Trials@uspto.gov
`571-272-7822
`
`
`
`
`Paper 8
`
`Entered: May 13, 2016
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`VOLKSWAGEN GROUP OF AMERICA, INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`WEST VIEW RESEARCH, LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`Case IPR2016-00146
`Patent 8,719,038 B1
`____________
`
`
`
`Before KARL D. EASTHOM, MICHAEL R. ZECHER, and
`KEVIN W. CHERRY, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`CHERRY, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`DECISION
`Institution of Inter Partes Review
`35 U.S.C. § 314(a) and 37 C.F.R. § 42.108
`
`
`
`
`
`571-272-7822
`
`
`
`
`Paper 8
`
`Entered: May 13, 2016
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`VOLKSWAGEN GROUP OF AMERICA, INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`WEST VIEW RESEARCH, LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`Case IPR2016-00146
`Patent 8,719,038 B1
`____________
`
`
`
`Before KARL D. EASTHOM, MICHAEL R. ZECHER, and
`KEVIN W. CHERRY, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`CHERRY, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`DECISION
`Institution of Inter Partes Review
`35 U.S.C. § 314(a) and 37 C.F.R. § 42.108
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2016-00146
`Patent 8,719,038 B1
`
`
`I. INTRODUCTION
`Volkswagen Group of America, Inc. (“Petitioner”) filed a Petition
`(Paper 2, “Pet.”) requesting an inter partes review of claims 1, 4, 5, 12, 16,
`22, 54, and 66 of U.S. Patent No. 8,719,038 B1 (“the ’038 patent,”
`Ex. 1001). Pet. 2. West View Research, LLC (“Patent Owner”) filed a
`Preliminary Response (Paper 6, “Prelim. Resp.”). Patent Owner also filed a
`Statutory Disclaimer disclaiming claims 1, 4, 16, and 22 of the ’038 patent.
`Prelim. Resp. 21; Ex. 2007. “No inter partes review will be instituted based
`on disclaimed claims.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.107(e). Claims 5, 12, 54, and 66,
`therefore, are the only claims that require our consideration.
`Prelim. Resp. 21.
`Under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a), an inter partes review may not be instituted
`“unless . . . the information presented in the petition . . . and any response
`. . . shows that there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would
`prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.”
`Upon consideration of the Petition and the Preliminary Response, we
`determine that the information presented shows there is a reasonable
`likelihood that Petitioner would prevail in establishing the unpatentability of
`claims 5, 12, 54, and 66 of the ’038 patent (“the challenged claims”).
`A. Related Matters
`According to the parties, the ’038 patent is involved in the following
`cases pending in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
`California: West View Research, LLC v. Audi AG, No. 3:14-cv-02668-BAS-
`JLB; West View Research, LLC v. Bayerische Motoren Werke, AG, No.
`3:14-cv-02670-CAB-WVG; West View Research, LLC v. Hyundai Motor
`Co., Ltd., 3:14-CV-02675-CAB-WVG; West View Research, LLC v. Nissan
`2
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2016-00146
`Patent 8,719,038 B1
`
`Motor Co., 3:14-cv-02677-CAB-WVG; and West View Research, LLC v.
`Tesla Motors, Inc., 3:14-CV-02679-CAB-WVG. See Pet. 1, Paper 4, 2.
`Petitioner filed other petitions challenging the patentability of a
`certain subset of claims in the following patents owned by Patent Owner:
`(1) U.S. Patent No. 8,719,037 B2 (Case IPR2016-00123); (2) U.S. Patent
`No. 8,706,504 B2 (Case IPR2016-00124); (3) U.S. Patent No. 8,290,778 B2
`(Case IPR2016-00125); (4) U.S. Patent No. 8,682,673 B2 (Case IPR2016-
`00137); (5) U.S. Patent No. 8,296,146 B2 (Case IPR2016-00156); (6) U.S.
`Patent No. 8,781,839 B1 (Case IPR2016-00177); and (7) U.S. Patent No.
`8,065,156 B2 (Case IPR2015-01941). See Pet. 1–2.
