Page 1 of 66
`
`Page 1 of 66
`
`GOOGLE EXHIBIT 1015
`Google Inc. v. IXI IP, LLP
`IPR2016-01669
`
`

`

`Request for Reexamination of US. 7,552,124
`
`Dkt. N0. 143498.00008
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`TABLE OF APPENDICES ....................................................................................................... iii
`
`I.
`
`II.
`
`INTRODUCTION ....................................................................................... 1
`
`CLAIMS FOR WHICH REEXAMINATION IS REQUESTED .................. 4
`
`III.
`
`CITATION OF PRIOR ART PRESENTED ................................................ 4
`
`IV.
`
`STATEMENT POINTING OUT EACH SUBSTANTIAL NEW
`
`QUESTION OF PATENTABILITY ............................................................ 6
`
`V.
`
`RELEVANT INFORMATION CONCERNING THE ’ 124 PATENT ......... 6
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`RELATED MATTERS ...................................................................... 6
`
`SUMMARY OF DISCLOSURE OF THE ’ 124 PATENT ................. 7
`
`VI. DETAILED EXPLANATION OF THE PERTINENCY AND
`
`MANNER OF APPLYING THE CITED ART TO EVERY CLAIM
`
`FOR WHICH REEXAMINATION IS REQUESTED ................................. 9
`
`A.
`
`SNQ 1: Obviousness Of Claims 6-10 Over Maes in view of
`Preston ............................................................................................ 10
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`4
`
`5.
`
`Maes and Preston — Claim 6 .................................................. 10
`
`Maes and Preston — Claim 7 .................................................. 19
`
`Maes and Preston — Claim 8 .................................................. 19
`
`Maes and Preston — Claim 9 .................................................. 20
`
`Maes and Preston — Claim 10 ................................................ 21
`
`B.
`
`SNQ 2: Obviousness Of Claims 6-10 Over Maes in view of
`
`Ittycheriah and Preston .................................................................... 21
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`4
`
`5.
`
`Maes, Ittycheriah, and Preston — Claim 6 .............................. 22
`
`Maes, Ittycheriah, and Preston — Claim 7 .............................. 24
`
`Maes, Ittycheriah, and Preston — Claim 8 .............................. 25
`
`Maes, Ittycheriah, and Preston — Claim 9 .............................. 25
`
`Maes, Ittycheriah, and Preston — Claim 10 ............................ 25
`
`C.
`
`SNQ 3: Obviousness Of Claims 6-10 Over Pazandak in view of
`White and Manson ........................................................................... 25
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`Pazandak, White, and Manson — Claim 6 ............................... 26
`
`Pazandak, White, and Manson — Claim 7 ............................... 36
`
`Page 2 of 66
`
`-1-
`
`Page 2 of 66
`
`Page 2 of 66
`
`

`

`Request for Reexamination of US. 7,552,124
`
`Dkt. No. 143498.00008
`
`3.
`
`4.
`
`5.
`
`Pazandak, White, and Manson — Claim 8 ............................... 36
`
`Pazandak, White, and Manson — Claim 9 ............................... 37
`
`Pazandak, White, and Manson — Claim 10 ............................. 37
`
`VII.
`
`THE GROUNDS OF THE 1669 IPR AND 898 IPR DO NOT
`
`RENDER THE NEW CLAIMS UNPATENTABLE ................................. 38
`
`A.
`
`Grounds from the 1669 and 898 IPRs Do Not Render New
`
`Claim 11 Unpatentable .................................................................... 38
`
`1.
`
`The combination of Maes and Preston as alleged in the
`1669 IPR does not render new claim 11 unpatentable ............ 38
`
`a.
`
`The combination of Maes and Preston does not
`
`teach “determining implementation. . .” as recited
`in new claim 11 ............................................................. 39
`
`b.
`
`The combination of Maes and Preston does not
`
`teach “determining a level of complexity. . .” as
`recited in claim 11 ......................................................... 40
`
`c.
`
`The combination of Maes and Preston does not
`
`teach producing and receiving executable code as
`recited in claim 11 ......................................................... 41
`
`2.
`
`The combination of Maes, Ittycheriah, and Preston as
`alleged in the 898 IPR does not render new claim 11
`unpatentable ........................................................................... 43
`
`a.
`
`b.
`
`c.
`
`The combination of Maes, Ittycheriah, and Preston
`does not teach “determining implementation. .
`. ”
`as recited in new claim 11. ............................................ 43
`
`The combination of Maes, Ittycheriah, and Preston
`does not teach “determining a level of complexity.
`. .” as recited in new claim 11. ...................................... 45
`
`The combination of Maes, Ittycheriah, and Preston
`does not teach producing and receiving executable
`code, as recited in new claim 11 .................................... 46
`
`3.
`
`The combination of Pazandak, White, and Manson does
`
`not render new claim 11 unpatentable .................................... 47
`
`a.
`
`The combination of Pazandak, White, and Manson
`
`does not teach “determining implementation. . .” as
`recited in new claim 11. ................................................ 47
`
`Page 3 of 66
`
`_ 11-
`
`Page 3 of 66
`
`Page 3 of 66
`
`

