`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`
`APPLE INC.
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`PARUS HOLDINGS, INC.
`Patent Owner
`____________
`
`
`Case No. IPR2020-00686
`U.S. Patent No. 7,076,431
`____________
`
`
`
`
`
`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW
`OF U.S. PATENT NO. 7,076,431
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`IPR2020-00686
`U.S. Patent No. 7,076,431
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`
`I.
`II.
`
`V.
`
`INTRODUCTION .................................................................................... 1
`SUMMARY OF THE ’431 PATENT ...................................................... 1
`A. DESCRIPTION OF THE ALLEGED INVENTION OF THE ’431 PATENT ........ 1
`B.
`PRIORITY DATE OF THE CHALLENGED CLAIMS ................................... 3
`C.
`SUMMARY OF UNPATENTABILITY OF THE CHALLENGED CLAIMS ......... 3
`D.
`LEVEL OF SKILL OF A PHOSITA ........................................................ 6
`E.
`OPINIONS OF A PHOSITA .................................................................. 6
`III. THE BOARD’S DISCRETION UNDER 35 U.S.C. § 314(A) ................. 7
`IV. REQUIREMENTS FOR IPR UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.104 ..................... 9
`A. GROUNDS FOR STANDING UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(A) .................... 9
`B.
`IDENTIFICATION OF CHALLENGE UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(B)
`AND RELIEF REQUESTED .................................................................. 10
`CLAIM CONSTRUCTION UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(B)(3) ................. 11
`C.
`SHOWING OF ANALOGOUS PRIOR ART ....................................... 11
`LADD IS ANALOGOUS ....................................................................... 11
`A.
`KUROSAWA IS ANALOGOUS ............................................................... 14
`B.
`C. GOEDKEN IS ANALOGOUS ................................................................ 15
`D. MADNICK IS ANALOGOUS ................................................................. 15
`HOUSER IS ANALOGOUS ................................................................... 16
`E.
`RUTLEDGE IS ANALOGOUS ............................................................... 16
`F.
`VI. GROUND 1: THERE IS A REASONABLE LIKELIHOOD
`CLAIMS 1- 6, 9-10, 13-14, 18, 20-21, AND 25 ARE OBVIOUS
`OVER LADD IN VIEW OF KUROSAWA IN FURTHER VIEW
`OF GOEDKEN ........................................................................................ 17
`A.
`CLAIM 1 .......................................................................................... 17
`1.
`Claim 1[Preamble] ................................................................ 17
`2.
`Claim 1(a) ............................................................................. 18
`3.
`Claim 1(b) ............................................................................. 19
`4.
`Claim 1(c) ............................................................................. 22
`5.
`Claim 1(d) ............................................................................. 23
`6.
`Claim 1(e) ............................................................................. 25
`7.
`Claim 1(f) ............................................................................. 32
`8.
`Claim 1(g) ............................................................................. 34
`
`
`
`i
`
`

`

`IPR2020-00686
`U.S. Patent No. 7,076,431
`
`
`B.
`C.
`D.
`E.
`F.
`G.
`H.
`I.
`
`Claim 1(h) ............................................................................. 35
`9.
`10. Claim 1(i) ............................................................................. 36
`11. Claim 1(j) ............................................................................. 37
`12. Claim 1(k) ............................................................................. 39
`13. Claim 1(l) ............................................................................. 47
`CLAIMS 2-3 ..................................................................................... 48
`CLAIM 4 .......................................................................................... 49
`CLAIM 5 .......................................................................................... 49
`CLAIM 6 .......................................................................................... 51
`CLAIM 9 .......................................................................................... 52
`CLAIMS 10 AND 13 ........................................................................... 54
`CLAIM 14 ........................................................................................ 56
`CLAIM 18 ........................................................................................ 58
`1.
`Claim 18[Preamble] .............................................................. 58
`2.
`Claim 18(a) ........................................................................... 58
`3.
`Claim 18(b) ........................................................................... 58
`4.
`Claim 18(c) ........................................................................... 58
`5.
`Claim 18(d) ........................................................................... 58
`6.
`Claim 18(e) ........................................................................... 59
`7.
`Claim 18(f) ........................................................................... 60
`8.
`Claim 18(g) ........................................................................... 60
`9.
`Claim 18(h) ........................................................................... 60
`10. Claim 18(i) ........................................................................... 60
`11. Claim 18(j) ........................................................................... 61
`12. Claim 18(k) ........................................................................... 61
`13. Claim 18(l) ........................................................................... 61
`CLAIM 20 ........................................................................................ 61
`J.
`CLAIM 21 ........................................................................................ 61
`K.
`CLAIM 25 ........................................................................................ 61
`L.
`VII. GROUND 2: THERE IS A REASONABLE LIKELIHOOD
`CLAIMS 7, 19, AND 26-30 ARE OBVIOUS OVER LADD IN
`VIEW OF KUROSAWA IN FURTHER VIEW OF GOEDKEN
`AND MADNICK ...................................................................................... 62
`
`
`
`ii
`
`