`B. The ’038 Patent
`The ’038 patent is titled “Computerized Information and Display
`Apparatus,” and issued May 6, 2014. Ex. 1001, at [54], [45]. The ’038
`patent generally relates to personnel transport apparatuses, such as trams,
`shuttles, or moving walkways, and, in particular, to elevators that
`incorporate various information technologies. Id. at 2:25–28, 8:59–9:3.
`According to the ’038 patent, one problem related to these apparatuses
`involves determining the location of a person, firm, or store within a
`building or structure. Id. at 2:52–65. For instance, conventional building
`directories require a user to locate manually or visually the name of the
`desired person, firm, or store, and often do not provide precise location
`information other than a floor or suite number. Id. The ’038 patent
`describes recent advances in data networking, display devices, personal
`electronics, and speech recognition and compression algorithms and
`corresponding processing, as enhancing the ability to address this problem.
`Id. at 3:55–62.
`
`3
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2016-00146
`Patent 8,719,038 B1
`
`
`The ’038 patent describes using these recent advances to create an
`apparatus for locating an organization or entity disposed within a building or
`structure. Id. at 4:10–33. Figure 1 of the ’038 patent, reproduced below,
`illustrates a block diagram of one embodiment of an information and control
`system within, for example, an elevator car. Id. at 5:60–63, 7:4–5.
`
`
`As shown in Figure 1, system 100 includes input device 102, speech
`
`recognition (“SR”) module 104, central processor 106, non-volatile storage
`device 108 containing a database, audio amplifier and speaker module 111,
`speech synthesis module 112, micro-controller 123, and display device 113.
`Id. at 7:6–25. SR module 104 includes microphone 118, analog-to-digital
`converter (“ADC”) 141, and known algorithms run on digital signal
`processor (“DSP”) 125 having an associated random access memory
`(“RAM”) 127. Id. at 7:7–31.
`Input device 102 can be a touch sensitive keypad with a display
`screen. Id. at 7:17–25. Input device 102 includes a variety of different
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`IPR2016-00146
`Patent 8,719,038 B1
`
`functional keys that allow the user to initiate queries of databases either
`manually by a keypad, display device, or audibly through the speech
`recognition module. Id.
`Microphone 118 generates signals that ADC 141 digitizes, which, in
`turn, DSP 125 processes using the SR algorithm to produce digital
`representations of the user’s speech. Id. at 7:24–56. DSP 125 uses the
`speech library or dictionary stored within RAM 127 to match phenome
`strings resulting from linear predictive coding analysis with known words.
`Id. at 7:26–65. After a match is identified, central processor 106 and micro-
`controller 123 implement the desired functionality, such as retrieving one or
`more data files from non-volatile storage device 108 for display on display
`device 113. Id. at 7:64–67. If the system provides more than one match or
`the first match displayed is not the desired query, the user may add
`additional query information to narrow the search. See id. at 9:64–10:67. If
`no match is found, the system may announce a confidence rating using
`“confidence rating calculation algorithms [that] are well understood.” Id. at
`10:59–67.
`
`C. Illustrative Claim
` Of the challenged claims remaining to be considered, claims 54 and
`66 are independent. Claim 5 and 12 directly or indirectly dependent from
`claim 1, which, as we explained above, was disclaimed by Patent Owner.
`Illustrative claim 54 follows:
`54. Smart computerized apparatus capable of interactive
`information exchange with a human user, the apparatus
`comprising:
`
`a microphone;
`
`
`
`5
`
`
`
`IPR2016-00146
`Patent 8,719,038 B1
`
`
`the
`
`one or more processors;
`
`a capacitive touch-screen input and display device;
`
`speech synthesis apparatus and at least one speaker in
`
`signal communication therewith;
`
`input apparatus configured to cause the computerized
`apparatus to enter a mode whereby a user can speak a name of an
`entity into a microphone in signal communication with the
`computerized apparatus, the entity being an entity to which the
`user wishes to navigate; and
`
`at least one computer program operative to run on the one
`or more processors and configured to engage the user in an
`interactive audible interchange, the interchange comprising:
`
`digitization of
`the user's speech received via
`microphone to produce a digital representation thereof;
`
`causation of use of the digitized representation to identify
`a plurality of entities which match at least a portion of the name;
`
`causation of generation of an audible communication to
`the user via the speech synthesis apparatus in order to at least
`inform the user of the identification of the plurality of matches;
`
`receipt of a subsequent speech input, the subsequent
`speech input comprising at least one additional piece of
`information;
`
`digitization of the subsequent speech input to produce a
`digital representation thereof;
`
`causation of utilization of at least the digital representation
`of the subsequent input to identify one of the plurality of entities
`which correlates to the entity to which the user wishes to
`navigate, and a location associated with the entity; and
`
`causation of provision of a graphical representation of the
`location, including at least the immediate surroundings thereof,
`and at least one other entity geographically proximate to the
`entity.