`

`Request for Reexamination of US. 7,552,124
`
`Dkt. No. 143498.00008
`
`b.
`
`The combination of Pazandak, White, and Manson
`
`does not teach “determining a level of complexity.
`. .” as recited in new claim 11. ...................................... 48
`
`c.
`
`The combination of Pazandak, White, and Manson
`
`does not teach producing and receiving executable
`code, as recited in new claim 11 .................................... 49
`
`B.
`
`Grounds from the 1669 and 898 IPRs Do Not Render New
`
`Claim 12 Unpatentable .................................................................... 51
`
`1.
`
`The combination of Maes and Preston does not render
`
`new claim 12 unpatentable ..................................................... 51
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`The combination of Maes, Ittycheriah, and Preston does
`not render new claim 12 unpatentable .................................... 53
`
`The combination of Pazandak, White, and Manson does
`
`not render new claim 12 unpatentable .................................... 54
`
`VIII. CONCLUSION ......................................................................................... 56
`
`Page 4 of 66
`
`—iii—
`
`Page 4 of 66
`
`Page 4 of 66
`
`

`

`Request for Reexamination of U.S. 7,552,124
`
`Dkt. No. 143498.00008
`
`TABLE OF APPENDICES
`
`>
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,552,124 of Drukin
`
`Google, Inc. V. IXI IP, LLC, IPR2016—01669, Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 7,552,124, Paper No. 2 (August 25, 2016)
`
`Google, Inc. V. IXI IP, LLC, IPR2016—01669, Decision, Institution of Inter Partes
`Review, Paper No. 9 (March 8, 2017)
`
`Microsoft Corp. et al. V. IXI IP, LLC, IPR2017—00898, Petition for Inter Partes
`ReVieW of U.S. Patent No. 7,552,124, Paper No. 4 (February 16, 2017)
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,003,463 of Maes et al. (“Maes”)
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,937,383 of Ittycheriah et al. (“Ittycheriah”)
`
`U.S. Patent Publication No. 2003/0046061 of Preston et al. (“Preston”)
`
`
`
`
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,027,975 of Pazandak et al. (“Pazandak”)
`
`U.S. Patent Publication No. 20020072918 of White et al. (“White”)
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,085,708 of Manson (“Manson”)
`
`U.S. Patent Publication No. 20030182132 of Niemoeller et al. (“Niemoeller”)
`
`Microsoft Computer Dictionary, Microsoft Press, 5th ed. (2002) (excerpts)
`
`Amended Claims Presented with Request
`
`Support for Amended Claims Presented with Request
`
`Page 5 of 66
`
`-iV-
`
`Page 5 of 66
`
`Page 5 of 66
`
`

