Paper No. 32
`Entered: November 17, 2020
`
`Trials@uspto.gov
`571-272-7822
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`APPLE INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`ADVANCED VOICE RECOGNITION SYSTEMS, INC.,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`IPR2019-01352
`Patent 7,558,730 B2
`____________
`
`Record of Oral Hearing
`Held: October 26, 2020
`____________
`
`
`
`Before JOHN A. HUDALLA, MELISSA A. HAAPALA, and
`STEVEN M. AMUNDSON, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Entered: November 17, 2020
`
`Trials@uspto.gov
`571-272-7822
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`APPLE INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`ADVANCED VOICE RECOGNITION SYSTEMS, INC.,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`IPR2019-01352
`Patent 7,558,730 B2
`____________
`
`Record of Oral Hearing
`Held: October 26, 2020
`____________
`
`
`
`Before JOHN A. HUDALLA, MELISSA A. HAAPALA, and
`STEVEN M. AMUNDSON, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2019-01352
`Patent 7,558,730 B2
`
`
`
`APPEARANCES:
`
`ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER:
`
`
`ADAM P. SEITZ, ESQ.
`Erise IP, P.A.
`5299 DTC Boulevard
`Greenwood Village, Colorado 80111
`913-777-5611
`adam.seitz@eriseip.com
`
`
`
`ON BEHALF OF THE PATENT OWNER:
`
`
`NICHOLAS C. KLIEWER, ESQ.
`MICHAEL C. POMEROY, ESQ.
`Beuther Joe & Carpenter, LLC
`1700 Pacific Avenue
`Suite 4750
`Dallas, Texas 75201
`214-466-1274
`nick.kliewer@bcjiplaw.com
`michael.pomeroy@bcjiplaw.com
`
`
`
`
`The above-entitled matter came on for hearing on Monday, October
`
`26, 2020, commencing at 1:00 p.m. EDT, via videoconference.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
`IPR2019-01352
`Patent 7,558,730 B2
`
`
`P R O C E E D I N G S
`- - - - -
`
`1:05 p.m.
`JUDGE AMUNDSON: Good afternoon, everyone. I'm Judge
`Amundson, and with me on the panel are Judges Hudalla and Haapala. We
`have our final hearing in IPR 2019-01352, Apple, Inc. v. Advanced Voice
`Recognition Systems, Inc., which concerns U.S. Patent No. 7,558,730.
`Let's get the parties' appearances, please. Who do we have for the
`Petitioner?
`MR. SEITZ: Good morning. Good morning, Your Honor. This is
`Adam Seitz for Petitioner Apple, and then also on the phone on the public
`lines should be two of our client representatives, Natalie Pous and Ben Huh.
`JUDGE AMUNDSON: And will you present the argument, Mr.
`
`Seitz?
`
`MR. SEITZ: Yes, Your Honor.
`JUDGE AMUNDSON: All right, thank you. And who do we have
`for the Patent Owner?
`MR. KLIEWER: Good afternoon, Your Honor. This is Nick
`Kliewer with Beuther Joe & Carpenter. With me I have my co-counsel,
`Michael Pomeroy.
`JUDGE AMUNDSON: And Mr. Kliewer, will you present the
`argument?
`MR. KLIEWER: Yes, Your Honor. I may have to have Mr.
`Pomeroy jump in, but I plan on giving the argument.
`JUDGE AMUNDSON: That's fine. Well you just do what you need
`to do. But anyway, thank you all for your flexibility in conducting the
`
`3
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
`IPR2019-01352
`Patent 7,558,730 B2
`
`hearing by video. We know that this departs from our typical practice, and
`given that we wanted to start by addressing a few items. First, our main
`concern is your right to be heard. So if at any time during the hearing you
`encounter technical or other difficulties that you feel undermine your ability
`to adequately represent your client, please let us known immediately, for
`example, by contacting the team members who provided you with the
`connection information. Second, when not speaking please mute yourself.
