Paper No. 36
`Trials@uspto.gov
`
`571-272-7822
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`______________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`______________
`
`APPLE, INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`PARUS HOLDINGS, INC.,
`Patent Owner.
`______________
`
`IPR2020-00686 (Patent 7,076,431 B2)
`IPR2020-00687 (Patent 9,451,084 B2)
`______________
`
`Record of Oral Hearing
`Held Virtually: Tuesday, June 22, 2021
`______________
`
`
`
`Before DAVID C. McKONE, STACEY G. WHITE, and
`SHELDON M. McGEE, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Trials@uspto.gov
`
`571-272-7822
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`______________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`______________
`
`APPLE, INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`PARUS HOLDINGS, INC.,
`Patent Owner.
`______________
`
`IPR2020-00686 (Patent 7,076,431 B2)
`IPR2020-00687 (Patent 9,451,084 B2)
`______________
`
`Record of Oral Hearing
`Held Virtually: Tuesday, June 22, 2021
`______________
`
`
`
`Before DAVID C. McKONE, STACEY G. WHITE, and
`SHELDON M. McGEE, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00686 (Patent 7,076,431 B2)
`IPR2020-00687 (Patent 9,451,084 B2)
`
`
`
`
`APPEARANCES:
`
`ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER:
`
`
`JENNIFER BAILEY, ESQ.
`ADAM SEITZ, ESQ.
`ERISE IP, P.A.
`7015 College Boulevard, Suite 700
`Overland Park, Kansas 66211
`
`
`
`ON BEHALF OF THE PATENT OWNER:
`
`
`MICHAEL McNAMARA, ESQ.
`SEAN CASEY, ESQ.
`MINTZ, LEVIN, COHN, FERRIS, GLOVSKY & POPEO, P.C.
`One Financial Center
`Boston, Massachusetts 02111
`
`
`
`
`The above-entitled matter came on for hearing on Tuesday, June 22,
`2021, commencing at 2:30 p.m. EST, by video/by telephone.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00686 (Patent 7,076,431 B2)
`IPR2020-00687 (Patent 9,451,084 B2)
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`
`P R O C E E D I N G S
` JUDGE McKONE: We're here for a final hearing in inter
`parties reviews IPR2020-686 and IPR2020-687, both captioned Apple,
`Inc., v. Parus Holdings, Inc.
` I'll introduce the panel. I am Judge McKone. With me
`are Judges White and McGee.
` Who do we have appearing on behalf of Petitioner?
` MS. BAILEY: Thank you, Your Honor. Jennifer Bailey of
`Erise IP, for Petitioner, Apple, Inc. With me today is Adam
`Seitz, also of Erise IP, and in-house counsel at Apple, Benjamin
`Hu and Natalie Pose.
` JUDGE McKONE: And will you be doing the speaking today
`then, Ms. Bailey?
` MS. BAILEY: Yes, sir.
` JUDGE McKONE: Who do we have appearing on behalf of
`Patent Owner?
` MR. McNAMARA: Good afternoon. My name is Michael
`McNamara. I'm appearing from MINTZ LEVIN, and I'm appearing on
`behalf of Parus. With me today from my firm is Sean Casey, who is
`on the phone, as well as Taj Reneau, who is the CEO of Parus.
` JUDGE McKONE: And will you be doing the speaking today
`then, Mr. McNamara?
` MR. McNAMARA: Yes, sir.
` JUDGE McKONE: So we have set forth a procedure for
`
`3
`
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00686 (Patent 7,076,431 B2)
`IPR2020-00687 (Patent 9,451,084 B2)
`today's hearing in our oral argument order. To summarize, each
`party will have 45 minutes of total argument time to present its
`arguments. Petitioner has the burden of proof and will go first.
`Patent Owner with then present opposition arguments. To the
`extent Petitioner has reserved time, Petitioner will present
`arguments in rebuttal. Thereafter, to the extent Patent Owner has
`reserved surrebuttal time, Patent Owner may present its
`surrebuttal.