`

`Request for Reexamination of U.S. 7,552,124
`
`Dkt. No. 143498.00008
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,552,124 (“the ’ 124 Patent,” Appendix A) issued with claims 1—10 on
`
`June 23, 2009, from an application filed on June 17, 2004. The ‘124 Patent is owned by IXI IP,
`
`LLC (the “Requestor” or “Patent Owner”), which requests reexamination of claims 6—10 in light
`
`of the substantial new questions of patentability presented below with reference to U.S. Patent
`
`No. 7,003,463 of Maes et al. (“Maes,” Appendix E), U.S. Patent No. 5,937,383 of Ittycheriah et
`
`al. (“Ittycheriah,” Appendix F); U.S. Pub. No. 20030046061 of Preston et al. (“Preston,”
`
`Appendix G); U.S. Patent No. 7,027,975 of Pazandak et al. (“Pazandak,” Appendix H); U.S.
`
`Pub. No. 20020072918 of White et al. (“White,” Appendix I); and U.S. Patent No. 7,085,708 of
`
`Manson (“Manson,” Appendix J), U.S. Pub. No. 20030182132 of Niemoeller et al.
`
`(“Niemoeller,” Appendix K), and excerpts from the Microsoft Computer Dictionary, 5th ed.,
`
`2002 (“Microsoft Dictionary,” Appendix L).
`
`On August 25, 2016, Google, Inc. (“Google”) filed a Petition assigned case number
`
`IPR2016—01669 (the “1669 Petition,” Appendix B) with the Patent Trial and Appeal Board
`
`(“Board”) for Inter Partes Review (the “1669 IPR”) of claims 1—10 the ’ 124 Patent. On March
`
`8, 2017, the Board issued a Decision (the “1669 Decision,” Appendix C) instituting trial with
`
`respect to claims 1—5 of the ’ 124 Patent, finding that Google had demonstrated a reasonable
`
`likelihood of prevailing on its challenge of claims 1—5 on the following grounds:
`
`i) obviousness
`
`over Maes in view of Preston; and ii) obviousness over Pazandak in view of White and Manson.
`
`The Board did not institute trial with respect to claims 6—10 on either of these grounds. See 1669
`
`Decision at 9. The 1669 IPR remains pending and a final written decision has not yet issued.
`
`On February 16, 2017, Microsoft et al. (“Microsoft”) filed a Petition assigned case
`
`number IPR2017—00898 (“898 Petition,” Appendix D) with the Board for Inter Partes Review
`
`Page 6 of 66
`
`Page 6 of 66
`
`Page 6 of 66
`
`

`

`Request for Reexamination of U.S. 7,552,124
`
`Dkt. No. 143498.00008
`
`(the “898 IPR”) of claims 1—10 the ’ 124 Patent. The Board has not yet determined whether to
`
`institute trial on the basis of the 898 Petition.
`
`This Request for Reexamination by Patent Owner is based in part on the 1669 Decision,
`
`finding that Google had demonstrated a reasonable likelihood that claims 1—5 are obvious over
`
`Maes in View of Preston and as obVious over Pazandak in View of White and Manson. Though
`
`the Board declined to institute the 1669 IPR with respect to claims 6—10 on either of these
`
`grounds based on the alleged insufficiency of the ’ 124 Patent’s disclosure of structure
`
`corresponding to the means—plus—function terms as required by 35 U.S.C. § 112, ‘JI6 (see 1669
`
`Decision at 7—9), non—instituted system claims 6—10 containing the alleged means—plus—function
`
`terms substantially track and correspond to the elements of instituted method claims 1—5 of the
`
`’ 124 Patent.
`
`As indicated by the Board in Idle Free Systems, Inc. V. Bergstrom, Inc., a patent owner
`
`may rely on the institution of an IPR as the basis for requesting ex parte reexamination on certain
`
`alleged grounds from the IPR:
`
`If a patent owner desires a complete remodeling of its claim structure according to
`a different strategy, it may do so in another type of proceeding before the Office.
`For instance, a patent owner may file a request for ex parte reexamination, relying
`on the Board’s conclusion of a petitioner’s having shown reasonable likelihood of
`success on certain alleged grounds of unpatentability as raising a substantial
`new question of unpatentability.
`
`IPR2012—00027, Paper 26 at 6 (PTAB, June 11, 2013) (emphasis added).
`
`In light of this precedent and the Board’s reasoning in the 1669 Decision with respect to
`
`the institution of claims 1—5 of the ’ 124 Patent, Patent Owner submits that Maes in View of
`
`Preston or Pazandak in View of White and Manson also raises a substantial new question of
`
`patentability as to claims 6—10 of the ’ 124 Patent, and therefore requests reexamination of the
`
`claims 6—10 on this basis. Patent Owner additionally submits that the combination of Maes,
`
`Page 7 of 66
`
`Page 7 of 66
`
`Page 7 of 66
`
`