`

`IPR2020-00686
`U.S. Patent No. 7,076,431
`
`
`A.
`B.
`
`CLAIMS 7 AND 19 ............................................................................. 62
`CLAIM 26 ........................................................................................ 64
`1.
`Claim 26[Preamble] .............................................................. 64
`2.
`Claim 26(a) ........................................................................... 64
`3.
`Claim 26(b) ........................................................................... 64
`4.
`Claim 26(c) ........................................................................... 64
`5.
`Claim 26(d) ........................................................................... 64
`6.
`Claim 26(e) ........................................................................... 65
`7.
`Claim 26(f) ........................................................................... 65
`8.
`Claim 26(g) ........................................................................... 65
`9.
`Claim 26(h) ........................................................................... 65
`10. Claim 26(i) ........................................................................... 65
`11. Claim 26(j) ........................................................................... 65
`12. Claim 26(k) ........................................................................... 65
`13. Claim 26(l) ........................................................................... 65
`14. Clam 26(m) ........................................................................... 66
`15. Claim 26(n) ........................................................................... 66
`CLAIM 27 ........................................................................................ 66
`C.
`CLAIM 28 ........................................................................................ 66
`D.
`CLAIM 29 ........................................................................................ 66
`E.
`CLAIM 30 ........................................................................................ 67
`F.
`VIII. GROUND 3: THERE IS A REASONABLE LIKELIHOOD
`CLAIMS 5-6 ARE OBVIOUS OVER LADD IN VIEW OF
`KUROSAWA IN FURTHER VIEW OF GOEDKEN AND
`HOUSER.................................................................................................. 67
`A.
`CLAIMS 5 AND 6 ............................................................................... 67
`IX. GROUND 4: THERE IS A REASONABLE LIKELIHOOD
`CLAIMS 9 AND 25 ARE OBVIOUS OVER LADD IN VIEW OF
`KUROSAWA IN FURTHER VIEW OF GOEDKEN AND
`RUTLEDGE ............................................................................................. 69
`A.
`CLAIM 9 .......................................................................................... 69
`B.
`CLAIM 25 ........................................................................................ 71
`X. CONCLUSION ....................................................................................... 71
`
`
`
`iii
`
`

`

`IPR2020-00686
`U.S. Patent No. 7,076,431
`
`
`XI. MANDATORY NOTICES UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(A)(1) ................. 72
`A.
`REAL PARTY-IN-INTEREST ............................................................... 72
`B.
`RELATED MATTERS ......................................................................... 72
`C.
`LEAD AND BACK-UP COUNSEL ........................................................ 73
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`iv
`
`