`Third, please identify yourself each time you speak. This will help the court
`reporter prepare an accurate transcript. Fourth, we have the entire record,
`including the demonstratives. When referring to a demonstrative or an
`exhibit or a paper, please do so by identifying the slide or page number.
`Also, please pause a little after identifying the slide or page number to give
`others time to find it.
`Fifth, we set forth the procedure for today's hearing in our trial order.
`But just to remind everyone the way this will work, each party will have 60
`minutes to present arguments. Petitioner bears the ultimate burden of proof
`and will go first, and Petitioner may reserve time for rebuttal. Patent Owner
`will go next, and Patent Owner may reserve time for surrebuttal.
`Please remember that the demonstratives that you submitted are not
`part of the record. The transcript will serve as the record of the hearing.
`Also, please do not interrupt the other party while that party is presenting its
`argument. If you have an objection, please raise it during your argument. I
`will keep time and I will try to give you a warning when you're reaching the
`end of your time. Are there any questions before we proceed?
`MR. SEITZ: Not from Petitioner, Your Honor.
`MR. KLIEWER: No, Your Honor.
`
`4
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
`IPR2019-01352
`Patent 7,558,730 B2
`
`
`JUDGE AMUNDSON: All right, very well. Mr. Seitz, do you want
`to reserve any time for rebuttal?
`MR. SEITZ: Yes, Your Honor. I understand we have an hour, and
`I'd like to reserve 15 minutes please.
`JUDGE AMUNDSON: All right. Let me make a note of that. All
`right, Mr. Seitz. You may begin whenever you're ready.
`MR. SEITZ: Thank you, Your Honor. Nathan, if I might ask, could
`you please mute your line? I'm picking up a lot of background noise, if you
`could be so kind. Thank you Your Honors, and may it please the Board. I'd
`like to start with our Demonstrative Slide DX-3. There's four disputes that
`we are going to be -- that I am going to be addressing today, and of course
`I'm always happy to address the questions that Your Honors may have.
`Of the four disputes that I'd like to walk through with you today are
`listed on DX-3, and I'm going to explain here as they relate to varying
`grounds. But if we start at the very first dispute, I'd like to discuss the level
`of skill in the art. This dispute relates to all grounds, Grounds 1, 2 and 3
`before Your Honors. The question that we're going to be talking about here
`is very specific. Does the level of skill in the art require experience in the
`design, quote "design" of SRT or speech recognition transcription systems.
`It does not.
`The second dispute relates to claim construction centering around the
`word "speech" and what is required as a component of that speech. That
`also relates to all three grounds. And then we're going to focus for our last
`two disputes on the individual grounds. Grounds 1 and 2 relate to the
`Skladman combinations. Ground 1 is Skladman and Obilisetty. Grounds 2
`is Skladman, Obilisetty and Schrage.
`
`5
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
`IPR2019-01352
`Patent 7,558,730 B2
`
`
`The question there is the same for both Grounds 1 and 2, does the
`Skladman combination send transcriptions, so that's a transcription of the
`audio file, does it send those directly to the user, a one-way communication,
`or as Petitioners have contended back to the unified message server as a two-
`way communication. Finally Your Honors, I'm going to talk through
`Ground 3, which is the Cohn and Obilisetty combination, and broadly
`speaking with Ground 3 we're going to focus on would a PHOSITA have
`been motivated to centralized Cohn’s transcription pursuant to Obilisetty.
`Moving to Slide DX-4, and starting at the level of skill in the art.
`The Board proposed in its ID and the Petitioners adopted in our reply a level
`of experience that is two years of experience in the area of
`telecommunications applicable to speech recognition and transcription
`systems. The Patent Owner's definition differs. They propose one year of
`experience, which I'm not going spend time on today.
`The area where it differs most significantly, however, is they have
`proposed experience in the design of speech recognition transcription
`systems, no aspect of telecommunications, and that it must include
`something relating to the specific design. Why does this matter? So before
`we get into the explanation of why I believe that the '730 patent does not
`require experience in the design, it matters at least as far as I can tell,
`because Patent Owner wants to suggest that our expert, Dr. Creusere, should
`be afforded less weight.