`

`Request for Reexamination of US. 7,552,124
`
`Dkt. No. 143498.00008
`
`Ittycheriah, and Preston as asserted in the 898 Petition raises a substantial new question of
`
`patentability as to claims 6—10 of the ’ 124 Patent and therefore requests reexamination of the
`
`same claims on this basis. Finally, Patent Owner submits with the Request amended independent
`
`claims 11—12 (Appendix M) and support for the amended claims (Appendix N), which Patent
`
`Owner respectfully submits are patentably distinct over the grounds raised in the 1669 IPR and
`
`the 898 IPR involving the ’ 124 Patent.
`
`In accordance with 37 C.F.R. §1.510(a), the reexamination fee is being paid at the time of
`
`filing this Request via EFS—Web. Any deficiency or overpayment may be debited/credited to
`
`Deposit Account No. 500436, under Order No. 143498.00008.
`
`In accordance with 37 C.F.R. § 1.510(b), this Request includes the following:
`
`0
`
`§ 1.510(b)(1) — a statement pointing out each substantial new question of
`
`patentability based on a prior patent or printed publication (infra Section IV)
`
`0
`
`§ 1.510(b)(2) — an identification of the claims for which reexamination is
`
`requested (infra Section II) and a detailed explanation of the pertinency and
`
`manner of applying the cited prior art to every claim for which reexamination
`
`is requested (infra Section VI);
`
`0
`
`§ 1.510(b)(3) — a citation of prior art presented and a copy of the patents relied
`
`upon (infra Section III);
`
`0
`
`§ 1.510(b)(4) — a copy of the entire patent including the front face, drawings,
`
`and specification/claims (in double column format) for which reexamination
`
`is requested, and a copy of any disclaimer, certificate of correction, or
`
`reexamination certificate is sued in the patent (Appendix A).
`
`Page 8 of 66
`
`Page 8 of 66
`
`Page 8 of 66
`
`

`

`Request for Reexamination of U.S. 7,552,124
`
`Dkt. No. 143498.00008
`
`No certification of service is required pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 1.510(b)(5) because the
`
`Patent Owner is filing this Request. The statutory estoppel provisions of 35 U.S.C. § 315(e)(l) or
`
`35 U.S.C. § 325(e)(l) do not prohibit Patent Owner from filing this Request, as Patent Owner has
`
`never been the “petitioner” in any IPR or po st— grant review of the ’ 124 Patent.
`
`II.
`
`CLAIMS FOR WHICH REEXAMINATION IS REQUESTED
`
`Patent Owner seeks reexamination of claims 6—10 of the ’ 124 Patent.
`
`III.
`
`CITATION OF PRIOR ART PRESENTED
`
`A listing of the prior art printed publications relied upon in this Request is provided
`
`below. Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 1.510(b)(3), a copy of these references accompany this Request
`
`as Appendices E-L, and are also identified in the Information Disclosure Statement on a
`
`PTO/SB/08a filed herewith.
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,003,463 (Appendix E)
`
`Jun. 25, 2001
`
`Feb. 21, 2006
`
`Mar. 6, 2003
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,937,383 (Appendix F)
`
`Jun. 4, 1997
`
`Aug. 10, 1999
`
`U.S. Pub. No. 20030046061 (Appendix G)
`
`Jul. 1, 2002
`
`Maes qualifies as prior art under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) because Maes is a patent granted on
`
`an application for patent by another filed in the United States prior to the filing date of the ’ 124
`
`Patent. Maes was not presented to the Office during the original prosecution of the ’ 124 Patent.
`
`Ittycheriah was published on August 10, 1999 (more than a year before the filing date of
`
`the ’ 124 Patent), and therefore qualifies as prior art under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b). Ittycheriah was
`
`not presented to the Office during the original prosecution of the ’ 124 Patent.
`
`Page 9 of 66
`
`Page 9 of 66
`
`Page 9 of 66
`
`