`Ex. 1001, 31:35–32:7.
`
`
`
`
`6
`
`
`
`IPR2016-00146
`Patent 8,719,038 B1
`
`
`D. Alleged Grounds of Unpatentability
`Petitioner challenges claims of the ’038 patent based on the following
`references and alleged grounds of unpatentability under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
`as set forth in the table below.
`References
`Lind,1 Ito,2 and Class3
`Lind, Ito, Class, and Ezaki4
`Lind, Ito, Class, and Fujiwara5
`
`Claim(s) Challenged
`54 and 66
`5
`12
`
`Pet. 6.
`
`II. ANALYSIS
`A. Claim Interpretation
`In an inter partes review, the Board construes claims by applying the
`broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification. In re Cuozzo
`Speed Techs., LLC, 793 F.3d 1268, 1278–79 (Fed. Cir. 2015), cert. granted
`sub nom. Cuozzo Speed Techs., LLC v. Lee, 136 S. Ct. 890 (mem.) (2016).
`Under this standard, absent any special definitions, claim terms or phrases
`are given their ordinary and customary meaning, as would be understood by
`one of ordinary skill in the art, in the context of the entire disclosure. In re
`Translogic Tech., Inc., 504 F.3d 1249, 1257 (Fed. Cir. 2007).
`
`
`1 R. Lind et al., The Network Vehicle—A Glimpse Into the Future of Mobile
`Multi-Media, 17th DASC, The AIAA/IEEE/SAE Digital Avionics Systems
`Conference, Proc., Vol. II, IEEE Pub. 0-7803-5086-3/98, Oct. 31–Nov. 7,
`1998 (Ex. 1004).
`2 Ito, U.S. Patent No. 6,249,740 B1, iss. June 19, 2001 (Ex. 1005).
`3 Class, U.S. Patent No. 6,230,132 B1, iss. May 8, 2001 (Ex. 1006).
`4 Ezaki, U.S. Patent No. 6,201,544 B1, iss. Mar. 13, 2001 (Ex. 1010).
`5 Fujiwara, EP Patent App. No. 0 829 704 A2, pub. Mar. 18, 1998
`(Ex. 1007).
`
`7
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2016-00146
`Patent 8,719,038 B1
`
`
`1. Alleged Deficient Petition Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(3)
`Patent Owner contends that Petitioner fails to provide proposed
`constructions for several key claim terms of the ’038 patent and, therefore,
`the Petition includes a fatal defect. Prelim. Resp. 22–35. In particular,
`Patent Owner argues that Petitioner’s failure to propose constructions for
`several key claim terms is contrary to 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(3), which
`requires a petitioner to identify “[h]ow the challenged claim is to be
`construed.” Id. at 22. Patent Owner further argues that Petitioner has
`inferred certain meanings for certain claim terms, but has not explained
`adequately why those inferences are appropriate. Id. at 25. Patent Owner
`then directs us to several examples where Petitioner purportedly inferred a
`construction for a claim term without providing any analysis. Id. at 25–29.
`We do not agree that the Petition includes a fatal defect. The Office
`Patent Trial Practice Guide indicates that, where appropriate, the
`requirement imposed by § 42.104(b)(3) may be satisfied by including a
`“simple statement that the claim terms are to be given their broadest
`reasonable interpretation.” 77 Fed. Reg. 48,756, 48,764 (Aug. 14, 2012).
