UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`___________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`___________
`
`Comcast Cable Communications, LLC
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`
`Promptu Systems Corporation
`Patent Owner
`
`___________
`
`
`Patent No. 7,047,196
`___________
`
`
`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW
`
`(Petition 2 of 2)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Proceeding No. IPR2018-00345
`
`

`

`Patent No. 7,047,196 – Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`Table of Contents ................................................................................................... i
`
`Table of Authorities ............................................................................................ vii
`
`List of Exhibits .................................................................................................. viii
`
`Mandatory Notices Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.8 ........................................................... x
`
`Real Party-in-Interest (37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(1))............................................. x
`
`Related Matters (37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(2)) ..................................................... x
`
`Lead and Back-Up Counsel (37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(3)) ................................... x
`
`Service Information (37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(4)) ..............................................xi
`
`I.
`
`II.
`
`Introduction ................................................................................................. 1
`
`Grounds for Standing ................................................................................... 2
`
`III.
`
`Identification of Challenge ........................................................................... 3
`
`IV. The Challenged Patent ................................................................................. 4
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`D.
`
`E.
`
`Effective Filing Date of the ’196 Patent ............................................. 4
`
`Overview of the ’196 Patent .............................................................. 4
`
`Prosecution History............................................................................ 6
`
`Patent Claims ..................................................................................... 6
`
`Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art..................................................... 7
`
`V.
`
`Construction of Terms in the Challenged Claims ......................................... 8
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`“wireline node” (claims 1, 14, 27, and 53) ......................................... 8
`
`“back channel” (claims 1, 2, 14, 27, 28, and 53) ................................ 9
`
`“partitioning said received back channel into a multiplicity of
`[said] received identified speech channels” (claims 1, 2, 27, 28) ........ 9
`
`VI. Overview of the Primary Prior Art References ........................................... 11
`
`A. Overview of Murdock ...................................................................... 11
`
`B.
`
`Overview of Julia ............................................................................. 14
`
`VII. The Challenged Claims Are Obvious Based on Murdock as the
`Primary Prior Art Reference ...................................................................... 15
`
`i
`
`
`
`

`

`Patent No. 7,047,196 – Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`A.
`
`Claims 14-15, 17, 25-26, 53-54, 61-62, 64, and 66 Are Obvious
`in Light of Murdock Alone or Combined with Nazarathy or
`Quigley ............................................................................................ 17
`
`1.
`
`Claim 14 ................................................................................ 17
`
`a.
`
`b.
`
`c.
`
`d.
`
`e.
`
`f.
`
`g.
`
`A program system controlling at least part of a
`speech recognition system coupled to a wireline
`node in a network, said program system
`comprising the program steps of: ................................. 17
`
`processing a multiplicity of received identified
`speech channels to create a multiplicity of
`identified speech content; and ...................................... 18
`
`responding to said identified speech content to
`create an identified speech content response that is
`unique to each of said multiplicity of identified
`speech contents; ........................................................... 20
`
`wherein said speech recognition system is
`provided said multiplicity of received identified
`speech channels based upon a received back
`channel at said wireline node from a multiplicity of
`user sites coupled to said network; ............................... 21
`
`wherein each of said program steps reside in
`memory accessibly coupled to at least one
`computer included in said speech recognition
`system; ......................................................................... 23
`
`wherein said at least one computer
`communicatively couples through said wireline
`node to said multiplicity of user sites; and; .................. 24
`
`wherein said network supports at least one of the
`collection comprising: cable television delivery to
`said multiplicity of user sites; and video delivery to
`said multiplicity of user sites. ....................................... 24
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`4.
`
`5.
`
`Claim 15 ................................................................................ 24
`
`Claim 17 ................................................................................ 27
`
`Claim 25 ................................................................................ 27
`
`Claim 26 ................................................................................ 28
`
`
`
`ii
`
`

