Case 1:19-cv-01410-MN Document 218 Filed 03/30/23 Page 1 of 58 PageID #: 8909
`
`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 VIGEN SALMASTLIAN IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS’
`MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT OF INVALIDITY
`AND NON-INFRINGEMENT
`
`ASHBY & GEDDES, P.A.
`Steven J. Balick (#2114)
`sbalick@ashbygeddes.com
`Andrew C. Mayo (#5207)
`amayo@ashbygeddes.com
`500 Delaware Avenue, 8th Floor
`P.O. Box 1150
`Wilmington, DE 19899
`(302) 654-1888
`
`Counsel for Defendants
`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
`
`Of counsel:
`
`J. David Hadden, CSB No. 176148
`Saina S. Shamilov, CSB No. 215636
`Ravi R. Ranganath, CSB No. 272981
`Vigen Salmastlian, CSB No. 276846
`Allen Wang, CBS No. 278953
`Johnson Kuncheria, CSB No. 335765
`Min Wu, CSB No. 307512
`Jeffrey A. Ware, CSB No. 271603
`Rebecca A.E. Fewkes, CSB No. 209168
`FENWICK & WEST LLP
`801 California Street
`Mountain View, CA 94041
`(650) 988-8500
`
`Dated: March 24, 2023
`
`{01892111;v1 }
`
`1
`
`

`

`Case 1:19-cv-01410-MN Document 218 Filed 03/30/23 Page 2 of 58 PageID #: 8910
`
`
`
`I, Vigen Salmastlian, declare as follows:
`
`1.
`
`I am a licensed attorney admitted in the State of California and admitted pro hac
`
`vice to this Court. I am a partner at the law firm of Fenwick & West LLP, counsel of record for
`
`Defendants 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 (collectively, “Amazon”) in this matter. I have personal knowledge of the facts in
`
`this declaration and can competently testify to those facts.
`
`2.
`
`Attached hereto as Exhibit 15 is a true and correct copy of an excerpt from the
`
`deposition transcript of Nathaniel Polish, Ph.D. (December 8, 2022), which includes additional
`
`testimony cited in Amazon’s reply brief.
`
`3.
`
`Attached hereto as Exhibit 17 is a true and correct copy of an excerpt from the
`
`deposition transcript of John Charles Peck, Jr. (November 3, 2022), which includes additional
`
`testimony cited in Amazon’s reply brief.
`
`4.
`
`Attached hereto as Exhibit 18 is a true and correct copy of an excerpt from the
`
`deposition transcript of Björn Hoffmeister (May 27, 2022), which includes additional testimony
`
`cited in Amazon’s reply brief.
`
`5.
`
`Attached hereto as Exhibit 19 is a true and correct copy of an excerpt from the
`
`deposition transcript of Kelly Vanee (July 1, 2022), which includes additional testimony cited in
`
`Amazon’s reply brief.
`
`6.
`
`Attached hereto as Exhibit 20 is a true and correct copy of an excerpt from the
`
`deposition transcript of Vinod Krishnan (June 3, 2022), which includes additional testimony cited
`
`in Amazon’s reply brief.
`
`{01892111;v1 }
`
`1
`
`

`

`Case 1:19-cv-01410-MN Document 218 Filed 03/30/23 Page 3 of 58 PageID #: 8911
`
`
`
`7.
`
`Attached hereto as Exhibit 21 is a true and correct copy of an excerpt from the
`
`deposition transcript of Michael Rye Kennewick (May 16, 2022), which includes additional
`
`testimony cited in Amazon’s reply brief.
`
`8.
`
`Attached hereto as Exhibit 22 is a true and correct copy of an excerpt from the
`
`deposition transcript of Thomas Freeman (June 1, 2022), which includes additional testimony cited
`
`in Amazon’s reply brief.
`
`9.
`
`Attached hereto as Exhibit 36 is a true and correct copy of Amazon.com, Inc. v. VB
`
`Assets, LLC, IPR2020-01380, Paper 6 (Nov. 9, 2020).
`
`
`
`I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States of America that the
`
`foregoing is true and correct. Executed in Mountain View, California on March 24, 2023.
`
`
`
`
`
`/s/ Vigen Salmastlian
`Vigen Salmastlian
`
`
`
`
`
`{01892111;v1 }
`
`2
`
`