`There is no Motion to Exclude pending before Your Honors. There
`has been no motion to strike our expert. I believe from Patent Owner's
`perspective this is a question of weight. And after I discuss why that aspect
`of design or the inclusion of design is wrong, I want to loop back and
`
`6
`
`
`
`IPR2019-01352
`Patent 7,558,730 B2
`
`explain to you that frankly even if it's added, under the Trial Practice Guide
`it simply doesn't matter.
`But before we get there, let's move on to Slide DX-5. Patent
`Owner's definition, by including the phrase "design of speech recognition
`and transcription systems," assigns too much weight to the aspect of
`designing when looking at the '730 patent. How do we know this? Well,
`from the '730 patent itself. We know from the '730 patent that transcription,
`computerized transcription systems already existed at the time of the '730
`patent.
`
`The two specifically listed in the body of the patent, looking at DX-5
`that cites the '730 patent to Column 2, are two commercially available
`systems called Dragon Dictate and IBM Via Voice. These were
`commercially available speech recognition and transcription systems,
`software that a user could buy to run on their own computer. Dr. Creusere,
`Dr. Creusere is Petitioner's expert. He also walked through in his
`declaration in paragraphs 34 to 37 the history of computerized speech
`recognition and transcription systems starting in the 1980's, and working his
`way up to the date of the '730 patent.
`There has been no challenge to this testimony. Patent Owner has not
`disputed that the systems described by Dr. Creusere dating back to the 80's
`up to the time of the 730 were inadequate or insufficient, or that they
`suffered drawbacks in their design of the system itself, or how the automatic
`speech recognition functioned in those systems. Nor have they challenged
`in the '730 patent Dragon Dictate or IBM Via Voice as being somehow
`inadequate when it comes to the speech recognition side of things.
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`7
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
`IPR2019-01352
`Patent 7,558,730 B2
`
`
`Instead, they have -- actually before I get there, let me move to Slide
`DX-6, and further discussing the aspect that there is no dispute here between
`Patent Owner and Petitioner that these systems are inadequate, Patent
`Owner's expert, looking again at Slide 6, agreed that these transcription
`systems, Dragon Dictate and Via Voice were commercially available as of
`2001, the time of the '730 patent. He agreed, again looking at Slide 6 in the
`bottom quotation during his deposition, that this was software that a user
`could buy and simply run, essentially shrink-wrapped ready to go on your
`own personal computer.
`Perhaps most importantly Your Honors, looking at Slide DX-7,
`Patent Owner's expert agreed that the '730 patent contemplated using
`commercially available or off the shelf speech recognition transcription
`software. When asked in his deposition if it did so, he specifically said the
`'730 patent is designed to work with systems that may be available from
`other sources, as cited on Slide 7. This is page 50, lines 13 to 19 of his
`deposition.
`That makes sense, because the '730 patent essentially viewed the
`transcription system as somewhat of a black box. There's no reason that
`someone couldn't design their own automatic speech system, a transcription
`system and utilize it with the 730. But the 730 contemplated also using off
`the shelf, what I would call black box software, where you would input
`audio files and you receive text files in exchange.
`The focus on the '730 patent was not on the in and out, the inner
`workings of reinventing the transcription system wheel. It was instead
`focused on how to exchange speech and transcribe speech, the text files,
`among users of heterogeneous or different networks.
`
`8
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
`IPR2019-01352
`Patent 7,558,730 B2
`
`
`Moving to Slide 8, I have cited some portions from, in Slide 8, cited
`some portions of the '730 patent. If we start at the top, we see the '730
`patent describing a barrier to implementing centralized systems. What were
`those centralized systems? They were centralized speech recognition and
`transcription systems. So centralizing the transcription on a network. The
`problem, as the '730 patent noted, wasn't with how those systems transcribed
`words such as the words that I'm saying now. The problem was how could
`these systems communicate among businesses that operate using their own
`internal business or system protocols, protocols that would be different from
`one business to another, meaning they can't talk back and forth
`JUDGE AMUNDSON: Judge Amundson here. I have a question.