`

`IPR2020-00686
`U.S. Patent No. 7,076,431
`
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`
`Cases:
`
`Adobe Inc. v. RAH Color Technologies, IPR2019-00628, Paper 37 at 20
`(PTAB Aug. 20, 2019) .......................................................................................... 13
`Becton, Dickinson, and Co. v. B. Braun Melsungen AG, IPR2017-01586,
`Paper 8 at 17-18 (PTAB Dec. 15, 2017) .......................................................... 11-14
`Cuozzo Speed Techs. v. Lee, 136 S. Ct. 2131, 2143 (2016) ..................................... 9
`Eli Lilly and Co. v. Los Angeles Biomedical Research Inst., 849 F.3d 1073,
`1074-75 (Fed. Cir. 2017)......................................................................................... 6
`Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1312 (Fed. Cir. 2005) .............................. 11
`Silicon Labs., Inc. v. Cresta Tech. Corp., IPR2015-00615, Paper 9 at 24-
`25 (Aug. 14, 2015) .................................................................................................. 8
`Valeo North America, Inc. v. Magna Elec., Inc., IPR2015-00251, Paper 18 at
`18 (PTAB May 26, 2016) ....................................................................................... 6
`
`Statutes:
`
`35 U.S.C. § 102 ...................................................................................................... 7
`35 U.S.C. § 102(b) .......................................................................................... 14-16
`35 U.S.C. § 102(e) .................................................................................... 11, 15, 16
`35 U.S.C. § 103 ...................................................................................................... 7
`35 U.S.C. § 103(a) ................................................................................................ 10
`35 U.S.C. § 112 ........................................................................................................
`35 U.S.C. § 314(a) .................................................................................................. 7
`35 U.S.C. § 315(b) .................................................................................................. 9
`35 U.S.C. § 325(d) ...................................................................................... 9, 13, 14
`
`
`
`
`
`v
`
`

`

`IPR2020-00686
`
`IPR2020-00686
`U.S. Patent No. 7,076,431
`U.S. Patent No. 7,076,431
`
`
`Regulations:
`Regulations:
`37 C.F.R. § 42.6(e) ............................................................................................. 83
`37 C.F.R. § 42.6(e) ............................................................................................. 83
`37 C.F.R. § 42.8 .................................................................................................. 82
`37 C.F.R. § 42.8 .................................................................................................. 82
`37 C.F.R. § 42.8(a)(1) ......................................................................................... 72
`37 C.F.R. § 42.8(a)(1) ......................................................................................... 72
`37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(1) ......................................................................................... 72
`37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(1) ......................................................................................... 72
`37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(2) ......................................................................................... 72
`37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(2) ......................................................................................... 72
`37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(3) ......................................................................................... 73
`37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(3) ......................................................................................... 73
`37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(4) ......................................................................................... 73
`37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(4) ......................................................................................... 73
`37 C.F.R. § 42.24 ................................................................................................ 82
`37 C.F.R. § 42.24 ................................................................................................ 82
`37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b) ......................................................................................... 11
`37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b) ......................................................................................... 11
`37 C.F.R. § 42.104 ................................................................................................ 9
`37 C.F.R. § 42.104 ................................................................................................ 9
`37 C.F.R. § 42.104(a)............................................................................................ 9
`37 C.F.R. § 42.104(a) ............................................................................................ 9
`37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b) ......................................................................................... 10
`37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b) ......................................................................................... 10
`37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(1) ..................................................................................... 10
`37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(1) ..................................................................................... 10
`37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(2) ..................................................................................... 10
`37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(2) ..................................................................................... 10
`37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(3) ..................................................................................... 11
`37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(3) ..................................................................................... 11
`37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(4) ..................................................................................... 10
`37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(4) ..................................................................................... 10
`37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(5) ..................................................................................... 11
`37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(5) ..................................................................................... 11
`37 C.F.R. § 42.105 .............................................................................................. 83
`37 C.F.R. § 42.105 .............................................................................................. 83
`
`
`
`
`
`
`vi
`
`Vi
`
`