`

`Case 1:19-cv-01410-MN Document 218 Filed 03/30/23 Page 4 of 58 PageID #: 8912
`
`
`
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`I hereby certify that on the 24th day of March, 2023, the attached DECLARATION OF
`
`VIGEN SALMASTLIAN IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS’ MOTIONS FOR
`
`SUMMARY JUDGMENT OF INVALIDITY AND NON-INFRINGEMENT 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
`
`
`
`Erik J. Carlson, 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
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`{01892111;v1 }
`
`

`

`Case 1:19-cv-01410-MN Document 218 Filed 03/30/23 Page 5 of 58 PagelD #: 8913
`
`EXHIBIT 15
`
`

`

`Case 1:19-cv-01410-MN Document 218 Filed 03/30/23 Page 6 of 58 PageID #: 8914
`
`
`
`REDACTED IN
`ITS ENTIRETY
`
`{00925327;v1 }
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:19-cv-01410-MN Document 218 Filed 03/30/23 Page 7 of 58 PagelD #: 8915
`
`EXHIBIT 17
`
`

`

`Case 1:19-cv-01410-MN Document 218 Filed 03/30/23 Page 8 of 58 PageID #: 8916
`
`
`
`REDACTED IN
`ITS ENTIRETY
`
`{00925327;v1 }
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:19-cv-01410-MN Document 218 Filed 03/30/23 Page 9 of 58 PagelD #: 8917
`
`EXHIBIT 18
`
`

`

`Case 1:19-cv-01410-MN Document 218 Filed 03/30/23 Page 10 of 58 PageID #: 8918
`
`
`
`REDACTED IN
`ITS ENTIRETY
`
`{00925327;v1 }
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:19-cv-01410-MN Document 218 Filed 03/30/23 Page 11 of 58 PagelD #: 8919
`
`EXHIBIT 19
`
`

`

`Case 1:19-cv-01410-MN Document 218 Filed 03/30/23 Page 12 of 58 PageID #: 8920
`
`
`
`REDACTED IN
`ITS ENTIRETY
`
`{00925327;v1 }
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:19-cv-01410-MN Document 218 Filed 03/30/23 Page 13 of 58 PagelD #: 8921
`
`EXHIBIT 20
`
`

`

`Case 1:19-cv-01410-MN Document 218 Filed 03/30/23 Page 14 of 58 PageID #: 8922
`
`
`
`REDACTED IN
`ITS ENTIRETY
`
`{00925327;v1 }
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:19-cv-01410-MN Document 218 Filed 03/30/23 Page 15 of 58 PagelD #: 8923
`
`EXHIBIT 21
`
`

`

`Case 1:19-cv-01410-MN Document 218 Filed 03/30/23 Page 16 of 58 PageID #: 8924
`
`
`
`REDACTED IN
`ITS ENTIRETY
`
`{00925327;v1 }
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:19-cv-01410-MN Document 218 Filed 03/30/23 Page 17 of 58 PagelD #: 8925
`
`EXHIBIT 22
`
`

`

`Case 1:19-cv-01410-MN Document 218 Filed 03/30/23 Page 18 of 58 PageID #: 8926
`
`
`
`REDACTED IN
`ITS ENTIRETY
`
`{00925327;v1 }
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:19-cv-01410-MN Document 218 Filed 03/30/23 Page 19 of 58 PageID #: 8927
`
`
`
`EXHIBIT 36
`
`
`
`
`
`
`{00396086;v1}
`
`