`

`Request for Reexamination of US. 7,552,124
`
`Dkt. No. 143498.00008
`
`Preston was published on March 6, 2003 (more than a year before the filing date of the
`
`’ 124 Patent), and therefore qualifies as prior art under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b). Preston was not
`
`presented to the Office during the original prosecution of the ’ 124 Patent.
`
`Pazandak qualifies as prior art under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) because Pazandak is a patent
`
`granted on an application for patent by another filed in the United States prior to the filing date
`
`of the ’ 124 Patent. Though Pazandak was cited by the Office during the original prosecution of
`
`the ’ 124 Patent, it was not cited in combination with the references cited herein as posing
`
`substantial new questions of patentability on the basis of obViousness.
`
`White was published on June 13, 2002 (more than a year before the filing date of the ’ 124
`
`Patent), and therefore qualifies as prior art under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b). White was not presented to
`
`the Office during the original prosecution of the ’ 124 Patent.
`
`Manson qualifies as prior art under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) because Manson is a patent
`
`granted on an application for patent by another filed in the United States prior to the filing date
`
`of the ’ 124 Patent. Manson was not presented to the Office during the original prosecution of the
`
`’ 124 Patent.
`
`Niemoeller qualifies as prior art at least under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a) because Niemoeller
`
`was published prior to the filing date of the ’ 124 Patent. Niemoeller was not presented to the
`
`Office during the original prosecution of the ’ 124 Patent.
`
`According to the bibliographic data page, the Microsoft Computer Dictionary has a
`
`copyright date of 2002 (more than a year before the filing date of the ’ 124 Patent), and therefore
`
`may qualify as prior art under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b). The Microsoft Computer Dictionary was not
`
`presented to the Office during the original prosecution of the ’ 124 Patent.
`
`Page 10 of 66
`
`Page 10 of 66
`
`Page 10 of 66
`
`

`

`Request for Reexamination of US. 7,552,124
`
`Dkt. No. 143498.00008
`
`IV.
`
`STATEMENT POINTING OUT EACH SUBSTANTIAL NEW QUESTION OF
`PATENTABILITY
`
`The grounds of rejection proposed by this Request are new, substantial, and based on
`
`prior art printed publications that may render the challenged claim unpatentable. Although
`
`Patent Owner believes that one or more of the grounds of rejection proposed by this Request
`
`raise substantial new questions of patentability with respect to claims 6—10 of the ’ l24 Patent,
`
`Patent Owner does not admit that any claims of the ’ l24 Patent are in fact unpatentable under
`
`any ground. Rather, the grounds proposed by this Request are presented to the Office for its
`
`consideration in determining whether to order reexamination without any express or implied
`
`waiver, disclaimer, or admission on the part of Patent Owner.
`
`The potential substantial new questions presented by this Request are listed below:
`
`SNQ No. 1 Whether claims 6—10 are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over Maes in view
`of Preston
`
`
`
`SNQ No. 2 Whether claims 6—10 are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over Maes in view
`of Ittycheriah and Preston
`
`SNQ No. 3 Whether claims 6— 10 are unpatentable under 35 U. S. C. § 103 over Pazandakin
`view of White and Manson
`
`RELEVANT INFORMATION CONCERNING THE ’124 PATENT
`
`A.
`
`RELATED MATTERS
`
`The Patent Owner is aware of the following proceedings involving the ’ l24 Patent:
`
`0 Google Inc, V. [X] IP, LLC, IPR20l6—Ol669;
`
`0 Microsoft Corp., et al., V. [X] IP, LLC, IPR20l7—00898;
`
`0
`
`0
`
`IX] Mobile (R&D) Ltd. et al. v. BlackBerry Ltd. et al., 2:l5—cv—01883 (E.D. Tex.);
`
`IX] IP, LLC et al. v. HTC Corp. et al., 2:l5—cv—01884 (E.D. Tex.);
`
`Page 11 of 66
`
`Page 11 of 66
`
`Page 11 of 66
`
`