`

`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`IPR2020-00686
`U.S. Patent No. 7,076,431
`
`
`Petitioner Apple Inc. requests Inter Partes Review of Claims 1-7, 9-10, 13-
`
`14, 18-21, and 25-30 (collectively, the “Challenged Claims”) of USPN 7,076,431
`
`assigned to Parus Holdings, Inc. ’431 Patent (Ex. 1001). The purportedly patentable
`
`feature of the Challenged Claims is a system for sequentially accessing a plurality
`
`of pre-selected websites until desired information is found or until all websites have
`
`been accessed. ’431 Patent, 16:31-43. Configuring a computer to sequentially search
`
`websites to retrieve information using this procedure was well known before the
`
`priority date of the ’431 Patent, and the Challenged Claims are obvious.
`
`Accordingly, IPR of the Challenged Claims should be instituted.
`
`II.
`
`SUMMARY OF THE ’431 PATENT
`A. Description of the Alleged Invention of the ’431 Patent
`The ’431 Patent describes a system for acquiring desired information from
`
`known information sources on a network, where the system is a “voice browsing
`
`system” that “maintains a database containing a list of information sources, such as
`
`web sites” and is “connected to a network.” ’431 Patent, Abstract; Dec. 57-60.1
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1 Citations to “Dec.” are to Ex. 1003, Declaration of Dr. Loren Terveen.
`1
`
`
`

`

`IPR2020-00686
`U.S. Patent No. 7,076,431
`
`
`
`
`’431 Patent, Fig. 1. A user accesses the voice browsing system, which “initiates an
`
`interactive voice response (IVR) application” to present options to the user for
`
`desired categories of information, such as weather, news, or stock quotes. ’431
`
`Patent, 15:46-51, Fig. 3. The user selects the desired option by speaking into a voice
`
`enabled device. ’431 Patent, 15:52-54. Speech recognition is used to determine the
`
`user-inputted command and locate an appropriate website from a database of
`
`addresses. ’431 Patent, 15:55–16:7, Figs. 1 and 3.
`
`For each category, the database includes a plurality of ranked websites that
`
`may be accessed to retrieve the desired information. ’431 Patent, 16:31-34, Fig. 2.
`
`
`
`2
`
`

`

`IPR2020-00686
`U.S. Patent No. 7,076,431
`
`The site with the highest rank is accessed, and if the information is not found, the
`
`system searches each of the ranked sites in turn “until the requested information is
`
`retrieved or no more web sites [sic] left to check.” ’431 Patent, 16:37-43; Dec. 60.
`
`Priority Date of the Challenged Claims
`
`B.
`U.S. Patent Application No. 10/821,690 (“the ’431 Application”), from which
`
`the ’431 Patent issued, was filed April 9, 2004. The ’431 Application claims priority
`
`to Provisional Application Nos. 60/233,068, filed September 15, 2000, and
`
`60/180,344, filed February 4, 2000. ’431 Patent, (21), (22), (60).
`
`For this Petition, Apple applies February 4, 2000, as the priority date.
`
`Summary of Unpatentability of the Challenged Claims
`
`C.
`The purported invention of the ’431 Patent of an interactive voice response
`
`(IVR) system to retrieve desired information from a website and sequentially search
`
`through a plurality of pre-selected websites until the information is found or until all
`
`websites have been accessed was well known prior to the ’431 Patent. The ’431
`
`Patent generally describes three concepts: (1) an IVR system that receives a user’s
`
`spoken request for information from a website information source and provides
`
`audible answers to a user’s information request; (2) a database of pre-selected
`
`website information sources searchable for the answer to the user’s information
`
`request; and (3) the claimed procedure of searching through the website information
`
`sources until the requested information is found or until all information sources have
`3
`
`
`