`

`Patent No. 7,047,196 – Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`6.
`
`Claim 53 ................................................................................ 30
`
`a.
`
`b.
`
`c.
`
`d.
`
`e.
`
`A method of operating at least part of a speech
`recognition system coupled to a wireline node in a
`network, comprising the steps of .................................. 30
`
`processing a multiplicity of received identified
`speech channels to create a multiplicity of
`identified speech content .............................................. 30
`
`responding to said identified speech content to
`create an identified speech content response that is
`unique to each of said multiplicity of identified
`speech contents ............................................................ 30
`
`wherein said speech recognition system is
`provided said multiplicity of received identified
`speech channels based upon a received back
`channel at said wireline node from a multiplicity of
`user sites coupled to said network ................................ 31
`
`wherein said network supports at least one of the
`collection comprising: cable television delivery to
`said multiplicity of user sites; and video delivery to
`said multiplicity of user sites ........................................ 31
`
`7.
`
`8.
`
`9.
`
`Claim 54 ................................................................................ 31
`
`Claim 61 ................................................................................ 31
`
`Claim 62 ................................................................................ 32
`
`10. Claim 64 ................................................................................ 32
`
`11. Claim 66 ................................................................................ 32
`
`12. Motivation to Combine Murdock with Nazarathy or
`Quigley .................................................................................. 33
`
`B.
`
`Claims 18-19, 55, and 65 Are Obvious in Light of Murdock
`Alone or Further in Light of Either Banker or Gordon ..................... 34
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`4.
`
`Claim 18 ................................................................................ 35
`
`Claim 19 ................................................................................ 37
`
`Claim 55 ................................................................................ 41
`
`Claim 65 ................................................................................ 41
`
`
`
`iii
`
`

`

`Patent No. 7,047,196 – Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`5. Motivation to Combine Murdock with Banker and
`Gordon ................................................................................... 42
`
`VIII. The Challenged Claims Are Obvious Based on Julia As the Primary
`Reference ................................................................................................... 43
`
`A.
`
`Claims 14-15, 17, 25-26, 53-54, 61-62, 64, and 66 Are Obvious
`in Light of Julia Alone or Combined with Nazarathy or Quigley ..... 44
`
`1.
`
`Claim 14 ................................................................................ 44
`
`a.
`
`b.
`
`c.
`
`d.
`
`e.
`
`f.
`
`g.
`
`A program system controlling at least part of a
`speech recognition system coupled to a wireline
`node in a network, said program system
`comprising the program steps of .................................. 44
`
`processing a multiplicity of received identified
`speech channels to create a multiplicity of
`identified speech content .............................................. 44
`
`responding to said identified speech content to
`create an identified speech content response that is
`unique to each of said multiplicity of identified
`speech contents ............................................................ 46
`
`wherein said speech recognition system is
`provided said multiplicity of received identified
`speech channels based upon a received back
`channel at said wireline node from a multiplicity of
`user sites coupled to said network; ............................... 47
`
`wherein each of said program steps reside in
`memory accessibly coupled to at least one
`computer included in said speech recognition
`system .......................................................................... 49
`
`wherein said at least one computer
`communicatively couples through said wireline
`node to said multiplicity of user sites; and; .................. 50
`
`wherein said network supports at least one of the
`collection comprising: cable television delivery to
`said multiplicity of user sites; and video delivery to
`said multiplicity of user sites ........................................ 50
`
`2.
`
`Claim 15 ................................................................................ 51
`
`
`
`iv
`
`