` For clarity in the transcript, and since everyone
`here -- the judges and counsel -- are all appearing remotely, when
`you refer to an exhibit on the screen, please identify the exhibit
`number and the page number. And when you refer to demonstrative
`slides, please identify the slide number. We cannot see what
`you're projecting on your own screen, but if we have the
`documents -- if they have been filed and we are told where to look,
`we can follow along with you.
` Counsel should unmute only with speaking, and I will try
`to do the same. The remote nature of the hearing may also result
`in a bit of an audio lag sometimes, and thus, the parties are
`advised to pause if you can after speaking so that you avoid
`speaking over others.
` If, at any time, during the hearing you encounter
`technical or other difficulties, please let us know. Please let
`the panel know as soon as you can so we can try to make
`adjustments. There is technical support listening in on the call,
`
`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
`
`4
`
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00686 (Patent 7,076,431 B2)
`IPR2020-00687 (Patent 9,451,084 B2)
`and we will try to keep our eyes out for technical problems as
`well.
` As we noted in the hearing order, although we are all
`appearing remotely and there's no physical courtroom, members of
`the public may have the option to attend and may be listening to
`the audio of this hearing. For example, a journalist may be
`listening in on this call.
` In the oral hearing order, we requested that if there
`were any concerns about the disclosure of confidential
`information, you were to contact the Board. I don't believe we
`received any notices of any confidentiality issues, but, to
`confirm, Petitioner, could you confirm that you do not intend to
`discuss any confidential information today?
` MS. BAILEY: Confirmed, Your Honor.
` JUDGE McKONE: And, Patent Owner, could you also confirm
`that you do not plan to discuss any confidential information?
` MR. McNAMARA: Confirmed, Your Honor.
` JUDGE McKONE: Okay. Patent Owner, do you have any
`questions at this time?
` MR. McNAMARA: Just one, Your Honor. So if I understand
`that for the demonstratives, so the slides, we'll refer to these
`slides by slide number?
` JUDGE McKONE: Correct.
` MR. McNAMARA: For the reference or when we want to look
`at a particular other document, would you prefer that we share our
`
`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
`
`5
`
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00686 (Patent 7,076,431 B2)
`IPR2020-00687 (Patent 9,451,084 B2)
`screen so you can see what we're talking about or refer to the
`exhibit number and work it that way?
` JUDGE McKONE: Refer to the exhibit number or the paper
`number or you can just -- if it's the petition, you can say
`petition or opposition, you can say opposition, and then give us
`the page number. I don't know how well the screen sharing will
`work, but I do know that we can pull up the documents and view
`them on our own screens.
` MR. McNAMARA: Okay. Thank you, Your Honor.
` JUDGE McKONE: Anything else before we start? And then
`I'll ask the same question of Petitioner. Any questions at this
`time before we start?
` MS. BAILEY: No, Your Honor, no questions.
` JUDGE McKONE: Petitioner, would you like to reserve any
`time for rebuttal?
` MS. BAILEY: Yes, Your Honor. I would like to reserve
`15 minutes, please.
` JUDGE McKONE: Okay. You may begin when you're ready.
` MS. BAILEY: Thank you. May it please the Board.
`Turning first to DX-2, we have laid out the grounds that are in
`dispute here. You'll notice that I have referenced the grounds
`for the '431 patent. For the Board's reference, there are two
`patents in dispute: '431 and '084. There are no issues specific
`to the '084 patent that are not otherwise covered by the '431, so
`all of my references and citations to the demonstratives are to
`
`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
`
`6
`
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00686 (Patent 7,076,431 B2)
`IPR2020-00687 (Patent 9,451,084 B2)
`the '431 patent.
` Turning to DX-3, we have listed out the disputes that
`the parties have in these IPRs. By far, most of the discussion
`has been regarding the claimed speaker independent speech
`recognition device, and to a lesser extent, there's a discussion
`or an issue of whether limitation 1-K is taught specifically of
`the combination of Ladd, Kurosawa, and Goedken teach, sequentially
`accessing websites in a search procedure that's recited in
`limitation 1-K.