`Based on the particular circumstances of this case, Petitioner’s contentions
`are sufficient to satisfy the requirement imposed by § 42.104(b)(3). Patent
`Owner’s examples of allegedly missing constructions, which we address
`below, do not persuade us otherwise.
`a. “digital/digitized representation” of speech (all challenged claims)
`Patent Owner contends that Petitioner infers a construction of the
`claim phrase “digital/digitized representation” of speech that is contrary to
`its proper construction, which, according to Patent Owner, includes (a) a
`digitized representation of speech that has not yet been recognized; (b) a
`8
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2016-00146
`Patent 8,719,038 B1
`
`digitized representation of speech that also has been run through a speech
`recognition algorithm; or (c) both (a) and (b). Prelim. Resp. 25–26. Patent
`Owner then argues that Petitioner and its Declarant, Mr. Scott Andrews,
`improperly infer that “digitization” is synonymous with “recognition,”
`which, in turn, led Petitioner to infer improperly that the claimed
`computerized information systems must necessarily perform recognition. Id.
`at 26 (citing Ex. 1001, 7:57–61; Pet. 10).
`As an initial matter, we do not share Patent Owner’s view that, when
`presenting arguments in the Petition to address the limitations in
`independent claims 16, 54, and 66 that include the claim phrase
`“digital/digitized representation” of speech, Petitioner has somehow inferred
`or implied a construction for this claim phrase. Petitioner simply states
`“Lind describes ‘advanced speech recognition software’…” and that “Ito
`describes ‘a data input device using voice recognition.’” Pet. 13 (quoting
`Ex. 1004, 10; Ex. 1005, 10:39–47). We do not view these statements as an
`explanation as to how Petitioner intends to construe the claim phrase
`“digital/digitized representation” of speech. Instead, we view this statement
`as an argument advanced by Petitioner that the voice recognition used by
`Lind and Ito properly accounts for the “digital representation” of speech, as
`recited in independent claims 1, 54, and 66.
`In any event, we understand Petitioner to argue that, because there are
`no special definitions for the claim phrase “digital/digitized representation”
`of speech in the Specification of the ’038 patent, this claim phrase should be
`
`
`6 Although claim 1 is disclaimed, the elements recited in claim 1 remain
`relevant because claims 5 and 12, which depend from claim 1, remain at
`issue.
`
`9
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2016-00146
`Patent 8,719,038 B1
`
`given its ordinary and customary meaning, as would be understood by one of
`ordinary skill in the art, in light of the entire disclosure of the ’038 patent.
`See Pet. 6–7. To the extent that we must determine whether the position
`taken by Petitioner is consistent with this ordinary and customary meaning,
`we note that the evidence of record supports a finding that Lind’s and Ito’s
`voice recognition systems necessarily require converting the commands
`spoken by a user from analog-to-digital form. See, e.g., Ex. 1010, 729
`(admitting in Exhibit H of Patent Owner’s Revised Disclosure of Asserted
`Claims and Infringement Contentions in a related district court case that “all
`speech recognition systems inherently digitize the speaker’s analog voice”).
`b. “subsequent input”(all challenged claims)
`Patent Owner contends that the Petitioner does not provide a
`construction for the claim phrase “subsequent input,” but instead performs a
`cursory “hand wave” as to the meaning of this claim phrase. Prelim.
`Resp. 26. Patent Owner submits that the cited portions of Class and Ito,
`which are relied upon by Petitioner to account for this element, only discuss
`the additional input of postal codes or selection by user from a list. Id. at 27.