`If there were desktop shrink-wrapped dictation programs such as Dragon
`Dictate and IBM Via Voice, what was the reason people wanted to use a
`centralized system?
`MR. SEITZ: So according to the '730 patent, the reason for a
`centralized system is to reduce costs. If you start with the idea of two
`disparate communication systems, two disparate networks, so a network at
`Business A and a network at Business B, they use different communication
`protocols. Getting those two to talk together is difficult. Having their own
`transcription software might result in a protocol or a computer language that
`doesn't speak from Business A to Business B and would prevent you from
`exchanging those.
`So the idea was if there was a centralized system, everybody could
`use that, save the costs of their own systems on their own networks, and then
`also incorporate other aspects of the 730 that would allow them to
`communicate together. As noted at the bottom of Slide 8 Judge, the system
`
`9
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
`IPR2019-01352
`Patent 7,558,730 B2
`
`was to provide a seamless exchange of the verbal or transcribed speech
`among those users of disparate protocols.
`JUDGE AMUNDSON: All right, thank you.
`JUDGE HAAPALA: Mr. Seitz, you said that you were going to
`explain to us why it's not relevant anyway, and I know -- I'm not asking you
`to argue on behalf of Patent Owner, but if the issue is the qualifications of
`your expert testimony, we do have guidance in our Trial Practice Guide that
`states specifically the expert testimony does not have to have a perfect match
`between their qualifications and a person of ordinary skill in the art.
`So I suspect that the issue that's lacking is your expert is, let me see.
`It's Dr. Creusere? How do you say his name?
`MR. SEITZ: Creusere.
`JUDGE HAAPALA: Creusere. Okay, thank you. Dr. Creusere
`does not have the specific design qualifications. But could you explain why
`you think he is otherwise qualified to testify as an expert?
`MR. SEITZ: Absolutely. You took my thunder a little bit there,
`Your Honor. In the November 2019 Practice Guide you are correct. If you
`focus on Section G, Expert Testimony, the Trial Practice -- the Practice
`Guide is very clear at page 34. There's no requirement of a perfect match
`between the expert's experience and the relevant field. It goes on to say that
`a person may not need to be a person of ordinary skill in the art to testify as
`an expert in these matters. Dr. Creusere I believe is very well qualified,
`even when you look at some of the aspects of -- he's not completely
`unqualified when it comes to design.
`But when you look at the qualifications of Dr. Creusere, he is
`eminently qualified in networking, telecommunications and systems that
`
`10
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
`IPR2019-01352
`Patent 7,558,730 B2
`
`communicate with each other using disparate communication protocols.
`He's worked in the telecommunication area since '92. He's worked for
`AT&T Bell Labs on how to send voice across networks. He was involved in
`digital signal processing work. More specifically, that relates to taking
`audio files, converting them to digital formats, packetizing, sending them
`across networks. As it relates to, if we look at, Your Honors, the level of
`skill in the art, it was applicable to speech and recognition systems. I
`believe he fits that as well.
`He has audio compression and processing research. The '730 patent
`specifically notes that must be done or one of the functionalities that must be
`done prior to transcription is to decompress audio files. So we know that
`compression is an aspect of the 730, you know. He's done the digital signal
`processing. He's worked with -- this was the U.S. government, the Navy.
`I'm sorry armed forces. I don't recall which specifically.
`But he's worked with them as far as sending video files with multiple
`protocols from different networks to transmit them across there. And then
`finally on the design side, he has had a class during his educational
`experience that gave him experience on speech recognition transcription
`systems. That class included -- it was Chapter 9, not Chapter 10, but
`included a whole chapter dedicated to the design of these systems.
`So in our opinion Your Honor, I think he could fairly say that he's
`been involved in the design of systems. But even if you took a very rigid
`approach to saying what the definition of design is and that design should be
`included in the definition, that doesn't prevent him from testifying here or
`from you assigning great weight to the areas of his experience, which is the
`networking side of things.