` Parus has also raised a lack of motivation to combine,
`pretty much a lack of hindsight combination, and then, to a lesser
`extent, there's been a discussion regarding Claims 5 and 6, which
`are dependent claims. I'll probably briefly discuss this -- Parus
`didn't mention it -- these claims in its demonstratives, but I
`remind the Board that the Ground 1 relies on Ladd but then
`there's a backup ground to ground 3 that relies on Houser for
`the teachings of Claims 5 and 6.
` So let's jump in by referring to DX-4. There's a lot of
`facts in this case, as often is the case, and so I thought it
`might be good to start out with an overview of automatic speech
`recognition. The '431 patent discloses and claims an automatic
`speech recognition unit. And here, on DX-4, I have a paragraph
`from the declaration of Mr. Occhiogrosso, who is Parus's
`declarant. And Mr. Occhiogrosso -- this paragraph is from the
`background of his declaration -- and he's talking about what
`
`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
`
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00686 (Patent 7,076,431 B2)
`IPR2020-00687 (Patent 9,451,084 B2)
`automatic speech recognition is. He talks about how it's
`extremely well-known, been around for approximately 60 years, that
`it's a complex problem, that there's lots of speech recognition
`algorithms out there.
` And, specifically, I have highlighted the text, and he
`talks about how ASR in general is the process of taking the
`acoustic signal and converting it into text. And that's the
`acoustic signal of what a speaker utters.
` Turning to DX-5, Mr. Occhiogrosso discussed this more
`during his deposition. During his deposition, we were talking
`about speech recognition, and he used the term "free speech." So
`I followed up and I said, "What do you mean by the term 'free
`speech'?" And he said, "Well, free speech is when you're merely
`transcribing what the user is uttering without any recognition
`grammar,” and if the speech recognition system doesn't have a
`recognition grammar, then it's going to, quote, dutifully
`translate what the user is speaking into text, which makes the
`device, per Mr. Occhiogrosso, effectively a dictation application
`with no opposed recognition grammar.
` So from Mr. Occhiogrosso's explanation, we understand
`that there are two components to a speech recognition system.
`There's the speech recognition itself, the dutifully translating
`what the user says into text, but if the content of what the user
`is saying is to be determined, there needs to be a higher order
`context or a higher order logic. And I'm using phraseology that
`
`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
`
`8
`
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00686 (Patent 7,076,431 B2)
`IPR2020-00687 (Patent 9,451,084 B2)
`comes from Mr. Occhiogrosso himself. That higher order context
`uses what's called a recognition grammar to identify the content
`of what the user is saying.
` Parus discussed this more in its sur-reply at page 11,
`and I don't have a demonstrative to that, but in the discussion in
`sur-reply, Parus said that there's two distinct processes,
`specifically they -- I'm quoting -- two distinctly different
`processes. One of speech recognition, which is converting the
`audio into text, and a second called natural language processing
`per Parus. And this natural language processing is utilizing the
`recognition grammars.
` So, per Parus, at their sur-reply, page 11, they talk
`about two distinct processes: The actual speech recognition, that
`converts the speech into text, and then determining the content of
`the spoken speech that uses the recognition grammars.
` JUDGE McKONE: Now, I have a quick question. Since
`you're characterizing what is your view that Patent Owner and its
`expert are saying, are you viewing that this is a correct view of
`the technology?
` MS. BAILEY: I think that speech recognition in general
`has a converting the speech into text, and then if it's
`determining the content of the speech, if it's not merely a
`dictation application, then it does use a reference grammar or a
`recognition grammar. Excuse me.
` Is that -- am I answering your question or do you have a
`
`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
`
`9
`
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00686 (Patent 7,076,431 B2)
`IPR2020-00687 (Patent 9,451,084 B2)
`follow-up to that?
` JUDGE McKONE: Well, I just want to make sure that what
`you're arguing here is this is how we -- this is how you think we
`ought to view the technology rather than simply characterizing
`Patent Owner's arguments, which you'll dispute later.
` MS. BAILEY: I see. I see what you're saying. I do
`agree that the '431 patent describes -- not claims but describes
`converting the speech into text and then determining the content
`of the speech by looking at a recognition grammar.
` JUDGE McKONE: Okay.
` MS. BAILEY: And please let me know if I didn't answer
`your question.