`Patent Owner argues that, in contrast, the ’038 patent discloses “append[ing]
`defining information to the initial query statement to form a Boolean search
`statement,” such as adding “ABC Corporation” or “John” to an initial search
`for “Smith.” Id. at 28 (quoting Ex. 1001, 10:47–57). Patent Owner further
`argues that Petitioner and its Declarant, Mr. Andrews, do not explain
`adequately why or how user input of additional information such as a postal
`code and a selection of the appropriate destination from the plurality of
`searched facilities are (i) properly combined to meet the elements of “a
`subsequent user input,” and (ii) when so combined they are properly equated
`10
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2016-00146
`Patent 8,719,038 B1
`
`to the claim elements. Id. at 28. Patent Owner contends that “the recited
`claim element could literally relate to any subsequent input, such breadth
`which clearly would not be supported by the specification, or within the
`realm of reason.” Id. Patent Owner identifies the “defining information
`[appended] to the initial query statement to form a Boolean search
`statement” as “one species of subsequent input described in the
`specification.” Id. (quoting Ex. 1001, 10:48–50)
`We do not agree with Patent Owner’s argument that the Petition
`includes a fatal defective because Petitioner failed to offer an explicit
`construction for “subsequent input.” We do not see how construing the
`claim phrase “subsequent input” would add any clarity to the claim phrase
`itself, which, in our view, is self-explanatory. Indeed, the claims themselves
`define the phrase. For example, claim 1 recites “cause the user to be
`prompted to enter a subsequent input in order to aid in identification of one
`of the plurality of possible matches which best correlates to the desired
`organization or entity,” and claim 54 recites “subsequent input to identify
`one of the plurality of entities which correlates to the entity to which the user
`wishes to navigate.” Ex. 1001, 26:20–23, 31:61–63 (emphases added).
`Thus, Patent Owner’s assertion that without a construction the phrase
`“subsequent input” would be so unbounded as to leave the “realm of reason”
`is unfounded. Patent Owner does not offer any construction or point us to
`any definition or disclaimer in the Specification. Indeed, Patent Owner
`admits that the portion of the Specification that it identifies is only a
`“species” of the claimed “subsequent input.” Prelim. Resp. 28. In such an
`instance, we decline to read any limitation in from the Specification. See
`Toshiba Corp. v. Imation Corp., 681 F.3d 1358, 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (“We
`11
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2016-00146
`Patent 8,719,038 B1
`
`do not read limitations from the specification into claims.”). Thus, for
`purposes of this decision, no explicit construction is necessary beyond its
`ordinary and customary meaning.
`c. purported “means-plus-function” limitations
`Lastly, Patent Owner contends that Petitioner provides no analysis as
`to whether certain limitations recited in independent claims 1, 54, and 66
`could be construed under 35 U.S.C. § 112 ¶ 6. Prelim. Resp. 29–35. Patent
`Owner argues that, pursuant to § 42.104(b)(3), an explicit construction of
`each means-plus-function limitation is required that should include the
`identification of corresponding structure disclosed in the Specification that is
`necessary to perform each claimed function. Id. Patent Owner contends
`that, “since what is recited is a computer program or computerized logic
`configured to perform a number of functions with at least arguably no
`recitation of a particular structure to accomplish any portion of any
`function,” it is at least facially plausible that these portions of the challenged
`claims could be interpreted as means-plus-function limitations. Id. at 33.
`Patent Owner asserts that the Petition is deficient because it does not offer
`possible constructions for these functions under § 112 ¶ 6, much less direct
`us to the relevant portions of the specification of the ’038 patent that may
`apply in such constructions. Id. at 34–35.
`In this case, because independent claims 1, 54, and 66 do not use the
`phrase “means for,” “step for,” or a generic placeholder coupled with “for,”
`there is a presumption that § 112 ¶ 6 does not apply. See Williamson v.
`Citrix Online, LLC, 792 F.3d 1339, 1348 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (en banc) (noting
`the failure to use the word “means” creates a rebuttable presumption that
`§ 112 ¶ 6 does not apply). Given this presumption, Patent Owner’s
`12
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2016-00146
`Patent 8,719,038 B1
`
`arguments that it is merely “plausible” to read the claims as subject to § 112
`¶ 6 are not sufficient to show that the presumption is rebutted. We do not
`see how Petitioner acted unreasonably in relying on the presumption when
`Patent Owner does not, at least at this initial stage, take a definite position
`that these limitations are subject to § 112 ¶ 6. Consequently, we do not
`agree that the Petition should be denied for failing to analyze the challenged
`claims under § 112 ¶ 6.