`

`Case 1:19-cv-01410-MN Document 218 Filed 03/30/23 Page 20 of 58 PageID #: 8928
`Paper No. ___
`Filed: November 9, 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 SERVICE LLC),
`Petitioners,
`
`v.
`
`VB ASSETS, LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`_____________________________
`
`Case IPR2020-01380
`Patent No. 9,626,703
`_____________________________
`
`
`PATENT OWNER’S PRELIMINARY RESPONSE
`PURSUANT TO 37 C.F.R. § 42.107
`
`

`

`Case 1:19-cv-01410-MN Document 218 Filed 03/30/23 Page 21 of 58 PageID #: 8929
`
`I. 
`II. 
`III. 
`
`INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................... 1 
`CLAIM CONSTRUCTION ............................................................................ 3 
`PETITIONERS HAVE FAILED TO ESTABLISH THAT COHEN IN
`COMBINATION WITH HAO AND KENNEWICK-II RENDER
`OBVIOUS THE CHALLENGED CLAIMS................................................... 4 
`A. 
`Petitioners have failed to articulate their ground of challenge with
`particularity ........................................................................................... 4 
`Petitioners have failed to provide a sufficient rationale to combine the
`references ............................................................................................... 9 
`Petitioners fail to establish that “determining … a context based at
`least on the one or more words or phrases” is obvious ....................... 15 
`1.  Cohen ............................................................................................ 16 
`2.  Hao
` ............................................................................................ 17 
`3.  Petitioners’ proposal to modify Cohen and Hao in view of
`Kennewick-II is illogical .............................................................. 21 
`Petitioners fail to establish that the obviousness combination identifies
`a product based on the determined context ......................................... 22 
`Petitioners fail to establish that the obviousness combination obtains
`payment information ........................................................................... 24 
`Petitioners fail to establish that the asserted combination obtains
`shipping information with which to deliver the product or service. ... 25 
`Petitioners fail to establish that Cohen and Hao disclose completing,
`without further user input, a purchase transaction based on the
`payment information and shipping information .................................. 28 
`IV.  PETITIONERS FAIL TO EXPLAIN WHY TWO PETITIONS AGAINST
`THE ’703 PATENT ARE NECESSARY ..................................................... 31 
`CONCLUSION .............................................................................................. 35 
`
`B. 
`
`C. 
`
`D. 
`
`E. 
`
`F. 
`
`G. 
`
`V. 
`
`i
`
`

`

`Case 1:19-cv-01410-MN Document 218 Filed 03/30/23 Page 22 of 58 PageID #: 8930
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`The Board should not institute inter partes review (IPR) on claims 1, 7-15,
`
`21-24, and 30-33 of U.S. Patent No. 9,626,703 (the “’703 patent”) because
`
`Petitioners have not met their burden of showing that they have a reasonable
`
`likelihood of prevailing on its proposed ground of unpatentability.
`
`Petitioners’ case is riddled with flaws. Although Petitioners claim that the
`
`challenged claims are obvious in view of the combination of Cohen, Hao, and
`
`Kennewick-II, Petitioners rely on different and inconsistent combinations from
`
`page-to-page, including what appears to be parallel grounds of challenge using
`
`either Cohen or Hao as primary references in contrast to Petitioners’ initial claim
`
`that Cohen is the primary reference. Moreover, these various combinations
`
`frequently lack any explanation of rationale to combine, and even for the rationales
`
`presented, they are presented as a single conclusory sentence unsupported by any
`
`expert testimony. It is simply unclear what Petitioners’ obviousness case is
`
`supposed to be.
`
`Petitioners’ mapping of the references to the limitations is also highly
`
`flawed. The challenged claims of the ’703 patent recite systems and methods
`
`where a context is determined for a user’s utterance which results in the
`
`identification and purchase of a product or service without any further user input.
`
`Petitioners rely on two single-word statements: in Cohen, “Yes” in response to a
`
`1
`
`