` JUDGE McKONE: Well, I may have a follow-up later.
` MS. BAILEY: Of course, of course, of course.
` Okay. So to use an example from the '431 patent that's
`described -- and I believe this is at column 6 towards the
`bottom -- it talks about the user saying, "What is the weather in
`Chicago?" And that the speech recognition algorithm translates
`what the user says, "What is the weather in Chicago?" but then it
`does a second step of identifying keywords by comparison to a
`recognition grammar. Those keywords, as explained in the '431
`patent, would be, for example, identifying the keyword of
`"Chicago" and the keyword of "weather."
` So let's turn to DX-6 where we have the text of Claim 1
`scrunched onto one slide here, and I have highlighted three
`
`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
`
`10
`
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00686 (Patent 7,076,431 B2)
`IPR2020-00687 (Patent 9,451,084 B2)
`different limitations that we're going to discuss today.
`Limitation 1-C is the recited speaker independent speech
`recognition device. Now, 1-C doesn't ascribe any functionality to
`the speaker independent speech recognition device. It isn't until
`we get to Limitation 1-H that we know what is the speaker
`independent speech recognition device supposed to do.
` And it's required to receive from the voice-enabled
`device the speech command and then to select the corresponding
`recognition grammar. So we know from looking at Limitation 1-H
`that the claimed '431 alleged invention is not merely a dictation
`application. It is an application to determine the content of
`what the user spoke by comparison to a recognition grammar. And
`that's further kind of elucidated because the latter path of Claim
`1 is all about using the command from the user to then go and
`retrieve website information.
` So let's talk about the claim construction. Turning
`to DX-7, I provided both the District Court's construction and
`Parus's construction. So to kind of give you a little bit of
`background, as often happens, there's a lot of claim
`constructions running around in this process. Let me first kind
`of lay out the timeline of what happened.
` The petition was filed in March 2020. The parties
`briefed, in the District Court litigation, the claim
`construction in June 2020. So that's the first time that Parus
`put out its opening claim construction. And I'll refer the Board
`
`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
`
`11
`
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00686 (Patent 7,076,431 B2)
`IPR2020-00687 (Patent 9,451,084 B2)
`to Exhibit 2012, specifically page 14, which provides the claim
`construction brief with the parties' construction.
` In the -- the Markman hearing was held, I believe, in
`August of 2020, and then the Court issued -- or the Markman order
`in September of 2020, specifically September 8. And then the
`Board instituted this IPR a couple of weeks later.
` So the claim construction that Parus proposes in this
`IPR is a variant of the Court's claim construction -- ordered
`claim construction, which came later in time, almost six months
`after the petition was filed. And I say it's a variant because
`it's not exactly what the Court has as its claim construction.
` JUDGE McKONE: To save you some time, do the parties
`both agree that, at the very least, the construction requires,
`without using predefined voice patterns?
` MS. BAILEY: We agree with that, Your Honor.
` JUDGE McKONE: And then the part that you disagree on is
`whether or not it requires without adapting to individual
`speakers?
` MS. BAILEY: Parus has excluded that portion from the
`District Court's claim construction; however, it has not been
`relevant to the IPR. So for purposes of what the Board needs to
`decide, the adapting to individual speakers is not an issue in
`this IPR.
` JUDGE McKONE: So you'd be happy if we essentially
`adopted Parus's construction with a footnote or some kind of note
`
`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
`
`12
`
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00686 (Patent 7,076,431 B2)
`IPR2020-00687 (Patent 9,451,084 B2)
`that we're not resolving the issue of adapting to individual
`speakers?
` MS. BAILEY: That would be fine for purposes of this
`IPR, Your Honor.
` JUDGE McKONE: Okay. Are there any other claim
`construction disputes that we need to worry about?
` MS. BAILEY: Well, we are going to get to kind of an
`embedded claim construction dispute on what does a voice pattern
`mean. That's really the ultimate issue on the speaker independent
`speech recognition device. And so specifically --
` JUDGE McKONE: A moment ago, you talked about a
`two-stage operation in the voice recognition. Now, is it your
`position that this predefined voice patterns, that's a requirement
`or no -- I'm sorry; I'm going to say this again.