`
`d. Summary
`In summary, we are not persuaded that the Petition includes a fatal
`defect on the basis that Petitioner’s contentions regarding claim construction
`are insufficient to satisfy the requirement imposed by § 42.104(b)(3), or
`because Petitioner purportedly inferred a construction for a claim term
`without providing any analysis.
`2. Remaining Claim Construction Arguments
`Patent Owner also contends that, even under the broadest reasonable
`interpretation standard, Petitioner assumes a construction for the claim term
`“entity” in the remaining challenged, independent claims and “the location
`comprises a location in the building” in claim 5 that is unreasonable and, as
`a consequence, the Petition includes a fatal defect. Prelim. Resp. 35–38.
`Although Patent Owner couches these arguments as predicated on
`Petitioner’s purportedly unreasonable claim constructions, we instead view
`them as being directed to the merits of the asserted grounds. We, therefore,
`address these arguments in our analysis of the merits of the asserted grounds
`below.
`Accordingly, on this record at this initial stage, we agree with
`Petitioner that no reason exists to construe explicitly any claim terms. See,
`13
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2016-00146
`Patent 8,719,038 B1
`
`e.g., Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed.
`Cir. 1999) (explaining that only those claim terms or phrases that are in
`controversy need to be construed, and only to the extent necessary to resolve
`the controversy).
`B.
`Alleged Obviousness of Claims 54 and 66 Over Lind, Ito and Class
` Petitioner contends that claims 54 and 66 would have been obvious
`over Lind, Ito and Class. Pet. 7–51. To support its contentions, Petitioner
`provides explanations as to how the prior art discloses each claim limitation.
`Id. Petitioner also relies upon the Declaration of Scott Andrews (Ex. 1002)
`to support its positions. At this stage of the proceeding, we are persuaded by
`the Petitioner’s explanations and supporting evidence.
`1. Lind (Ex. 1004)
`Lind discloses a vehicle containing hardware and software that allows
`
`a prospective passenger to use an “off-board network” to connect wirelessly
`to the Internet and to retrieve wireless information from other sources such
`as DirecTV. Ex. 1004, 10. Lind’s onboard system includes a touch screen
`liquid crystal display (“LCD”) that serves as a user interface, and a speech
`recognition and text-to-speech system to allow access to features through
`voice commands. Id. at 10–11. The system also provides access to internet
`service providers and can be used for requests to listen to e-mail messages
`and locate restaurants and hotels. Id. at 10, 15.
`Figure 3, representing a diagram of Lind’s off-board system
`architecture, follows:
`
`
`
`14
`
`
`
`IPR2016-00146
`Patent 8,719,038 B1
`
`
`
`Figure 3 of Lind shows links to the internet and other wireless services. See
`Ex. 1004, 10.
`
`2. Ito (Ex. 1005)
`Ito generally relates to a communications navigation system that
`supplies navigation data necessary for route guidance from a navigation base
`to a moving body, such as a vehicle. Ex. 1005, 1:9–12. Figure 1 of Ito,
`reproduced below, illustrates one embodiment of the communications
`navigation system. Id. at 5:65–67, 8:11–13.
`
`
`
`15
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2016-00146
`Patent 8,719,038 B1
`
`As shown in Figure 1, the communications navigation system includes
`
`vehicle navigation apparatus 100 mounted in a vehicle and navigation base
`apparatus 150 arranged as a base. Ex. 1005, 8:13–16. Vehicle navigation
`apparatus 100 includes, input 105, display 106, processing section 101, data
`storage 103, program storage 102, voice output section 107, and transmitting
`and receiving station 108. Id. at 9:53–58. Input 105 includes a data input
`device using voice recognition that allows a user to control the
`communications navigation system by using his/her voice to input
`corresponding data and commands. Id. at 10:39–47. Input 105 includes
`(liquid crystal) display 106 touch panel or icon inputs. Id. at 10:39–50.
`Display 106 may display detailed maps of the departure point, course-
`change points along a recommended route, and the destination, and also
`provides corresponding voice guidance. Id. at 18:62–67.