`
`11
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
`IPR2019-01352
`Patent 7,558,730 B2
`
`
`JUDGE HAAPALA: Okay, thank you.
`MR. SEITZ: So let's move past the question of level of skill in the
`art, and move towards the primary claim construction dispute which centers
`around the word "speech." I'm focusing myself on Slide 11 of our
`demonstratives.
`There's a question here that Patent Owner has put forward that the
`contention is that speech requires three components, and I say "requires."
`So when Patent Owner argues for this construction of speech, they're saying
`that where you see speech it must have three things: spoken text, spoken
`commands and embedded commands.
`And now again, why does this matter? Well, Patent Owner has
`advanced this construction because for Skladman and for Cohn, those
`references disclose spoken text being transcribed or Obilisetty discloses
`transcription of spoken words, and Cohn does as well. But they don't
`specifically discuss transcription of commands, either spoken or embedded.
`So Patent Owner's construction here is seeking to exclude
`application of these references and avoid the merits-based questions by
`focusing merely on the speech side. The problem there is the '730 patent is
`not so restrictive. The questions of what speech requires are always
`permissive, and actually if I take a step back, we would see in the claims
`themselves the word "speech" does not appear by itself. The '730 patent
`refers to speech information requests. It's the request for what you want to
`be transcribed.
`In the claims themselves, we do not see any limitation on the speech
`or the speech information request requiring any sort of commands. They're
`very broad claims. So then that requires us to go and look at the
`
`12
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
`IPR2019-01352
`Patent 7,558,730 B2
`
`specification. And there, as I said before, what we see are permissive, is
`permissive language, not mandatory. The speech may or can include, never
`a "must include."
`Examples can be seen in Slide DX-12. Slide DX-12 I provided just
`two excerpts from the '730 patent. Referring to the first excerpt, which is
`from Column 8, we see in discussion of speech to be transcribed the '730
`patent says "the spoken text, which can include spoken and/or imbedded
`commands."
`Similar permissive language is used in the quote on the bottom of
`Slide 12, which is from Column 10 of the patent. Again, talking about
`speech information requests, they say those include "formatted spoken text,
`and may include formatted spoken and embedded commands." Other
`examples are in the '730 patent as well and use language such as "typically
`include." Again, permissive language, not restrictive language such as
`"must."
`And so when we see the language that has been used in the
`specification, the fact that the claims themselves are not so limiting, there is
`no reason for the Board to change its definition of speech, which rejected
`including these commands as a necessary requirement in its Institution
`Decision.
`Moving to Slide 13, I'd like to focus on Grounds 1 and 2, which are
`Skladman and Obilisetty. Ground 2 is Skladman, Obilisetty and Schrage.
`This dispute turns on a single issue. Are transcribed voicemails, and the
`voicemail is the text that is sought to be transcribed in the Skladman system,
`are those voicemails returned to the unified message server before sending to
`users?
`
`13
`
`
`
`IPR2019-01352
`Patent 7,558,730 B2
`
`
`The Patent Owner has contended that the combined system of
`Skladman and Obilisetty is a one-way street. It goes from the unified
`message server to the transcription system, off to the user. Our actual
`combination and our contention in our petition, in both our petition in our
`original declaration, is that it's a two-way system or a two-way street.
`It goes from the message server, the unified message server to the
`transcription system, and then back to the unified message server where it
`will be sent through a communication interface to the user.
`JUDGE AMUNDSON: Judge Amundson. I have a question, a
`follow-up question on that, and if you could look at -- if you could go to
`Petitioner's Slide 15, where I think you have an excerpt from Skladman
`Figure 4. And my question is okay, focusing on the text-to-speech module
`122. So I understand that that text comes in and you get speech out. You
`get an audio signal.
`What I don't understand is why that audio signal couldn't go to a user
`through the DTMF, the dual-tone multi-frequency dialer, why it would have
`to go back to the server, the unified message server.