`

`Case 1:19-cv-01410-MN Document 218 Filed 03/30/23 Page 23 of 58 PageID #: 8931
`
`rental car offer and, in Hao, “need” followed by a list of items to be purchased.
`
`Yet nothing in Cohen or Hao disclose any determination of context for these single
`
`words, nor is context determination even necessary given the simplicity of the
`
`commands. For example, in Hao, Petitioners attempt to distinguish a so-called
`
`shopping request context from a shopping cart interaction context when no such
`
`distinction is warranted by Hao’s disclosures. Instead, Hao simply involves a user
`
`interacting with an e-commerce shopping cart—no context determination is
`
`described or needed. Furthermore, Petitioners’ assertion that it would have been
`
`obvious to modify Cohen or Hao in view of Kennewick-II to enhance context
`
`determination is illogical given that Cohen and Hao do not have any context
`
`determination to enhance.
`
`Petitioners also fail to show that Cohen’s system identifies a product based
`
`on the relied-upon spoken word, given that the product was already identified prior
`
`to the user’s response, and that Cohen’s system obtains shipping information,
`
`given that the relied-upon activity is a car rental. Additionally, Petitioners fail to
`
`show that Hao’s “need” statement (which Hao makes clear is a textual input not a
`
`spoken input) results in automatic purchasing of the items without further user
`
`input—indeed, Hao is clear that stating “need” merely adds those items to a
`
`shopping cart and that a user must subsequently check-out before the items are
`
`purchased.
`
`2
`
`

`

`Case 1:19-cv-01410-MN Document 218 Filed 03/30/23 Page 24 of 58 PageID #: 8932
`
`Accordingly, institution of inter partes review should be denied.
`
`II. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
`In a boilerplate section, Petitioners cite the Philips standard and merely state
`
`that for “the purposes of this Petition, the challenged claims should be interpreted
`
`in accordance with ‘the ordinary and customary meaning of such claim as
`
`understood by one of ordinary skill in the art and the prosecution history pertaining
`
`to the patent.” Paper 1 (“Pet.”), 6–7 (citing § 42.100(b)). However, Petitioners
`
`telegraph claim construction gamesmanship by purporting that “nothing in this
`
`Petition is a waiver of any arguments, positions, or appellate rights of Petitioners,
`
`including, but not limited to, claim construction.” Pet., 7 n.4 (emphasis added).
`
`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).
`
`A petition “must identify … [h]ow the challenged claim is to be construed.”
`
`37 CFR §42.104(b)(3) (emphasis added). Yet Petitioners do not explicitly construe
`
`any terms, instead reserving the right to rely on new claim constructions later in
`
`this proceeding as well as to take inconsistent positions before the Board and in
`
`court. When reviewing the ground of challenge, the Board should consider this
`
`3
`
`

`

`Case 1:19-cv-01410-MN Document 218 Filed 03/30/23 Page 25 of 58 PageID #: 8933
`
`signaling of future gamesmanship, which should weigh heavily against granting
`
`institution.
`
`III. PETITIONERS HAVE FAILED TO ESTABLISH THAT COHEN IN
`COMBINATION WITH HAO AND KENNEWICK-II RENDER
`OBVIOUS THE CHALLENGED CLAIMS
`The petition should be denied because of its many flaws. First, the petition
`
`fails to identify a coherent combination. Second, Petitioners’ rationales to combine
`
`are cursory and conclusory. Third, the petition does not cite to anything in Cohen
`
`or Hao that determines context, and therefore Petitioners’ proposal to improve
`
`context determination in view of Kennewick-II is illogical. Finally, Petitioners fail
`
`to establish that Cohen or Hao disclose several limitations, including a failure to
`
`establish that Cohen obtains payment and shipping information for a car rental
`
`reservation and a failure to establish that Hao completes a purchase transaction
`
`without further user input—instead, Hao expressly states that further user input is
`
`required.
`
`A.
`
`Petitioners have failed to articulate their ground of challenge with
`particularity
`The petition should be denied because it fails to articulate a ground of
`
`challenge with particularity. See Hulu, LLC v. Sound View Innovations, LLC,
`
`IPR2018-01039, Paper 29 at 13 (Dec. 20, 2019) (Precedential Opinion Panel)
`
`(“[T]he petition must identify with particularity … the grounds on which that
`
`challenge is based.”); 35 U.S.C. § 312(a)(3); see also Adaptics Ltd. v. Perfect Co.,
`
`4
`
`