`

`Patent No. 7,047,196 – Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`3.
`
`4.
`
`5.
`
`6.
`
`Claim 17 ................................................................................ 53
`
`Claim 25 ................................................................................ 53
`
`Claim 26 ................................................................................ 54
`
`Claim 53 ................................................................................ 55
`
`a.
`
`b.
`
`c.
`
`d.
`
`e.
`
`A method of operating at least part of a speech
`recognition system coupled to a wireline node in a
`network, comprising the steps of .................................. 55
`
`processing a multiplicity of received identified
`speech channels to create a multiplicity of
`identified speech content .............................................. 55
`
`responding to said identified speech content to
`create an identified speech content response that is
`unique to each of said multiplicity of identified
`speech contents ............................................................ 56
`
`wherein said speech recognition system is
`provided said multiplicity of received identified
`speech channels based upon a received back
`channel at said wireline node from a multiplicity of
`user sites coupled to said network ................................ 56
`
`wherein said network supports at least one of the
`collection comprising: cable television delivery to
`said multiplicity of user sites; and video delivery to
`said multiplicity of user sites ........................................ 56
`
`7.
`
`8.
`
`9.
`
`Claim 54 ................................................................................ 56
`
`Claim 61 ................................................................................ 57
`
`Claim 62 ................................................................................ 57
`
`10. Claim 64 ................................................................................ 57
`
`11. Claim 66 ................................................................................ 58
`
`12. Motivation to Combine Julia with Nazarathy and Quigley ..... 58
`
`B.
`
`Claims 18-19, 55, and 65 Are Obvious in Light of Julia Alone
`or Further in Light of Either Banker or Gordon ................................ 60
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`Claim 18 ................................................................................ 60
`
`Claim 19 ................................................................................ 62
`
`
`
`v
`
`

`

`Patent No. 7,047,196 – Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`3.
`
`4.
`
`Claim 55 ................................................................................ 64
`
`Claim 65 ................................................................................ 64
`
`5. Motivation to Combine Julia with Banker and Gordon .......... 64
`
`IX. Conclusion ................................................................................................. 66
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`vi
`
`

`

`Patent No. 7,047,196 – Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`Federal Court Cases
`
`Dynamic Drinkware, LLC v. National Graphics, Inc.,
` 800 F.3d 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2015) .........................................................................11
`
`In re Cuozzo Speed Techs., LLC,
` 778 F.3d 1271 (Fed. Cir. 2015) .......................................................................... 8
`
`KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc.,
` 550 U.S. 398 (2007) ....................................................................... 34, 43, 59, 65
`
`Administrative Decisions
`
`Cisco Sys. Inc. v. Capella Photonics, Inc.,
` 2016 WL 783545 (PTAB Feb. 17, 2016) ..........................................................12
`
`Ex Parte Mann,
` 2016 WL 7487271 (PTAB Dec. 21, 2016) ........................................................11
`
`Federal Statutory Authorities
`
`35 U.S.C.
` § 102 ........................................................................................... 3, 12, 14, 15, 16
` § 103 .................................................................................................................. 3
` § 112 .................................................................................................................. 3
`
`Federal Rules and Regulations
`
`37 C.F.R.
` § 42.100 ............................................................................................................ 8
` § 42.104 ......................................................................................................... 2, 3
`
`
`
`
`
`vii
`
`

`

`Patent No. 7,047,196 – Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`LIST OF EXHIBITS
`
`Exhibit
`
`Description
`
`1001
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,047,196 (“’196 Patent”)
`
`1002
`
`Prosecution history of U.S. Application No. 09/785,375, which led
`to the issuance of the ’196 Patent (“File History”)
`
`1003
`
`Provisional Application No. 60/210,440
`
`1004
`
`1005
`
`1006
`
`1007
`
`“Speech Recognition by Machine: A Review” by D. Raj Reddy,
`Proceedings of the IEEE, Vol. 64, No. 4, April 1976
`
`“Multimodal User Interfaces in the Open Agent Architecture” by D.
`Moran, et al., Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference on
`Intelligent User Interfaces (IUI ’97), pp. 61-68, 1997
`
`“Quantization of Cepstral Parameters for Speech Recognition over
`the World Wide Web” by V. Digalakis, et al., IEEE Journal on
`Selected Areas in Communications, Vol. 17, No. 1, Jan. 1999
`
`“Enabling New Speech Driven Services for Mobile Devices: An
`Overview of the ETSI Standards Activities for Distributed Speech
`Recognition Front-Ends” by D. Pearce, AVIOS 2000: The Speech
`Applications Conference, 2000
`
`1008
`
`“IBM Technical Disclosure Bulletin: Speech Recognition Methods
`for Controlling Cable Television,” Vol. 38, No. 08, August 1995
`
`1009
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,345,389
`
`1010
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,013,283 (“Murdock”)
`
`1011
`
`Provisional Application No. 60/166,010 (“Murdock Provisional”)
`
`1012
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,513,063 (“Julia”)
`
`1013
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,490,727 (“Nazarathy”)
`
`1014
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,650,624 (“Quigley”)
`
`
`
`viii
`
`