`

`Request for Reexamination of U.S. 7,552,124
`
`Dkt. No. 143498.00008
`
`0
`
`0
`
`IXI IP, LLC et al. v. Samsung Elecs. C0., Ltd. et al., 2:15—cv—01885 (E.D. Tex.);
`
`IXI IP, LLC et al. v. ZTE Corp. er al., 2:15—cv—01886 (E.D. Tex.); and
`
`0 G00gle Inc. v. IXI Mobile (R&D) Ltd. er al., 5:16—cv—O4173 (N.D. Cal.).
`
`B.
`
`SUMMARY OF DISCLOSURE OF THE ’124 PATENT
`
`The ’ 124 Patent, entitled “Natural Language for Programming a Specialized Computing
`
`System,” is generally directed to methods and systems for “programming a mobile
`
`communication device based on a high—level code comprising operative language [].” (Title,
`
`Abstract). The ’ 124 Patent allows a user to program a mobile communication device (e.g., a cell
`
`phone) by providing high level inputs in a natural human language.
`
`(’ 124 Patent at Abstract,
`
`1:55—58).
`
`The natural language input is processed, and as a result, is automatically turned into
`
`executable code that can be run on the mobile communication device, thereby eliminating the
`
`need for the user to interact with menu items available at the operating system level of the
`
`mobile communication device.
`
`(See id. at Abstract, 2:1—13, 5:5—10, FIG. 2). The ’ 124 Patent
`
`thus makes it possible for a “less technically inclined” user to program the device using high—
`
`level natural human language, as opposed to more sophisticated technical controls or code.
`
`(Id.
`
`at 1:41—48).
`
`The user provides “high—level code 150 [which] may comprise one or more sentences,
`
`wherein each sentence comprises at least one operative language (i.e. keyword) defining an
`
`instruction for a function or an operation to be performed.” (Id. at 4: 17—23). To process natural
`
`language inputs, the ’ 124 Patent relies, in part, on the identification of keywords, the automated
`
`determination of the level of complexity and implementation of the high level input, and the
`
`designation of the best application software used to produce the executable code.
`
`(Id. at 4:5 8—
`
`Page 12 of 66
`
`Page 12 of 66
`
`Page 12 of 66
`
`

`

`Request for Reexamination of U.S. 7,552,124
`
`Dkt. No. 143498.00008
`
`5:4, 9:14—17, 10:18—21). Given the wide range of words and user intentions in the possible range
`
`of high level inputs, the processing required to respond appropriately to the input might need to
`
`take place in a specific fashion available in a specific place in the network (e.g., depending on
`
`implementation).
`
`(See id. at 4:58—5:4, 9:14—17, 10:18—21).
`
`To turn the high—level code into executable code, the ’ l24 Patent parses the input
`
`utilizing a parsing technique referred to as “keyword spotting.” The high—level code is scanned
`
`to recognize keywords indicative of “operative language” corresponding to operations of the
`
`mobile communication device as well as keywords indicative of “relationships and conditions
`
`corresponding to the operative language.” (See id. at Abstract, 2:1—9, 5:31—61, 9:1—9, 10:5—13).
`
`Not every “keyword” is “operative language,” nor does every keyword constitute “relationships
`
`and conditions corresponding to the operative language.” Only after identifying keywords, does
`
`the ’ l24 Patent determine which of those keywords represent “operative language” and which of
`
`those identified keywords represent “relationships and conditions corresponding to the operative
`
`language.”
`
`The ’ l24 Patent also describes that the high—level code input by the user is further
`
`processed to ultimately produce executable code for execution by a microcontroller of the mobile
`
`communication device.
`
`(See id. at Abstract, 2:8—9, FIG. 2). Not all of the computation for the
`
`processing of the high—level code is required to happen on the mobile communication device.
`
`Rather, depending on the determined complexity and implementation of the input high—level
`
`code, the high—level code input to the mobile communication device is converted into executable
`
`code on the mobile communication device, a server networked with the mobile communication
`
`device, or both.
`
`(See id. at 1:55—2:55, 4:49—5:4, FIGS. 1 and 2).
`
`Page 13 of 66
`
`Page 13 of 66
`
`Page 13 of 66
`
`

`

`Request for Reexamination of U.S. 7,552,124
`
`Dkt. No. 143498.00008
`
`In accordance with various aspects of the above exemplary teachings, the claims of the
`
`’ 124 Patent are directed to methods and systems for programming a mobile communication
`
`device based on a high—level code.
`
`(See id. at 8:59—10:50).
`
`VI.
`
`DETAILED EXPLANATION OF THE PERTINENCY AND MANNER OF
`
`APPLYING THE CITED ART TO EVERY CLAIM FOR WHICH
`
`REEXAMINATION IS REQUESTED
`
`A request for ex parte reexamination should be granted where “a substantial new
`
`question of patentability affecting any claim of the patent is raised by the request and the prior
`
`art cited therein.” 37 C.F.R. § 1.515(a). In this section, the Request is shown to be sufficient to
`
`justify reexamination of claims 6— 10 of the ’ 124 Patent. Although Patent Owner believes that the
`
`grounds of rejection proposed by this Request raise substantial new questions of patentability,
`
`Patent Owner does not admit that any claims of the ’ 124 Patent are in fact unpatentable under
`
`any of the following grounds. The below claim charts demonstrate how, based on the cited
`
`documents, there exists allegedly substantial new questions of patentability with respect to
`
`claims 6—10 of the ’ 124 Patent without any express or implied waiver, disclaimer, or admission
`
`on the part of Patent Owner. For example, phrases such as “renders obvious” and “discloses”
`
`with reference to the publications applied herein are not absolute and are instead provided for
`
`evaluation purposes as to whether a substantial new question exists. Patent Owner also makes no
`
`admission that the various combinations of documents provided below are proper combinations
`
`under 35 USC § 103. Moreover, for the purposes of this Request, Patent Owner relies on the
`
`filing date of the ’ 124 Patent and makes no determination as to the earliest date (e. g., date of
`
`invention) that applies to the ’ 124 Patent for the purposes of determining whether any
`
`publications, etc., constitute prior art under any section of 35 U.S.C. § 102.
`
`Page 14 of 66
`
`Page 14 of 66
`
`Page 14 of 66
`
`