` So it is your view that, without using predefined voice
`patterns, is a requirement of that first step of voice
`recognition?
` MS. BAILEY: It is Apple's position that speech
`recognition, without using predefined voice patterns, is performed
`during the first step of speech -- during the step of speech
`recognition. Speech recognition, without using predefined voice
`patterns, is not performed for purposes of content recognition; in
`other words, determining the content of what the user said.
` JUDGE McKONE: Okay. So there's two steps. There's
`speech recognition and there's content recognition, and it's your
`
`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
`
`13
`
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00686 (Patent 7,076,431 B2)
`IPR2020-00687 (Patent 9,451,084 B2)
`position that speech recognition, the first step, must be
`performed without using predefined voice patterns?
` MS. BAILEY: That is Parus's position, and we have not
`disagreed with that. We have accepted Parus's position that
`speech recognition has to be performed without using predefined
`voice patterns, and we have been shown that Ladd does not --
`Ladd satisfies that without using predefined.
` The reason why I'm being careful -- I'm not trying to be
`difficult here -- the reason why I'm being careful with my
`statement is because there's ongoing litigation that it might
`affect. So for purposes of this IPR, we're not disputing Parus's
`construction that the speech recognition device recognizes spoken
`words without using predefined voice patterns. We're simply
`accepting that construction and showing how the original ground
`teaches that construction.
` JUDGE McKONE: Okay.
` MS. BAILEY: Does that help clarify?
` JUDGE McKONE: Yes. Thank you.
` MS. BAILEY: Okay. So we kind of already emphasized
`this, especially with your questions, but the construction
`requires speech recognition and specifically recognizing spoken
`words without using predefined voice patterns. And I'm
`emphasizing the "recognizing spoken words" because the use of the
`predefined voice patterns comes for the speech recognition
`portion, not for the content recognition portion.
`
`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
`
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00686 (Patent 7,076,431 B2)
`IPR2020-00687 (Patent 9,451,084 B2)
` So turning to DX-8, let's look at how the '431 patent
`uses voice patterns, and kind of how did we end up with this
`discussion of voice patterns embedded into this claim
`construction. As the Board probably well knows at this point, the
`claims don't actually recite voice patterns. This only -- this
`phraseology only show up at column 4, lines 38 through 43 in Ladd.
`And I have quoted the full text here of where it's discussed.
` The '431 patent differentiates between a speech
`recognition algorithm that uses phonemes to recognize the speech versus
`a speech recognition algorithm that uses voice patterns to
`recognize the speech. And the '431 patent has this paragraph that
`says, "This automatic speech recognition unit uses phonemes. It does
`not use predefined voice patterns."
` Turning to DX-9, I want to correct something on this
`slide real quickly. I noticed that the citation was left off; I'm
`going to blame it on PowerPoint but it might actually be my
`mistake. I apologize. We're quoting from Mr. Occhiogrosso's
`deposition here. This is Exhibit 1039, page 33, lines 11 through
`16 that is being quoted. And I apologize for leaving that off.
` During Mr. Occhiogrosso's deposition, we started talking
`about speech recognition algorithms, and he explained that voice
`patterns and analyzing the voice patterns is just one class of
`speech recognition algorithms. He talked about voice patterns.
`He talked about phonemes. But he said there's all kinds of
`speech recognition algorithms that can be used to recognize the
`
`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
`
`15
`
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00686 (Patent 7,076,431 B2)
`IPR2020-00687 (Patent 9,451,084 B2)
`speech and convert it into text. For example, you can --
` JUDGE McKONE: Do you agree with that statement? That's
`not something you're challenging, is it?
` MS. BAILEY: We're not challenging that there are
`different types of speech recognition algorithms.
` JUDGE McKONE: Okay. Some that use voice patterns and
`some that do not.
` MS. BAILEY: That is correct. And there are others
`beyond that. He talked about during his deposition that you could
`use AI, you could use neural networks, statistical analyses.
`There's probably even more but those are the ones that he
`mentioned during his deposition.
` JUDGE McKONE: Sure. Thank you.