`

`Patent No. 7,047,196 – Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`Exhibit
`
`Description
`
`1015
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,477,262 (“Banker”)
`
`1016
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,314,573 (“Gordon”)
`
`1017
`
`1018
`
`1019
`
`Plaintiff Promptu Systems Corporation’s Disclosure of Asserted
`Claims and Preliminary Infringement Contentions (“Infringement
`Contentions”)
`
`Declaration of Jeffrey Lau in Support of Petition for Inter Partes
`Review
`
`Declaration of Christopher Schmandt Regarding U.S. Patent No.
`7,047,196 (“Schmandt Decl.”)
`
`
`
`ix
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Patent No. 7,047,196 – Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`MANDATORY NOTICES UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.8
`
`Real Party-in-Interest (37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(1))
`
`The real parties-in-interest are petitioner Comcast Cable Communications,
`
`LLC (“Petitioner”) and Comcast Corporation. No unnamed entity is funding,
`
`controlling, or directing this petition or has the opportunity to control or direct this
`
`petition or Petitioner’s participation in any resulting inter partes review.
`
`Related Matters (37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(2))
`
`Petitioner is aware of the following pending matter related to U.S. Patent
`
`No. 7,047,196: Promptu Systems Corporation v. Comcast Corporation and
`
`Comcast Cable Communications, LLC, Case No. 2:16-06516 (E.D. PA). In
`
`addition, Petitioner is concurrently filing another petition for inter partes review of
`
`different claims in U.S. Patent No. 7,047,196 along with this petition.
`
`Lead and Back-Up Counsel (37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(3))
`
`Petitioner appoints James L. Day (Reg. No. 72,681) of Farella Braun +
`
`Martel LLP as lead counsel and appoints Daniel Callaway (Reg. No. 74,267) of
`
`Farella Braun + Martel LLP as back-up counsel. Petitioner also appoints Leo L.
`
`Lam (Reg. No. 38,528) of Keker, Van Nest & Peters LLP as back-up counsel.
`
`An appropriate Power of Attorney is being filed herewith.
`
`
`
`x
`
`

`

`Patent No. 7,047,196 – Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`Service Information (37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(4))
`
`Service of any documents to lead and back-up counsel can be made via
`
`hand-delivery to Farella Braun + Martel LLP, 235 Montgomery Street, 17th Floor,
`
`San Francisco, California, 94104. Petitioner consents to electronic service to the
`
`following email addresses: jday@fbm.com, dcallaway@fbm.com,
`
`calendar@fbm.com, and llam@keker.com.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`xi
`
`

`

`Patent No. 7,047,196 – Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`Petitioner respectfully requests inter partes review of claims 14-15, 17-19,
`
`25-26, 53-55, 61-62, and 64-66 (the “challenged claims”) of U.S. Patent No.
`
`7,047,196 (the “’196 Patent”), owned by Promptu Systems Corporation (“Patent
`
`Owner”). The ’196 Patent is directed to voice control in a cable television system.
`
`The patent acknowledges that speech recognition processing and voice control
`
`systems existed in the prior art, but asserts that speech recognition processing had
`
`not yet been implemented at a “wireline node” (i.e., headend) in a cable television
`
`or video network. The ’196 Patent purports to address this problem by locating the
`
`speech recognition processor “in or near a wireline node.” ’196 Patent at 5:11-15.
`
`But the claimed invention of the ’196 Patent was not new or inventive as of
`
`its earliest effective filing date in June 2000. For example, U.S. Patent No.
`
`7,013,283 (“Murdock”), which is based on a provisional application filed in 1999,
`
`describes a cable television system in which users’ voice commands are
`
`transmitted to the cable head-end for voice recognition processing just as in the
`
`’196 Patent. Similarly, U.S. Patent No. 6,513,063 (“Julia”), which was filed earlier
`
`in 2000, also describes a cable network where voice commands from multiple
`
`system users are transmitted to a central remote server for speech recognition
`
`processing. To the extent Patent Owner may argue that there was anything novel
`
`claimed with regard to processing upstream signals from multiple cable system
`
`
`
`1
`
`

