX1002, ¶69. Even if that
`
`disclosure were in Kennewick, and it is not, it would simply confirm that, in both
`
`situations, “temperature” means “temperature.” The additional qualifiers
`
`Petitioners’ expert added, i.e. “outdoor” and “body,” do not change the meaning of
`
`“temperature.” Thus, Petitioners’ reliance on the “temperature” example does not
`
`support their argument.
`
`The second example Petitioners rely on relates to the question “what about
`
`flight one hundred and twenty too.” Pet., 16–17 citing EX1003, [0163]. Kennewick
`
`explains: “The parser and domain agent use flight information in the database and
`
`network information along with context to determine the most plausible
`
`interpretation among; flight 100 and flight 20 also, flight 100 and flight 22, flight
`
`7
`
`

`

`Case 1:19-cv-01410-MN Document 199 Filed 02/10/23 Page 41 of 88 PageID #: 7659
`
`
`122, etc.” EX1003. [0613]. Here, Kennewick indicates—at most—interpreting
`
`“flight one hundred and twenty too” in the flight information context. Notably, this
`
`passage of Kennewick describes formulating a question or command after the
`
`context has already been determined and the appropriate agent has been invoked.
`
`The preceding paragraph indicates “the context for the question or command has
`
`been determined” (EX1003, [0162]) and the following disclosure relates to
`
`formulating a question or command for processing by the agent (EX1003, [0162]–
`
`[0163]). Accordingly, Petitioners have failed to show that “flight one hundred and
`
`twenty too” has different meanings in different contexts. At most, this example
`
`discloses considering different interpretations within a single context.
`
`Petitioners rely on unsupported and conclusory expert opinions in an attempt
`
`to contradict the disclosures of Kennewick regarding the flight example. Pet., 16–
`
`17 citing EX1002, ¶70. Petitioners’ expert opines that “A context in which ‘flight
`
`122’ exists would result in a different meaning than a context where the system
`
`just listed several flight options including ‘flight 100’ and ‘flight 20.’” EX1002,
`
`¶70. This speculation is inconsistent with Kennewick. As explained above,
`
`Kennewick discloses the “flight one hundred and twenty too” example in a passage
`
`relating to formulating a question or command after the context for the question or
`
`command has been determined. EX1003, [0162]–[0163]. Petitioners’ reliance on
`
`the secon