` MS. BAILEY: So the takeaway at this point is that
`speech recognition can be performed by various methods: Analyzing
`the phonemes, analyzing the voice patterns, AI, so on and so
`forth. Ladd doesn't teach a voice pattern used for recognizing
`speech. And we're about to start looking at what Ladd does and
`does not teach.
` Ladd teaches a voice pattern used for determining the
`content of what the user spoke, and Ladd -- and we know this from
`Ladd because Ladd expressly teaches that its voice pattern is a
`keyword or key phrase. And we're going to go into detail on that.
` So turning to DX-10, let's start out with looking at
`what is the definition of a voice pattern. So this IPR has been
`
`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
`
`16
`
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00686 (Patent 7,076,431 B2)
`IPR2020-00687 (Patent 9,451,084 B2)
`interesting for me because I walked into a deposition not knowing
`what the expert was going to say, not really having a clue because
`Parus has not -- to date, still has not defined what it means by a
`voice pattern. It certainly didn't do so in its Patent Owner
`response. And in its sur-reply, it simply says that a voice
`pattern -- and I'm referring to the sur-reply, pages 4 through
`6 -- that voice pattern, the plain and ordinary meaning should be
`ascribed. But then Parus doesn't tell us what the plain and
`ordinary meaning is.
` So I went into the deposition and I asked a fairly
`straightforward question of Mr. Occhiogrosso of what is a voice
`pattern, and he gave me a straightforward answer: That the voice
`pattern is the spectral energy of the audio -- of the user's
`utterance as a function of time.
` Mr. Occhiogrosso didn't waiver on that. Our briefing
`has all of the citations to his deposition testimony on the
`spectral energy. I'd also be glad to give you some others. I'm
`looking at Exhibit 1039, which is his depo transcript, page 35,
`lines 12 through 23 he talks about this; page 28, lines 8 through
`13; page 30, lines 10 through 16, if the Board wants to review.
` My point being that he was consistent that a voice
`pattern is the spectral energy as the function of time of the
`user's utterance.
` There has been no showing from Parus whatsoever that
`Ladd teaches a voice pattern as the spectral energy as a function
`
`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
`
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00686 (Patent 7,076,431 B2)
`IPR2020-00687 (Patent 9,451,084 B2)
`of time. And when I say "no showing," I really mean no showing
`because I know you're going to check me on it. And I went and
`triple confirmed last night before I logged into this argument.
`There has been no establishing that Ladd's voice patterns are the
`spectral energy as a function of time. Parus has all but ignored
`this definition that was provided from their declarant.
` So let's look at Ladd. Turning to DX-11. So I have a
`quoted paragraph here that has been often discussed in this IPR,
`and it's talking about Ladd's ASR unit. And ASR stands for
`automatic speech recognition. Ladd says that at column 9, line 2.
` And the ASR unit provides -- I'm looking at the yellow
`text -- speaker independent automatic speech recognition of speech
`inputs or communications from the user.
` So right out of the gate, we know that the ASR unit is
`performing speech recognition. Ladd says it expressly right
`there. It's also an automatic speech recognition unit and we know
`from Mr. Occhiogrosso, paragraph 49 of his declaration, that
`automatic speech recognition converts speech into text.
` Looking at the blue text, it says, "The ASR unit
`processes the speech inputs to determine whether a word or a
`speech pattern matches any of the grammars or vocabulary." So
`grammar is equal to a vocabulary here. Ladd says this. And it's
`a recognition grammar that's being referred to. The speech input
`is the entirety of what the user said. So not just specific set
`portions of it. It's the entirety.
`
`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
`
`18
`
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00686 (Patent 7,076,431 B2)
`IPR2020-00687 (Patent 9,451,084 B2)
` So the ASR unit is processing the speech inputs and
`determining whether a word or a speech pattern matches the
`grammars or vocabulary. Now, in the bottom right on DX-11, I have
`another segment from Ladd where it's defining what it means by
`speech pattern and it's defining it as a keyword or phrase.
` JUDGE WHITE: Counsel, before we move on from this
`slide, does Ladd provide any sort of defining language as to what
`it means by that phrase "independent automatic speech
`recognition"? Because if you look at the phrasing in yellow, the
`very next line that's not highlighted says that it contemplates
`also speaker dependent search recognition.