`

`IPR2020-00686
`U.S. Patent No. 7,076,431
`
`been accessed. Ladd describes an IVR system that receives spoken questions and
`
`returns spoken answers retrieved from a website, teaching concept (1); Kurosawa
`
`describes searching for information by sequentially accessing websites at a plurality
`
`of website addresses pre-selected and stored in a database, teaching concept (2); and
`
`Goedken describes a procedure of searching information sources until requested
`
`information is found or until all information sources have been accessed, teaching
`
`concept (3).
`
`Ladd (Ex. 1004) teaches an IVR system for providing a user with access to
`
`information from an information source, such as a website. Ladd, 1:22-25, 2:48-58,
`
`4:50-56, 13:67–14:1. Ladd expressly teaches the user can speak an input or
`
`command to retrieve information, and the information can be retrieved from the
`
`information source. Ladd, 3:65-4:3, 6:13-24.
`
`Ladd as modified by Kurosawa teaches sequentially accessing a plurality of
`
`pre-selected websites to obtain the desired information. Kurosawa teaches an
`
`internet search server that accesses a URL database of pre-selected website
`
`addresses to obtain desired information based on a user-inputted search condition.
`
`Kurosawa, Abstract, ¶¶ 0006, 0009, 0020-0021. Each website address stored in the
`
`URL database is associated with keywords matched against a search condition input
`
`by the user for selecting website addresses from the URL database “in which a
`
`matching keyword is listed.” Kurosawa, ¶¶ 0010, 0028; compare to ’431 Patent,
`4
`
`
`

`

`IPR2020-00686
`U.S. Patent No. 7,076,431
`
`5:5:13-53. Kurosawa teaches the website addresses selected from the URL database
`
`based on matching keywords are organized or listed “based on fixed priority
`
`conditions to make efficient searching possible” for the URLs. Kurosawa, ¶¶ 0029,
`
`0025, 0030. Ladd as modified by Kurosawa thus teaches an IVR system for
`
`retrieving information from a one of a plurality of pre-selected websites in response
`
`to a user-inputted speech command.
`
`Goedken teaches a knowledge database of paired questions and answers that
`
`can be searched to retrieve a desired answer to a user-requested question. Goedken,
`
`Abstract, 5:31-34, 7:12-15. Goedken teaches a search procedure that sequentially
`
`searches the stored “files” (each containing an answer) to determine if the file is
`
`related to the category of the user’s question and if the file contains synonyms
`
`matching words in the user’s question. Goedken, 20:13-17, 25:19-22, 25:49-52, Fig.
`
`18.
`
`Goedken further teaches two nested loops that collectively search files for an
`
`answer. Once an answer is found, the answer is returned to the user. Goedken, 25:9–
`
`26:7, Fig. 18. The nested loops sequentially access each file until the answer is found
`
`or until all files have been accessed. Goedken, 25:59-63 (“The database manager 140
`
`continues to loop through blocks 342-348 until all of the question synonyms
`
`associated with this file are compared to the value from the question segment 28 of
`
`the information request message 18 or until a match is found...”); Dec. 120.
`5
`
`
`

`

`IPR2020-00686
`U.S. Patent No. 7,076,431
`
`Ladd (as modified by Kurosawa to store a plurality of pre-selected website
`
`addresses) and as further modified by Goedken teaches an IVR system for retrieving
`
`information from a one of a plurality of pre-selected websites in response to a user-
`
`inputted speech command according to a search procedure that sequentially accesses
`
`each of the pre-selected websites until the information is found or until all pre-
`
`selected websites have been accessed.
`
`Level of Skill of a PHOSITA
`
`D.
`A PHOSITA at the time of the ’431 Patent—February 4, 2000—would have
`
`had a Bachelor’s degree in Electrical Engineering, Computer Engineering,
`
`Computer Science, or equivalent degree, with at least two years of experience in
`
`interactive voice response systems, automated information retrieval systems, or
`
`related technologies, such as web-based information retrieval systems. Additional
`
`education may substitute for lesser work experience and vice-versa. (Dec. 28).
`
`E. Opinions of a PHOSITA
`Petitioner submits Exhibit 1003, Declaration of Dr. Loren Terveen, as
`
`evidence supporting its arguments. A proper unpatentability analysis entails
`
`considering Dr. Terveen’s reasonable understanding or appreciation of the discussed
`
`references. Eli Lilly and Co. v. Los Angeles Biomedical Research Inst., 849 F.3d
`
`1073, 1074-75 (Fed. Cir. 2017); Valeo North America, Inc. v. Magna Elec., Inc.,
`
`IPR2015-00251, Paper 18 at 18 (PTAB May 26, 2016); MPEP 2112 (“The express,
`6
`
`
`