`

`Patent No. 7,047,196 – Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`users, Murdock or Julia can be combined with even older prior art patents (i.e.,
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,490,727 (“Nazarathy”) or U.S. Patent No. 6,650,624
`
`(“Quigley”)) describing well-known techniques for distinguishing multiple users’
`
`signals at a cable headend. Finally, several challenged dependent claims recite
`
`elements related to “financial” transactions that would have been obvious to a
`
`person of ordinary skill in the art and are also disclosed by prior art describing the
`
`basic steps in a pay-per-view system (i.e., U.S. Patent No. 5,477,262 (“Banker”) or
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,314,573 (“Gordon”)). The challenged claims are obvious in
`
`light of these prior art patents.
`
`The petition demonstrates a reasonable likelihood Petitioner will prevail on
`
`at least one of the claims challenged. Therefore, inter partes review should be
`
`instituted and the challenged claims of the ’196 Patent should be canceled as
`
`unpatentable.
`
`II. GROUNDS FOR STANDING
`
`Petitioner certifies pursuant to Rule 42.104(a) that the ’196 Patent is
`
`available for inter partes review and that Petitioner is not barred or estopped from
`
`requesting an inter partes review challenging the validity of the claims of the ’196
`
`Patent on the grounds identified in this petition.
`
`
`
`2
`
`

`

`Patent No. 7,047,196 – Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`III.
`
`IDENTIFICATION OF CHALLENGE
`
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b), Petitioner requests inter partes review of
`
`the challenged claims of the ’196 Patent and further requests that the challenged
`
`claims be canceled as unpatentable for being obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 1031 based
`
`on the following grounds (each of which includes the specific prior art identified as
`
`well as the knowledge of one of ordinary skill in the art):
`
`Ground 1: All challenged claims (i.e., claims 14-15, 17-19, 25-26, 53-55,
`
`61-62, and 64-66) are unpatentable as obvious over Murdock (Ex. 1010);
`
`Ground 2: All challenged claims are unpatentable as obvious over Murdock
`
`in light of either Nazarathy (Ex. 1013) or Quigley (Ex. 1014);
`
`Ground 3: Claims 18-19, 55, and 65 are unpatentable as obvious over
`
`Murdock alone or in light of Nazarathy or Quigley and further in light of either
`
`Banker (Ex. 1015) or Gordon (Ex. 1016);
`
`Ground 4: All challenged claims are unpatentable as obvious over Julia
`
`(Ex. 1012);
`
`Ground 5: All challenged claims are unpatentable as obvious over Julia in
`
`light of either Nazarathy or Quigley; and
`
`Ground 6: Claims 18-19, 55, and 65 are unpatentable as obvious over Julia
`
`in light of Nazarathy or Quigley and further in light of either Banker or Gordon.
`
`
`1 The pre-AIA version of Sections 102, 103, and 112 of the Patent Act apply.
`
`
`
`3
`
`

`

`Patent No. 7,047,196 – Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`Petitioner’s proposed construction of terms, the evidence relied upon, and
`
`the precise reasons why the claims are unpatentable are provided in the following
`
`sections of this petition. A List of Exhibits identifying the specific evidence relied
`
`upon is provided above.
`
`IV. THE CHALLENGED PATENT
`
`A. Effective Filing Date of the ’196 Patent
`
`The ’196 Patent issued from U.S. Application No. 09/785,375, which was
`
`filed on February 16, 2001 and claims priority to a provisional application filed on
`
`June 8, 2000. The effective filing date of all claims in the ’196 Patent is therefore
`
`no earlier than June 8, 2000. Patent Owner does not assert any earlier priority date.
`
`Infringement Contentions at 5 (Ex. 1017).
`
`B. Overview of the ’196 Patent
`
`The ’196 Patent is entitled “System and Method of Voice Recognition Near
`
`a Wireline Node of a Network Supporting Cable Television and/or Video
`
`Delivery.” ’196 Patent at cover (Ex. 1001). The patent discloses a “method and
`
`system of speech recognition presented by a back channel from multiple users sites
`
`within a network supporting cable television and/or video delivery ….” ’196
`
`Patent at Abstract; see also at ’196 Patent at 5:3-5 (“An embodiment of the
`
`invention provides speech recognition services to a collection of users over a
`
`network that supports cable television and/or video delivery.”).
`
`
`
`4
`
`