`MR. SEITZ: So two things in response to that, Your Honor. That's
`assuming your question was done. I think I spoke a little too quickly there.
`But two things in response to that. So first, if we look through the disclosure
`of Skladman, what we don't see is this conversion service of text to speech
`having any disclosure of its own communications infrastructure that would
`allow it to communicate with the various interfaces, the different protocols,
`different arrangements that would be necessary for, looking at Slide 15, the
`fax interface with the DTMF dialer, TCP/IP stack or the modem interface.
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`14
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
`IPR2019-01352
`Patent 7,558,730 B2
`
`
`There's no disclosure in Skladman that the TTS includes any of its
`own communications interface or structure of hardware necessary for
`transmitting what I would call horizontally, if we look at Figure 15 -- or I'm
`sorry, Slide 15, Figure 4. So our expert, Dr. Creusere, testified further on
`this in his supplemental declaration that we submitted with our reply,
`because Skladman is -- beyond not disclosing that the TTS doesn't have any
`communications infrastructure, Skladman does exclusively talk about
`sending communications to a user through those other four communications
`interfaces.
`And Dr. Creusere, in his supplemental declaration, explains that in
`the absence of any sort of communications infrastructure within the text-to-
`speech generator itself, that PHOSITA would have understood that it needs
`to go back to the unified message server for it to be sent in appropriate
`format, appropriate protocols and through the appropriate channel to a user
`based on how that user is connecting.
`JUDGE AMUNDSON: All right, thank you.
`MR. SEITZ: I'll skip over Slide 14 and continue to focus on 15.
`What we see from Skladman is that the disclosures there, particularly if you
`look at Column 8, the disclosures of communications with the user are done
`through 124, 126, 128 and 130. Those are what I've been referring to here,
`Your Honor, as the communication tools of that interface in Figure 4. There
`simply is no disclosure that your text to speech or your conversion service
`would be two way as well, or would communicate directly with one of those
`other interfaces.
`It also provided explanation in Dr. Creusere's supplemental
`declaration that that was the same format for the Obilisetty's transcription
`
`15
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
`IPR2019-01352
`Patent 7,558,730 B2
`
`service, that it would just be a conversion service or a conversion protocol
`that would convert voice to text and provide that back to the unified message
`server, which would then communicate with the user based on how that user
`contacted the Skladman system. If it was a dial-up system, perhaps through
`the modem interface. If it was through a traditional telephone, perhaps
`through the DTMF dialer.
`
`There are no substantive arguments that Patent Owner has made in
`the briefing post-Institution Decision that challenged this, the merits of how
`this system works or the actual aspects of Skladman itself and how it reads
`onto the limitations of the '730 patent. The only question that's been raised
`by Patent Owner is that this is a new argument.
`So I briefly want to touch that before we move onto the next
`argument. And Your Honors, I'd be referring to Slide 16. This is not a new
`argument, and perhaps it didn't come across clearly enough in the briefing
`leading up to the Institution Decision, but our contention from the start has
`been at that this is a two-way street. Slide 16 includes an excerpt from our
`petition at pages 41 to 42.
`There, we describe that starting at the top of Slide 16 where it's
`highlighted, these components, referring to the TTS, text to speech and the
`transcription service provider, these components are utilized for providing
`either text to speech capabilities or speech transcription capabilities to the
`unified message server.
`We compare and contrast that in the next sentence to the other
`interfaces, fax, DTMF, TCP/IP and modem, which are utilized by the unified
`message server for communicating with the user. We go on in the final
`highlighted portion on Slide 16 to say those interfaces, the communications
`
`16
`
`
`
`IPR2019-01352
`Patent 7,558,730 B2
`
`interfaces, permit the unified server 64 to communicate with each of the
`various communications networks.
`JUDGE HAAPALA: Excuse me Mr. Seitz, I had a question about
`this. You discuss, say that it's used for communicating with the user, but I
`don't see any of this language that says it's used for two-way communication
`with the user, that would preclude just the sending and not the returning of
`the information. Do you have anything here that you can point to where you
`made specific statements about those blocks being used to receive
`communications back from the user? I'm sorry, the other way for
`communicating.