`

`IPR2020-00686
`U.S. Patent No. 7,076,431
`
`implicit, and inherent disclosures of a prior art reference may be relied upon in the
`
`rejection of claims under 35 U.S.C. 102 or 103.”). Dr. Terveen’s understanding of
`
`what would be understood from a reference as of the ’431 Patent’s priority date
`
`should be considered.
`
`III. THE BOARD’S DISCRETION UNDER 35 U.S.C. § 314(a)
`While there is a parallel district court proceeding involving the ’431 Patent,
`
`the district court has not been presented with or invested any time in the analysis of
`
`prior art invalidity issues, claim constructions have not been exchanged, and no
`
`Markman hearing has been held. (Ex. 1032, Parus Holdings Inc. v. Apple Inc., Case
`
`No. 6_19-cv-00432 (W.D. Tex. Jan. 17, 2020), Scheduling Order) (the “Copending
`
`Litigation”). This petition is timely filed within the statutorily prescribed 1-year
`
`window. Parus will not disclose its claim constructions until May 1, 2020, and claim
`
`construction briefs will not be filed until June 5, 2020. Therefore, the Board should
`
`not exercise its discretion under §314(a).
`
`Although trial is currently set for July 2021, it would be improper to decline
`
`to institute IPR on that basis because (1) the trial date may be continued; (2), even if
`
`trial is not continued, the Copending Litigation may continue beyond a final written
`
`decision here for any number of reasons, including lengthy post-trial motions; (3)
`
`
`
`7
`
`

`

`IPR2020-00686
`U.S. Patent No. 7,076,431
`
`the Copending Litigation may be stayed pending IPR;2 (4) the district court has not
`
`resolved the parties’ claim construction disputes (and may not fully do so prior to
`
`any trial); (5) validity issues in the Copending Litigation will be decided based on
`
`the clear and convincing standard, which is higher than the preponderance of the
`
`evidence standard that applies in IPR such that, even if a jury was presented with the
`
`same evidence, it would not resolve the issue of whether the claims are unpatentable
`
`under the preponderance of the evidence standard that applies in IPR; and (6)
`
`denying institution would be inconsistent with Congressional intent in establishing
`
`IPRs.
`
`With regard to Congressional intent, Congress was clearly aware of the
`
`possibility of parallel litigation and denying on that basis alone would undermine
`
`congressional intent in authorizing IPRs. For example, such a rigid approach
`
`undercuts (or completely ignores) the 1-year safe harbor timeline for filing an IPR.
`
`Allowing a discretionary denial based on the timing of district court litigation all but
`
`renders the 1-year deadline moot and replaces Congress’s considered analysis of the
`
`timeframe in which a petition may be filed. “[I]t is improper for the Board to use
`
`discretion in a way that contradicts the statutory design." Silicon Labs., Inc. v.
`
`
`2 Cf. 157 Cong. Rec. S1363 (daily ed. Mar. 8, 2011) (statement of Sen. Chuck Schumer);
`
`H. Rep. No. 112-98, Part I, at 48 (2011).
`
`
`
`8
`
`

`

`IPR2020-00686
`U.S. Patent No. 7,076,431
`
`Cresta Tech. Corp., IPR2015-00615, Paper 9 at 24-25 (Aug. 14, 2015) (“[W]e are
`
`not persuaded that it would be a prudent exercise of the discretion granted by
`
`§ 325(d) to truncate the ability of a petitioner to make full use of the one-year
`
`window Congress expressly provided through § 315(b).”). Notably, section 315(b)
`
`originally contained only a 6-month filing window, which was amended to 1-year
`
`prior to passage of the AIA to “afford defendants a reasonable opportunity to identify
`
`and understand the patent claims that are relevant to the litigation” before having to
`
`file an IPR petition. 157 Cong. Rec. S5429 (daily ed. Sept. 8, 2011) (statement of
`
`Sen. Kyl). Finally, discretionary denials based on the timing of district court
`
`litigation will encourage forum-shopping for infringement lawsuits and otherwise
`
`remove the PTAB as an alternative forum for challenging patent validity when the
`
`patent owner selects a “fast” district court. Such a rigid approach would effectively
`
`remove the PTAB as “an alternative to district court litigation.” Cuozzo Speed Techs.
`
`v. Lee, 136 S. Ct. 2131, 2143 (2016).
`
`For these reasons, and those explained below, the instant Petition should be
`
`instituted.
`
`IV. REQUIREMENTS FOR IPR UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.104
`A. Grounds for Standing Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(a)
`Apple certifies the ’431 Patent is available for IPR and Apple is not barred or
`
`estopped from requesting this IPR. Apple is not the owner of the ’431 Patent, has
`9
`
`
`