` So what does it say to specifically differentiate as to
`what it sees as the independent versus the dependent speech
`recognition?
` MS. BAILEY: So Ladd doesn't have any disclosure
`differentiating between speaker independent and speaker dependent.
`I would submit that a POSITA would understand -- and I believe
`this is in our declaration to support this -- that a speaker
`dependent is identifying a particular speaker, you know,
`identifying me as speaking versus that it's independent. It's
`just identifying the speech of the user, not that it's me that's
`speaking. But Ladd doesn't have any specific disclosure
`differentiating between the two.
` JUDGE McKONE: Now, does Ladd have any specific
`disclosure that this speaker independent automatic speaker
`
`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
`
`19
`
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00686 (Patent 7,076,431 B2)
`IPR2020-00687 (Patent 9,451,084 B2)
`recognition is happening without the use of voice patterns?
` MS. BAILEY: Well, let me -- that's actually where I was
`about to go. So --
` JUDGE McKONE: I have read in your brief that you are
`saying -- you're probably going to tell me that the parts you
`highlighted in blue do not pertain to the speech recognition. And
`I'd be happy to hear about that in a moment. But is there
`anything affirmative you want to point me to that shows that this
`ASR unit is performing speaker independent automatic speech
`recognition without the use of voice patterns?
` MS. BAILEY: There is nothing affirmative that says
`without the use of voice patterns, using Parus's definition of the
`spectral energy as a function of time. Ladd doesn't mention a
`voice pattern that is a spectral energy as a function of time. It
`has no disclosure to that respect. So Ladd doesn't have anything
`that says the speaker independent speech recognition device does
`not identify the -- or analyze the spectral energy of the
`utterance as a function of time.
` JUDGE McKONE: Did you provide a definition of voice
`patterns or speech patterns that would compete with that that we
`ought to be looking, you know, through a different lens, then, at
`this disclosure?
` MS. BAILEY: Well, I do think that the voice patterns
`that's referred to in Ladd is not a spectral energy as a function
`of time because of the lower right-hand text that I have at DX-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
`
`20
`
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00686 (Patent 7,076,431 B2)
`IPR2020-00687 (Patent 9,451,084 B2)
`So we have not provided any different definition of voice pattern
`beyond spectral energy. The issue on the table for the Board's
`analysis is whether Ladd's use of the phrase "voice pattern"
`equals Parus's use of voice pattern as a spectral energy.
` JUDGE McKONE: Well, that's one issue. I agree that's
`one issue. Another issue, though, is that the Petitioner has the
`burden of proof here to show some kind of affirmative disclosure
`of automatic speech recognition that does not use the voice
`patterns. So even if I were to -- if I were to excise this -- the
`portions you have up on the screen in blue, where is the
`affirmative evidence that I would point to in making a finding
`that ASR Unit 254 performs speaker independent automatic speech
`recognition without the use of voice patterns?
` MS. BAILEY: So let me point you to column 14 of Ladd
`where it talks about -- and we referenced this with respect to
`Claim 5 in reciting the use of phonemes. Column 14 has a
`discussion about looking at the pronunciations and the --
` JUDGE McKONE: I'm going to stop you there, though.
`This sounds like a different argument than you made in the
`petition for this claim element. You have moved on to a different
`claim now. The claim element we were talking about appears in
`Claim 1; correct?
` MS. BAILEY: That is correct, Your Honor. But at the
`time of filing the petition, we did not have either the Court's or
`Parus's claim construction, so there was no need to actually
`
`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
`
`21
`
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00686 (Patent 7,076,431 B2)
`IPR2020-00687 (Patent 9,451,084 B2)
`have an affirmative showing of without using predefined voice
`patterns. We are now responding appropriately to the claim
`construction using the same text and not changing our theories.
`We're still relying on the same disclosure that is in Ladd.
` I'm pausing to see if you have any follow-up, Your
`Honor.
` JUDGE McKONE: Okay. So what is it that you're pointing
`to, then, in Ladd
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