`

`Patent No. 7,047,196 – Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`The ’196 Patent discloses a “multi-user control system for audio visual
`
`devices that incorporates a speech recognition system that is centrally located in or
`
`near a wireline node, and which may include a Cable Television (CATV)
`
`Headend.” ’196 Patent at 5:11-15. An embodiment of the disclosed system is
`
`illustrated in Figure 3. Id. at 7:13-21.
`
`
`
`’196 Patent Fig. 3
`
`As illustrated in Figure 3, “remote control unit 1000” is coupled to “set-top
`
`apparatus 1100.” Id. at 9:48-49. “Set-top apparatus 1100 communicates through
`
`distributor node 1300 across a high-speed physical transport 1400 to a tightly
`
`coupled server farm 3000, possessing various delivery points 1510 and entry points
`
`
`
`5
`
`

`

`Patent No. 7,047,196 – Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`1512-1518.” Id. at 9:52-55. The system includes a central “speech recognition
`
`processor system 3200.” Id. at Fig. 3. The speech processor system “may be
`
`centrally located in or near a wireline node, which may include a Cable Television
`
`(CATV) central location,” or it “may be centrally located in or near a server farm,”
`
`“web-site hosting locations,” or “gateway.” Id. at 18:24-30.
`
`C.
`
`Prosecution History
`
`The ’196 Patent issued from U.S. Patent Application No. 09/785,375, which
`
`was filed on February 16, 2001 and contained 66 claims. File History at 117-137
`
`(Ex. 1002). In an initial Office Action, dated March 18, 2005, the examiner
`
`indicated that the application was in condition for allowance subject to certain
`
`objections regarding the Abstract and the applicant’s use of the term “voice
`
`recognition,” which the examiner understood “denotes identification of who is
`
`doing the speaking” while “‘speech recognition’ … denotes identification of what
`
`is being said.” Id. at 315-17. In response, on April 27, 2005, the applicants
`
`submitted a “replacement abstract” and a “replacement specification in which the
`
`term ‘voice recognition’ has been replaced with the term --speech recognition--.”
`
`Id. at 332, 340-429. The patent issued on May 16, 2006.
`
`D.
`
`Patent Claims
`
`The ’196 Patent contains 66 claims. For example, claim 1 reads as follows:
`
`1. A method of using a back channel containing a multiplicity of
`
`identified speech channels from a multiplicity of user sites presented
`
`
`
`6
`
`

`

`Patent No. 7,047,196 – Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`to a speech processing system at a wireline node in a network
`
`supporting at least one of cable television delivery and video delivery,
`
`comprising the steps of:
`
`receiving said back channel to create a received back channel;
`
`partitioning said received back channel into a multiplicity of received
`
`identified speech channels;
`
`processing said multiplicity of said received identified speech
`
`channels to create a multiplicity of identified speech content; and
`
`responding to said identified speech content to create an identified
`
`speech content response that is unique, for each of said multiplicity
`
`of identified speech contents.
`
`The patent includes a total of 4 independent claims (i.e., 1, 14, 27, and 53) and 62
`
`dependent claims.
`
`E.
`
`Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art
`
`A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been familiar with
`
`interactive multi-media network architectures, including for interactive television,
`
`and speech recognition and voice control technologies. This familiarity would
`
`have come through having (i) an undergraduate degree (or equivalent) in electrical
`
`engineering, computer science, or a comparable subject and at least three years of
`
`professional work experience in the field of multi-media systems including in
`
`particular speech recognition and control technologies, or (ii) an advanced degree
`
`(or equivalent) in electrical engineering, computer science, or a comparable subject
`
`
`
`7
`
`