`

`IPR2020-00686
`U.S. Patent No. 7,076,431
`
`not filed a civil action challenging the validity of any claim of the ’431 Patent, and
`
`this Petition is not filed more than one year after Apple was served with a complaint
`
`alleging infringement.
`
`B.
`
`Identification of Challenge Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b) and Relief
`Requested
`
`In view of the prior art and evidence presented, the Challenged Claims of the
`
`’431 Patent are unpatentable and should be cancelled. 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(1).
`
`Based on the prior art references identified below, IPR of the Challenged Claims
`
`should be granted. 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(2).
`
`Proposed Grounds of Unpatentability
`Ground 1: Claims 1-6, 9-10, 13-14, 18, 20-21, and 25 are obvious under § 103(a)
`over Ladd (Ex. 1004) in view of Kurosawa (Ex. 1005) in further view of Goedken
`(Ex. 1006)
`Ground 2: Claims 7, 19, and 26-30 are obvious under § 103(a) over Ladd in view
`of Kurosawa in further view of Goedken and Madnick (Ex. 1007)
`Ground 3: Claims 5-6 are obvious under § 103(a) over Ladd in view of Kurosawa
`in further view of Goedken and Houser (Ex. 1008)
`Ground 4: Claims 9 and 25 are obvious under § 103(a) over Ladd in view of
`Kurosawa in further view of Goedken and Rutledge (Ex. 1010)
`
`
`Sections VI-XI identify where each element of the Challenged Claims is
`
`
`
`found in the prior art. 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(4). The exhibit numbers of the
`
`supporting evidence relied upon to support the challenges are provided above and
`
`
`
`10
`
`

`

`the relevance of the evidence to the challenges raised are provided in Sections VI-
`
`IPR2020-00686
`U.S. Patent No. 7,076,431
`
`
`XI. 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(5). Exhibits 1001–1029 are also attached.
`
`C. Claim Construction Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(3)
`In this proceeding, claims are interpreted under the same standard applied by
`
`Article III courts (i.e., the Phillips standard). See 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b); 83 Fed. Reg.
`
`197 (Oct. 11, 2018); Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1312 (Fed. Cir. 2005)
`
`(en banc). Under this standard, words in a claim are given their ordinary and
`
`customary meaning, which is the meaning understood by a PHOSITA in view of the
`
`patent and file history. Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1312-13. Dictionaries or other extrinsic
`
`sources may assist in determining the plain and ordinary meaning but cannot
`
`override a meaning that is unambiguous from the intrinsic evidence. Id.
`
`V.
`
`SHOWING OF ANALOGOUS PRIOR ART
`
`Kurosawa, Goedken, Madnick, and Houser were neither cited nor considered
`
`during the prosecution of the ’431 Patent. Ladd was cited and considered by the
`
`Examiner but not applied as the basis of a rejection during original examination; a
`
`Becton Dickinson analysis is provided below for Ladd.
`
`Ladd Is Analogous
`
`A.
`Ladd, a U.S. patent filed on October 2, 1998, and issued July 31, 2001,
`
`qualifies as prior art under § 102(e). Ladd (Ex. 1004).
`
`
`
`11
`
`

`

`IPR2020-00686
`U.S. Patent No. 7,076,431
`
`Ladd discloses an IVR system for receiving user-inputted speech commands,
`
`recognizing the user’s speech, and requesting info