`3. Class (Ex. 1006)
`Class describes “a method for real time speech input of a destination
`address into a navigation system.” Ex. 1006, Abstract. The system resolves
`ambiguities that may arise when a user attempts to find a certain address.
`See id. at 9:12–31.
`Figure 10 of Class follows:
`
`
`
`16
`
`
`
`IPR2016-00146
`Patent 8,719,038 B1
`
`
`
`As Figure 10 depicts, Class’s system provides speech recognition
`
`module 7 connected to navigation system 2. Id. at 16:36–64.
`4. Analysis
`Petitioner relies upon the collective teachings of Lind, Ito, and Class
`to account for all the limitations recited in independent claims 54 and 66.
`Pet. 7–15, 18–32, 36–51. For example, Petitioner relies on Lind’s Network
`Vehicle with hardware and software technologies, Ito’s vehicle navigation
`apparatus with a central processing unit (“CPU”) and programming, and
`Class’s apparatus for real-time speech input of a destination address into a
`navigation system, as teaching the “smart computerized apparatus” of claims
`54 and 66. Pet. 9–10 (citing Ex. 1004, 9–10; Ex. 1005, 9:52–67, 15:50–54,
`Fig. 1; Ex. 1006, 1:11–13). Furthermore, Petitioner’s Declarant testifies that
`a computerized information apparatus that includes a processor for
`responding to a user’s input, as described in Ito or Lind, is a “smart
`computerized apparatus.” Ex. 1002 ¶ 4.
`Petitioner identifies where Lind and Class teach the use of a
`microphone in such a “smart computerized apparatus,” as recited in claims
`17
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2016-00146
`Patent 8,719,038 B1
`
`54 and 66. Pet. 19, 47, 50 (citing Ex. 1004, 14; Ex. 1006, 16:41–44;
`Ex. 1002 ¶ 17). Petitioner also relies on Lind’s disclosure of its vehicle
`having microprocessors (Ex. 1004, 14), Ito’s disclosure of a CPU (Ex. 1005,
`9:59–60), and Class’s disclosure of “dialog and process control 8” and a data
`bus, as teaching the “one or more processors” recited in claims 54 and 66.
`Pet. 25–26. Petitioner also identifies the center console touch-screen LCD
`of Lind and touch panel display of Ito as teaching the “capacitive touch-
`screen input and display device” of claims 54 and 66. Pet. 26.
`Petitioner relies on the Lind’s text-to-speech application (ViaVoice)
`(Ex. 1004, 11), Class’s “speech output device 10 that can deliver speech
`statements to a user by means of [] loudspeaker 6” (Ex. 1006, 16:44–46),
`and Ito’s “program for outputting a route guidance voice via [] voice output
`section 107” (Ex. 1005, 9:65–67), as teaching the recited “speech synthesis
`apparatus and at least one speaker in signal communication therewith” of
`claims 54 and 66. Pet. 26
`As for the recited “input apparatus” of claims 54 and 66, Petitioner
`relies on the combined teachings of the three references. Id. at 26–27. For
`example, Petitioner identifies the Lind’s disclosure of the use of voice
`recognition software to accept voice commands including the ability to
`request travel directions. Id. at 26 (citing Ex. 1004, 10–11). Petitioner also
`relies on Class’s disclosure of a speech dialog system that is activated by the
`“push-to-talk button” that allows users to provide voice commands to the
`system. Id. at 26–27 (citing Ex. 1006, 6:30–51, 16:41–44, 19:22–28).
`Finally, Petitioner cites to Ito’s disclosure of a “data input device using voice
`recognition” that permits a user to use his or her voice to input
`
`
`
`18
`
`
`
`IPR2016-00146
`Patent 8,719,038 B1
`
`corresponding data and commands, including requesting directions to a
`location. Id. at 27 (citing Ex. 1005, 10:39–59, 15:46–58).