`

`Patent No. 7,047,196 – Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`and at least one year of post-graduate research or work experience in the field of
`
`multi-media systems including in particular speech recognition and control
`
`technologies. Schmandt Decl. ¶¶ 75-76 (Ex. 1019).
`
`V. CONSTRUCTION OF TERMS IN THE CHALLENGED CLAIMS
`
`In this proceeding, the claims are to be given their broadest reasonable
`
`construction in light of the specification. 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b); In re Cuozzo
`
`Speed Techs., LLC, 778 F.3d 1271, 1279-83 (Fed. Cir. 2015). Other than the terms
`
`addressed here, Petitioner believes the challenged claims can be understood based
`
`on their plain meaning to one of ordinary skill in the art in light of the
`
`specification.
`
`A.
`
`“wireline node” (claims 1, 14, 27, and 53)
`
`The challenged independent claims each refer to a “wireline node.” ’196
`
`Patent at 50:64-66, 52:65-66, 58:12-13. The specification states that “a centralized
`
`wireline node refers to a network node providing video or cable television delivery
`
`to multiple users using a wireline physical transport between those users at the
`
`node.” Id. at 1:66-2:2. For example, a wireline node could be the headend of a
`
`cable television system that serves multiple subscribers over coaxial and fiber-
`
`optic cables. Schmandt Decl. ¶ 80. Thus, the broadest reasonable interpretation of
`
`“wireline node” is “a network node providing video or cable television delivery to
`
`
`
`8
`
`

`

`Patent No. 7,047,196 – Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`multiple users over physical wires between the node and the multiple user
`
`locations.” Id. ¶ 81.
`
`B.
`
`“back channel” (claims 1, 2, 14, 27, 28, and 53)
`
`The challenged claims recite a “back channel.” ’196 Patent at 50:62-51:4,
`
`51:14-18, 53:7-11, 58:21-25. The patent specification uses “back channel” to refer
`
`to an upstream communication channel for delivering signals from user sites to a
`
`central wireline node. For example, the patent states that “[t]he back channel is
`
`from a multiplicity of user sites and is presented to a speech processing system at
`
`the wireline node in the network.” Id. at 22:12-14; see also id. 30:4-7, 32:37-39.
`
`This usage of “back channel” is consistent with the fact that cable television
`
`systems have for decades enabled two-way data communication between a central
`
`headend and users’ set-top boxes by using an upstream channel (or “back
`
`channel”) for signal transmission from the user to the headend. Schmandt Decl. ¶
`
`82. The broadest reasonable interpretation of “back channel” is therefore the
`
`“upstream communication channel delivering signals from multiple user sites to a
`
`central wireline node.” Id. ¶ 83.
`
`C.
`
`“partitioning said received back channel into a multiplicity of
`[said] received identified speech channels” (claims 1, 2, 27, 28)
`
`Claims 1 and 27 require “partitioning said received back channel into a
`
`multiplicity of received identified speech channels.” ’196 Patent at 51:3-4.
`
`Dependent claims 2 and 28 further limit this step by requiring “partitioning said
`
`
`
`9
`
`

`

`Patent No. 7,047,196 – Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`received back channel into a multiplicity of said received identified speech
`
`channels from said associated user site.” Id. at 51:14-18.2
`
`Neither the claims nor the specification describe any particular approach to
`
`“partitioning” the back channel. Instead, the specification simply restates, without
`
`further explanation, the same language used in the claims. ’196 Patent at 22:8-12,
`
`22:24-26, 23:2-5, 51:3-4, Fig. 10 (step 2012), Fig. 11A (step 2072); Schmandt
`
`Decl. ¶¶ 85-86. Absent any limitations in the patent, a person of ordinary skill in
`
`the art would understand the term “partitioning said received back channel” to
`
`broadly include any approach or technique to divide a communication channel into
`
`identifiable portions. Schmandt Decl. ¶ 86. Therefore, the broadest reasonable
`
`interpretation of “partitioning said received back channel into a multiplicity of
`
`[said] received identified speech channels” is “dividing the received back channel
`
`into multiple portions that are each identified with speech commands originating
`
`from system users.” Id. ¶ 87.
`
`