`MR. SEITZ: Yes Your Honor. I would refer you to Slide 17, where
`our expert provided a further explanation of how this worked, of how this
`two-way street worked, and on Slide 17 I've included two excerpts from Dr.
`Creusere's original declaration at paragraphs 56 and 60. The top citation is
`from paragraph 56, and he's talking about Obilisetty's transcription service.
`Here in the highlighted portion, he says -- actually let me read the whole
`thing, because I think the context matters.
`This sentence reads "This modification would have predictably
`resulted in Skladman's unified message server 64 being able to interface
`with Obilisetty's transcription system to provide the unified message server
`64 with a formatted transcription of the formatted voicemail." So he's
`saying the transcription system provides unified message server 64 with the
`transcription.
`JUDGE HAAPALA: Mr. Seitz, is that in the Petition or just in the
`expert testimony?
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`17
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
`IPR2019-01352
`Patent 7,558,730 B2
`
`
`MR. SEITZ: In the portion that is cited. So I read you what was in
`our petition, Your Honor. It would be my contention that we are describing
`the same thing. We would have obviously cited to those two portions there.
`But Dr. Creusere provides that explanation of how it is a -- it
`provides it back to the unified message server. I do believe Your Honor, and
`I don't think it's just mincing words, but the very first sentence that's cited on
`DX-16 from our petition at 41, where it says "These components are utilized
`for providing text-to-speech capabilities or speech transcription capabilities
`to the unified message server" is saying the same thing as Dr. Creusere. Any
`further questions, Your Honor, before I move on?
`JUDGE HAAPALA: Not at this time. I might have some more
`during the rebuttal. Thank you.
`MR. SEITZ: Yes, thank you. Finally before I leave Slide 17, I do
`want to point out paragraph 60, where Dr. Creusere, again the highlighted
`portion, was making clear that in referring how to get the transcription to the
`user, he was talking about using those other communications interfaces. In
`his example particularly, the TCP/IP interface or the modem interface.
`Moving on to Ground 3, which is Cohn and Obilisetty. There's four
`things that I'm going to discuss here, Your Honors. The questions the Patent
`Owner has raised in its response and its surreply I think can be summed up
`in these four items. They are the question of whether Cohn is analogous, the
`question of whether Obilisetty is limited to human transcription, whether
`Cohn teaches away from the combination of centralizing some functionality,
`and whether there's a motivation to combine.
`Let's start with analogous art on Slide 19. The question that we have
`before us on whether something's analogous is defined by the Federal
`
`18
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
`IPR2019-01352
`Patent 7,558,730 B2
`
`Circuit in the In re Bigio case. It's cited here, but to refresh everyone's
`memory, the question is, is the prior art reasonably pertinent to the problem
`with which the inventor is involved? That's the legal question when you
`look at whether something is analogous.
`I won't go back through the '730 patent discussion that we started
`with, but again just to briefly reorient ourselves, the field of the invention of
`the '730 patent is to processes and systems for facilitating electronic speech
`recognition and transcription among a network of users having
`heterogeneous system protocols. Very similar to the language that Your
`Honors found the field of the invention to be in your Institution Decision.
`If we look at Slide 20, we can see the abstract has been reproduced
`on Slide 20 of Cohn, that the abstract of Cohn is very similar if not identical
`to the field of the '730 patent. Here we see that Cohn itself is directed
`towards a communications system that has networked together a plurality of
`network hubs. Those are interconnected together and each of those network
`hubs have disparate capabilities and disparate communications protocols.
`So the 730 refers to exchanging speech recognition and transcription
`between users of the network having disparate protocols. Cohn in its
`abstract is a network that is focused on exchanging communication of
`information between users or networks that have disparate protocols. Cohn
`itself, though not repeated here but discussed ad nauseam in our petition and
`the briefing, Cohn itself does disclose that there are transcription services
`that are resident in each of the network hubs themselves.
`S
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