`

`Case 1:19-cv-01410-MN Document 218 Filed 03/30/23 Page 26 of 58 PageID #: 8934
`
`IPR2018-01596, Paper 20 at 18-24 (declining to institute for lack of particularity
`
`with respect to identifying obviousness combinations). Although Petitioners
`
`challenge the claims based on the Cohen, Hao, and Kennewick-II references (Pet.,
`
`3), Petitioners fail to clearly articulate how and why these references should be
`
`combined, presenting combinations and rationales that lack consistency from page
`
`to page.
`
`The heading and first sentence of Petitioners’ single ground of challenge
`
`states that Cohen is the primary reference and Hao and Kennewick-II are
`
`secondary references. Pet., 16 (“Cohen, in view of Hao and Kennewick-II”).
`
`Petitioners’ subsequent paragraphs, addressing purported reasons a “POSITA
`
`would have found it obvious to combine Cohen, Hao, and Kennewick-II”1 follow
`
`this combination, at least in part. Pet., 16; see also id. 16-19. For example, the
`
`petition asserts that it would have been obvious to modify Cohen in view of
`
`Kennewick-II. Pet., 18 (“A POSITA would have been motivated to implement
`
`Kennewick[-II]’s scoring system in the natural language interpreter 616 of Cohen
`
`… to enhance how context is determined.”). The petition likewise contends it
`
`would have been obvious to modify Cohen in view of Hao. Pet., 19 (“A POSITA
`
`
`1 As explained in the next section, Petitioners’ rationale to combine is also
`
`insufficient.
`
`5
`
`

`

`Case 1:19-cv-01410-MN Document 218 Filed 03/30/23 Page 27 of 58 PageID #: 8935
`
`would have been motivated to combine Hao with Cohen, by for example, refining
`
`the system of Cohen to assign tokens to words of the user’s utterance that
`
`correspond to information in the user profile.”).
`
`Yet, at the same time, Petitioners stray from this combination by also
`
`asserting that a “POSITA would have been motivated to implement Kennewick[-
`
`II]’s scoring system in … the NLU engine 132 of Hao to enhance how context is
`
`determined.” Pet., 18. In view of the fact that Petitioners assert that Hao discloses
`
`every limitation in claim 1, Petitioners appear to be making a parallel challenge
`
`based on Hao as a primary reference modified in view of Kennewick-II—but such
`
`a challenge is never expressly identified or fully fleshed out. A challenge using
`
`Hao as a primary reference also fails because Petitioners rely only on Cohen’s
`
`disclosures for several of the dependent claims, and no assertion is made that it
`
`would have been obvious to modify Hao in view of such disclosures in Cohen.
`
`See, e.g., Pet., 43-47 (claim 8), 47-51 (claim 9), 52 (claim 11), 53-54 (claim 12),
`
`54-56 (claim 13), 59-60 (claim 21), 61 (claims 22 and 23), 62 (claim 24).
`
`Petitioners’ limitation-by-limitation analysis further muddies the picture,
`
`repeatedly asserting different combinations and failing to proffer any
`
`corresponding rationale to combine. For example, in Petitioners’ analysis for
`
`claim 1’s preamble (limitation [1(pre)]), Petitioners assert that each of the three
`
`references individually disclose the limitation, and then concludes that “[a]
`
`6
`
`