`The remainder of claims 54 and 66 relates to a computer program
`operative to perform certain functions related to voice recognition, speech
`generation, and providing directions, including a map. Ex. 1001, 31:48–
`32:7, 33:22–34:19. Petitioner relies on the combined teachings of Lind, Ito,
`and Class to account for the various claimed limitations of this computer
`program. Pet. 27–30. As for the program itself, Petitioner relies on Lind’s
`disclosure of “ViaVoice” that runs on the vehicle main process and “allows
`the driver to access virtually all the vehicle’s features through voice
`commands and enables the vehicle to talk back using synthesized speech”
`(Ex. 1004, 11, 14), and Class’s “speech dialog system 1” that can recognize
`and classify speech statements by the user and deliver speech statements to
`the user in response (Ex. 1006, 16:41–48). Pet. 27. Petitioner further relies
`on Ito’s disclosure of a system using software to perform speech recognition
`to disclose this element. Pet. 10 (citing Ex. 1005, 9:52–67).
`With respect to the requirement that the program digitize the user’s
`speech to produce a digital representation of the speech, Petitioner contends
`that all of Lind, Ito, and Class describe the use of voice recognition
`technology to allow the user to input voice commands. See Pet. 20–21
`(citing Ex. 1004, 10–11, Ex. 1005, 10:39–47, Ex. 1006, 16:41–44).
`Petitioner further asserts that Patent Owner has admitted that “all speech
`recognition systems inherently digitize the speaker’s analog voice,”
`(Ex. 1012, 729), and based on this admission and its Declarant’s testimony,
`Petitioner contends that Lind, Ito, and Class meet this element. Pet. 21
`(citing Ex. 1002 ¶ 20).
`
`19
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2016-00146
`Patent 8,719,038 B1
`
`
`As for the requirement that the program use the digitized
`representation of the speech to identify the entities that match the name,
`Petitioner notes that all of Lind, Ito, and Class describe how their voice
`recognition software can take speech inputs, including destination names,
`and identify matches to those inputs. Pet. 11–12 (citing Ex. 1004, 11;
`Ex. 1005, 10:39–47, 15:50–54; Ex. 1006, 6:30–32). Petitioner further relies
`on Class’s disclosure of a disambiguation method to account for this
`limitation. Pet. 12 (citing Ex. 1006, 8:16–8, 9:6–11). Petitioner also relies
`on Class as accounting for the requirement that the program generate an
`audible communication to the user to inform the user of the plurality of
`matches. Pet. 28 (citing Ex. 1006, 10:39–11:8, 9:53–56, 9:63–64, 16:44–
`46).
`
`Petitioner relies primarily on Class to account for the limitations of
`claim 54 relating to the “subsequent input,” i.e., “receipt of a subsequent
`speech input, the subsequent speech input comprising at least one additional
`piece of information,” “digitization of the subsequent speech input to
`produce a digital representation thereof,” and “causation of utilization of at
`least the digital representation of the subsequent input to identify one of the
`plurality of entities which correlates to the entity to which the user wishes to
`navigate, and a location associated with the entity” (and similar limitations
`of claim 66). Pet. 13–14. Specifically, Petitioner contends that Class
`discloses receiving a subsequent input to resolve ambiguities. Pet. 13 (citing
`Ex. 1006, 8:31–32, 9:26–31, 10:7–10, 10:26–29, 10:34–38, 10:50–55,
`11:34–43; Ex. 1002 ¶ 9). Petitioner notes that, as described above, the
`systems of Lind, Class, and Ito all disclose speech recognition. Pet. 10–11,
`20–21. Petitioner also relies on Class as accounting for using the subsequent
`20
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2016-00146
`Patent 8,719,038 B1
`
`input to identify the best match. See Pet. 13–14 (citing Ex. 1006, 9:29–31,
`10:34–37, 11:17–21, 16:57–18:65, 21:20–23:37; Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 10, 11).
`Petitioner further identifies Ito’s disclosure of the user selecting a desired
`destination from a list of multiple matching facilities as accounting for the
`“receipt of a subsequent user input.” Pet. 13 (citing Ex. 1005, 16:5–19;
`Ex. 1002 ¶ 9).
`Claim 66 differs slightly from claim 54 in that rather than just
`requiring the subsequent input to identify the best match, claim 66 requires
`that the subsequent input be use
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