`

`Request for Reexamination of U.S. 7,552,124
`
`Dkt. No. 143498.00008
`
`A.
`
`SNQ 1: Obviousness Of Claims 6-10 Over Maes in View of Preston
`
`In the chart of claims 6—10 provided below, which is substantially similar to the analysis
`
`that was provided in the 1669 Petition for claims 1—10 and which served as the basis for
`
`institution of claims 1—5 as being obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over Maes in view of Preston
`
`(see Appendix B (pp. 14—46) and Appendix C (pp. 11—24)), Patent Owner sets forth the manner
`
`of applying the combination of Maes and Preston to claims 6—10 under 35 U.S.C. § 103, thereby
`
`more fully demonstrating why Maes in view of Preston may raise a substantial new question of
`
`patentability with regard to these claims.
`
`1.
`
`Maes and Preston — Claim 6
`
`6(3): A system for
`programming a mobile
`communication device
`based on a high—level code
`comprising operative
`language, the system
`comprising:
`
`Maes may disclose a system for programm1ng a mobile
`communication device based on a high—level code comprising
`operative language.
`
`As shown in FIG. 1 (reproduced below), Maes discloses a system
`that “comprises a local client device 100 comprising an acoustic
`front end 101 for processing audio/speech input and outputting
`audio/speech generated by the client device 100. The client device
`100 may be, for example, a smartphone or any speech—enabled
`PDA 20 (personal digital assistant)” (Maes at 4: 15—20).
`
`“Initially, the user will utter a spoken command (or otherwise issue
`a query) to the local client device, which is pre—processed, e. g., by
`digitizing and extracting the relevant features of the digitized
`speech signal (step 200).” (Id. at 10:59-63).
`
`
`
`“For example, assume the client device 100 is a smartphone with a
`name dialer local application. The user will store locally a list of
`desired names and addresses in the electronic address book of the
`
`smartphone. The user can then utter a command such as “dial first
`name last name at .
`.
`. possible qualifier (home, office, cell phone),
`and upon recognition/understanding of the command (via the local
`conversational engines 102), the smartphone will automatically
`dial the phone number associated with the person in the address
`book (via the local applications 104).” (Id. at 15 :46—55 ; see also
`4:15-29 and 15:33-16:47).
`
`Page 15 of 66
`
`10
`
`Page 15 of 66
`
`Page 15 of 66
`
`

`

`Request for Reexamination of U.S. 7,552,124
`
`Dkt. No. 143498.00008
`
`(
`
`‘
`
`E
`
`{@665 3kg Romy:
`
`.
`\
`:-; |“\v\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\
`::
`§ i“ Gmxamfiml Ffimfi
`t It
`\\
`E Eamon "a;
`
`2-4:":
`'.
`L
`‘
`\
`~ St,
`(““81“ lkm
`
`:
`5
`'
`
`5
`
`'
`E
`
`Sam: EmmaSmi
`{aim
`
`
`
`6(b): means for receiving a Maes’ system may comprise means for receiving a high—level code
`high—level code comprising
`comprising one or more keywords, wherein the high—level code is
`one or more keywords,
`provided by a user of a mobile communication device to control
`wherein the high—level code
`the operation of the mobile communication device without having
`is provided by a user of a
`to select from menu items provided by an operating system
`mobile communication
`running on the mobile communication device.
`
`device to control the
`
`operation of the mobile
`communication device
`
`without having to select
`from menu items provided
`by an operating system
`running on the mobile
`communication device;
`
`Maes discloses that “the present invention is implemented in
`software as an application. .
`. .” (Id. at 3:60—67). Maes also
`discloses a user interface, including a microphone and keyboard.
`(See id. at 8:42—44). “Initially, the user will utter a spoken
`command (or otherwise issue a query) to the local client device,
`which is pre—processed, e. g., by digitizing and extracting the
`relevant features of the digitized speech signal (step 200).” (Id. at
`10:59-63 (emphasis added)).
`
`“For example, assume the client device 100 is a smartphone with a
`name dialer local application. The user will store locally a list of
`desired names and addresses in the electronic address book of the
`
`smartphone. The user can then utter a command such as "dial first
`name last name at
`possible qualifier (home: office, cell Qhone),
`and upon recognition/understanding of the command (via the local
`
`Page 16 of 66
`
`ll
`
`Page 16 of 66
`
`Page 16 of 66
`
`