`

`Case 1:19-cv-01410-MN Document 218 Filed 03/30/23 Page 28 of 58 PageID #: 8936
`
`POSITA would have found it obvious to combine Cohen, Hao, and Kennewick-II
`
`as each of these references disclose similar speech architectures that provide voice
`
`commerce.” Pet., 19-22. But beyond pointing out that the references are
`
`analogous art, Petitioner does not specify how these references should be
`
`combined or provide any rationale to do so. Petitioners also provide no
`
`explanation for how the asserted modifications addressed in the initial paragraphs
`
`of the ground (i.e., incorporating Kennewick-II’s scoring system and Hao’s tokens)
`
`relate to this limitation. Petitioners merely present disparate teachings of the three
`
`references and invite the Board to select those it may find relevant, without any
`
`explanation how the teachings would be applied in a combination of the references.
`
`Petitioners’ analysis for limitations [1.a], [1.b], and [1.c] also suffer from the same
`
`flaw. Pet., 25, 27, 28 (all asserting each reference discloses the limitation and
`
`alleging obvious to combine “for the same reasons identified in IX.A1[1(pre)]”).
`
`Petitioners’ analysis for limitation [1.d] is even more problematic.
`
`Petitioners again assert that each of the three references individually disclose this
`
`limitation. Pet., 31. But Petitioners also assert that it would have been obvious to
`
`modify Cohen by “implement[ing] user profile and purchase history to resolve
`
`words of the utterance after determining that the context of the request is for the
`
`speaker, as taught by Hao.” Pet., 31. Thus, for this limitation, Petitioners appear
`
`to rely on (1) Cohen alone, (2) Hao alone, (3) Kennewick-II alone, and (4) Cohen
`
`7
`
`

`

`Case 1:19-cv-01410-MN Document 218 Filed 03/30/23 Page 29 of 58 PageID #: 8937
`
`modified in view of Hao. Yet the identified modification to Cohen is wholly
`
`disconnected from the proposed modification in the rationale to combine section,
`
`which involved incorporation of Hao’s tokens, not context determination. See Pet.,
`
`19. Thus, this is yet another combination of Cohen and Hao, but one that lacks
`
`any asserted rationale to combine.
`
`Likewise, with respect to Petitioners’ analyses for limitations [1.f], [1.g], and
`
`[1.h], Petitioners simply assert that both Cohen and Hao disclose those limitations.
`
`Pet., 34, 36, 38. Again, it is not clear whether Petitioners are arguing a parallel
`
`challenge using Hao as a primary reference. Petitioners do not assert that Cohen
`
`and Hao should be combined for these limitations, nor does Petitioners’ analysis
`
`for these limitations tie into the purported rationale to combine Cohen and Hao
`
`discussed earlier.
`
`To summarize, Petitioners initially assert that the challenged claims are
`
`obvious in view of Cohen as a primary reference modified with Hao’s tokens and
`
`Kennewick-II’s scoring system, but then in their analysis rely on a scattershot
`
`approach where several other combinations are asserted, such as Hao modified in
`
`view of Kennewick-II, Cohen modified in of Hao’s alleged context determination,
`
`all three references being combined in some unspecified way, and, at least with
`
`respect to claim 1, what appears to be a parallel argument relying on Hao either
`
`alone or as a primary reference combined with Kennewick-II and/or Cohen. These
`
`8
`
`

`

`Case 1:19-cv-01410-MN Document 218 Filed 03/30/23 Page 30 of 58 PageID #: 8938
`
`disparate and inconsistent positions altogether fail to articulate a challenge with
`
`particularity, and leave Patent Owner unable to substantively respond to the
`
`various potential combinations. It also should not and cannot be the Board’s
`
`responsibility to pick among these combinations those that merit institution. See
`
`SAS Inst. Inc. v. Iancu, 138 S. Ct. 1348, 1356 (2018) (“Nothing suggests the
`
`Director enjoys a license to depart from the petition and institute a different inter
`
`partes review of his own design.”) (emphasis in original). Thus, the petition
`
`should be denied for failure to articulate a ground of challenge with particularity.
`
`B.
`
`Petitioners have failed to provide a sufficient rationale to combine
`the references
`Petitioners have also failed to provide a sufficient rationale to combine
`
`Cohen, Hao and Kennewick-II. Petitioners’ failure stems from several flaws: (1)
`
`Petitioners do not rely on any expert testimony, (2) Petitioners’ analysis in support
`
`of the proffered rationales to combine largely relies on the assertion that the
`
`references are analogous art, which is not a cognizable rationale to combine but
`
`merely a threshold showing, (3) Petitioners’ single-sentence assertions of a
`
`motivation are vague and conclusory, lacking any articulation, and (4) Petitioners
`
`fail to assert a reasonable expectation of success.
`
`In order to establish that a patent is obvious, it is Petitioners’ burden to
`
`provide “some articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning to support
`
`the legal conclusion of obviousness.” KSR Intern. Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S.
`
`9
`
`