`

`Request for Reexamination of U.S. 7,552,124
`
`Dkt. No. 14349800008
`
`automat1ca y
`), t e smartp one w1
`conversationa engines
`dial the phone number associated with the person in the address
`book (via the local applications 104).” (Id. at 15:46—55 (emphasis
`added); see also 4:15—29 and 15:33—16:47).
`
`For example, Maes discloses that “[a]dvantageously, the present
`invention offers a full—fledged conversational user interface on any
`device.” (Id. at 3: 1 1—12). “It is to be appreciated that the system
`and methods described herein can be implemented for various
`speech enabled and conversational applications.” (Id. at 15 :33—35 ;
`see also 10:59-62, 15:46—55).
`
`Maes’ system may comprise means for parsing the high—level code
`for the keywords to recognize the operative language associated
`with controlling one or more operations of the mobile
`communication device.
`
`
`
`6(c): means for parsing the
`high—level code for the
`keywords to recognize the
`operative language
`associated with controlling
`one or more operations of
`the mobile communication
`
`device;
`
`Maes discloses that “the present invention is implemented in
`software as an application. .
`. .” (Id. at 3:60—67).
`
`Maes indicates that prior “[natural language understanding, NLU]
`and [natural language generation, NLG] services on a client device
`typically require server—side assistance since the complete set of
`conversational arguments or functions needed to generate the
`dialog (e. g., Qarser, tagger, translator, etc.) either require a large
`amount of memory for storage (not available in the client devices)
`or are too extensive (in terms of communication bandwidth) to
`transfer to the client side.” (Id. at 2:6—10 (emphasis added)). Maes
`also discloses that the “ local conversational engines 102 can
`include, for instance, an embedded speech recognition, a speaker
`recognition engine, a TIS engine, a NLU and NLG engine and an
`audio capture and compression/decompression engine as well as
`any other type of conversational engine.” (Id. at 4:24—29
`(emphasis added); see also id. at 4:57—62). Maes also discloses
`that, “as with the local engines 102, the server engines 107 can
`include, for instance, an embedded speech recognition, a TTS
`engine, a NLU and 60 NLG engine, an audio capture and
`compression/decompression engine, as well as any other type of
`conversational engine.” (4:57—62). See FIG. 2 of Maes, which
`may show local processing 202 and remote processing 205 of input
`speech received at step 200:
`
`Page 17 of 66
`
`12
`
`Page 17 of 66
`
`Page 17 of 66
`
`

`

`Request for Reexamination of U.S. 7,552,124
`
`Dkt. No. 143498.00008
`
`“For example, assume the client device 100 is a smartphone with a
`name dialer local application. The user will store locally a list of
`desired names and addresses in the electronic address book of the
`
`smartphone. The user can then utter a command such as "(M first
`name last name at
`possible qualifier (home, office, cell phone),
`and upon recognition/understanding of the command (via the
`local conversational engines 102), the smartphone will
`automatically dial the phone number associated with the person in
`the address book (via the local applications 104).” (Id. at 15 :46—55
`(emphasis added); see also id. at 2:6—13, 3:1-23, 3:65—66, 4:10—62,
`4:24-29, 4:54-62, 8:16—17, 8:31—35, 11:23—33).
`
`
`
`6(d): means for
`
`determining at least one
`operation associated with
`the operative language;
`
`Maes’ system may comprise means for determining at least one
`operation associated with