`

`Case 1:19-cv-01410-MN Document 218 Filed 03/30/23 Page 31 of 58 PageID #: 8939
`
`398, 418 (2007) (emphasis added). When combining teachings from multiple
`
`references, as Petitioners have done, there must be “a reason that would have
`
`prompted a person of ordinary skill in the relevant field to combine the elements in
`
`the way the claimed new invention does.” Id., 550 U.S. at 418. Petitioners have
`
`not articulated any cogent reason for combining the references.
`
`At the outset, Petitioners’ analysis for rationale to combine does not cite to
`
`any expert evidence. Pet., 16-19. Petitioners frequently make assertions regarding
`
`the knowledge of a person of ordinary skill in the art and what said person would
`
`find obvious, but never cite to any expert evidence to support those assertions. Id.
`
`Instead, Petitioners’ attorney arguments rely almost entirely on their
`
`assertion that the references are analogous art. Petitioners assert that “[a] POSITA
`
`would have found it obvious to combine Cohen, Hao, and Kennewick-II because
`
`each is in the same field and accomplishes the same goal using interactive speech
`
`technology to complete a purchase for products and services.” Pet., 16. The rest
`
`of Petitioners’ analysis largely focuses on alleged similarities in disclosures
`
`between the three references. Id. 16-18.
`
`However, these assertions at best merely support an argument that the
`
`references are analogous art. Establishing that references are “[a]nalogous art is
`
`merely a threshold inquiry as to whether a reference can be considered in an
`
`obviousness analysis,” but “[d]emonstrating that a reference is analogous art or
`
`10
`
`

`

`Case 1:19-cv-01410-MN Document 218 Filed 03/30/23 Page 32 of 58 PageID #: 8940
`
`relevant to the field of endeavor of the challenged patent is not sufficient to
`
`establish that one of ordinary skill would have had reason to combine its teachings
`
`with other prior art in the manner set forth in the claim.” Johns Manville Corp. v.
`
`Knauf Insulation, Inc., IPR2018-00827, Paper 9 at 10 (Oct. 16, 2018)
`
`(informative); see also Securus Techs., Inc. v. Global Tel*Link Corp., 701 F.
`
`App’x 971, 977 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (“[A] broad characterization of [references] as
`
`both falling within the same alleged field … without more, is not enough for
`
`[Petitioners] to meet its burden of presenting a sufficient rationale to support an
`
`obviousness conclusion.”).
`
`Beyond Petitioners’ analogous art assertions, Petitioners merely provide two
`
`sentences specifying the proposed combination and rationale, both of which are far
`
`too minimal to support an adequate showing of obviousness. First, Petitioners
`
`assert that “[a] POSITA would have been motivated to implement Kennewick[-
`
`II]’s scoring system in the natural language interpreter 616 of Cohen and/or the
`
`NLU engine 132 of Hao to enhance how context is determined.” Pet., 18. As
`
`discussed above, Petitioners do not cite to any evidence for this assertion, not even
`
`expert testimony. In any case, such a vague and conclusory sentence by no means
`
`provides a sufficient “articulated reasoning” for a motivation to combine.
`
`Petitioners do not explain at all what it means for determination of context to be
`
`enhanced—what aspect of context determination is being enhanced? Nor do
`
`11
`
`

`

`Case 1:19-cv-01410-MN Document 218 Filed 03/30/23 Page 33 of 58 PageID #: 8941
`
`Petitioners explain how Kennewick-II’s scoring system would provide such an
`
`enhancement. Indeed, as discussed below, Petitioners’ rationale to enhance Cohen
`
`and Hao’s context determination is completely illogical because Cohen and Hao do
`
`not disclose any determination of context.
`
`Petitioners also do not explain why a person of ordinary skill in the art
`
`would find it beneficial or desirable to enhance context determination, including
`
`how such enhancements would at all improve Cohen or Hao. For example,
`
`Petitioners assert that Cohen teaches that its “natural language interpreter 616
`
`determines that the context of the user’s utterance is an authorization based on the
`
`word ‘yes.’” Pet., 28. But Petitioners never explain how adding Kennewick-II’s
`
`scoring system would enhance such a determination regarding the single word
`
`“Yes,” which is a response to a question posed by the system. Similarly, for Hao,
`
`Petitioners assert “Hao’s NLU detects the word ‘need’ and determines the context
`
`is a ‘shopping request’ for the specified products” (Pet., 29) but never explains
`
`what benefit Kennewick-II is supposed to provide in determining a context from
`
`the single word “need,” particularly in a system wholly devoted to e-commerce
`
`shopping. EX1021, Title (“Populating an e-commerce shopping cart and other e-
`
`commerce fields based upon content extracted from natural language input”).
`
`Despite Petitioners’ assertion that Kennewick-II’s scoring system would improve
`
`Cohan and Hao, there is simply no explanation for how Kennewick-II’s scoring
`
`12
`
`

`

`Case 1:19-cv-01410-MN Document 218 Filed 03/30/23 Page 34 of 58 PageID #: 8942
`
`system would operate to improve detection of the word “Yes” in Cohen or the
`
`word “need” in Hao.
`
`Another striking flaw with Petitioners’ obviousness analysis is that there is
`
`very little discussion regarding how Cohen and Hao would be combined, and what
`
`rationale a person of ordinary skill would have to combine the references. As an
`
`initial matter, it is not at all clear how the Cohen and Hao combination fits with
`
`Petitioners’ obviousness theory—Petitioners’ analysis for the claims largely treat
`
`Cohen and Hao’s teachings as separate bases of invalidity, even though
`
`Petitioners’ obviousness theory purports to be based on “Cohen, in view of Hao
`
`and Kennewick-II.” Pet., 16. As discussed below, this flaw proves fatal.
`
`Petitioners do assert that it would be obvious to an ordinary artisan “that Cohen
`
`could implement user profile and purchase history to resolve words of the
`
`utterance after determining that the context of the request is for the speaker, as
`
`taught by Hao.” Pet., 31. But Petitioners do not assert, much less explain, how
`
`any of Hao’s other teachings that Petitioners rely upon would be incorporated into
`
`Cohen. Patent Owner is unable to assess the scope of Petitioners’ theories.
`
`Petitioners second single-sentence rationale asserts that “[a] POSITA would
`
`have been motivated to combine Hao with Cohen, by for example, refining the
`
`system of Cohen to assign tokens to words of the user’s utterance that correspond
`
`to information in the user profile -e.g., ‘my home’ and ‘my credit card.’” Pet., 19.
`
`13
`
`

`

`Case 1:19-cv-01410-MN Document 218 Filed 03/30/23 Page 35 of 58 PageID #: 8943
`
`But this “analysis” does not actually provide any rationale beyond vaguely
`
`asserting Cohen’s system would be “refin[ed].” Id. In other words, Petitioners
`
`assert that the combination could be made, but does not actually explain why a
`
`person of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to make it beyond vaguely
`
`asserting it would be a refinement. No explanation is provided for how Hao’s
`
`tokens would improve Cohen’s system. Petitioners’ analysis is therefore not
`
`enough to sustain even a prima facie case of obviousness. Belden Inc. v. Berktek
`
`LLC, 805 F.3d 1063, 1074 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (“[O]bviousness concerns whether a
`
`skilled artisan not only could have made but would have been motivated to make
`
`the combinations or modifications of prior art to arrive at the claimed invention.”).
`
`Moreover, as discussed above, Petitioners never art