Before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board
`
`United States Patent and Trademark Office
`
`Google LLC, Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.,
`Samsung Electronics America, Inc., LG Electronics Inc.,
`and LG Electronics U.S.A., Inc.
`(Petitioners)
`
`V.
`
`Parus Holdings Inc.
`(Patent Owner)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`No. |PR2020-00846 | U.S. Patent No. 7,076,431
`
`Inter Partes Review
`
`NO. IPR2020-00847 I U.S. Patent NO. 9,451,084
`..
`_
`_
`_
`PetItIoners’ Demonstrative EXhlbltS
`
`Google Exhibit 1058
`Google V. Parus
`IPR2020-00846
`
`July 27, 2021
`
`BEHAC’I‘JSTRL‘TTVE 53.10MB” VNOT EVIDET’JCE I 1
`
`

`

`The Parus Patents
`
`‘
`
`lJnhw Sum Pmm
`m— .. n
`
`
`
`
`(imp: Mum Mu
`In“ » Funk
`
`The ’431 Patent
`
`
`
`(57)
`ABSTRACT
`
`
`
`V
`v
`.
`_
`connected to
` -
`a network. Each of the information sources is assigned a
`rank number which is listed in the database along with the
`record for the information source. In response to a speech
`command received from a user, a network interface system
`accesses the information source with the highest rank num-
`ber in order to retrieve information requested by the user.
`
`
`
`
`
`The ’084 Patent
`
`V
`
`a;
`
`
`
`DEFMCSI-JSTRATIVE EXHlEt‘T . HOT EVIDENCE
`
`

`

`Disputed Issues
`
`Kovatch-based grounds
`
`- Whether Kovatch modified based on Neal meets the independent claims’
`
`sequential access limitation
`
`- Whether there is motivation for modifying Kovatch based on Neal
`
`- Whether Parus met its burden to antedate Kovatch
`
`
`
`Kurganov-262-based grounds
`
`- Whether there is written description for the claims reciting periodically searching
`
`for new web sites (’084 claim 1; ’431 claim 9) for entitlement to priority claim
`
`DEMOi-JSTRATIVE EXHIBIT - NOT EVIDENCE
`
`3
`
`

`

`Sequential Access Limitation
`
`Kovatch/Neal Combination:
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT — NOT EVIDENCE
`
`4
`
`

`

`Kovatch-Based Grounds — Sole Disputed Limitation
`
`’431 Patent Claim 1
`
`’084 Patent Claim 1
`
`
`
`at
`
`l. .\ system for retrieving inlomtaliun from pre—sclccted
`web sites by uttering speech cotttntauds into a toice enabled
`det ice and for providing to users retriet cd informal ion in an
`attdio form \ia said \oiee enabled det ice. said system
`comprising:
`a computer. said computer operatitely connected to the
`tulcrttet:
`a toicc enabled dctice openttiwly connected to said
`computer. said voice enabled deuce configured to
`recei\e speech commands from users:
`least one speakerdndependcnt
`speech rucogttlliolt
`de\ ice. said speakervindependent speech recognition
`det ice opcnttiwl) connected to said cotttpttler and to
`said \oice enabled de\icc;
`at least one speech synthesis de\ ice. said speech >)'lllltL‘SlS
`device operatitcly connected to said computer tutd to
`said voice enabled det ice:
`
`ttg ‘aid ittl'omtation
`at least one instruction set for ident
`to be retrieved. said instruction set being associated
`with said computer. said instruction sct comprising:
`a plurality of pro-selected web site addresses. each said
`web site address identifying a web stte containing
`said ittftmnatiott to be retrie\ed;
`
`
`
`
`
`at
`
`l. .-\ system for acquiring information from one or more
`sources maintaining a listing of web sites by receiving
`speech commands uttered by users into a \oice-cnabled
`de\ ice and for providing itttormauott retrieved from the web
`sites to the users in an audio l'onn tin the voice-enabled
`det ice. the system comprising:
`the computing detice
`at
`least one computing device.
`opemtivcly coupled to one or more networks:
`least one
`speaker~independent
`speech-recognition
`
`det
`'e.
`the spettlter-independent
`speech-recognition
`det tee operatively connected to the computing device
`and contigured lo receive the speech commands;
`“ '
`at least one speech-synthesis device. the speech-syntlt
`e;
`det ice operatively connected to the computing det
`
`memory operatively associated with the computing
`device with at least one instruction set for identifying
`the inlonttation to be retrieved. the instruction set being
`associated with the computing device. the instruction
`set comprising:
`a plurality of web site addresses for the listing of web
`
`'s. each web site address identifying a web site
`
`containing the information to be retrie
`2
`least one recognition grammar associated with the
`
`at
`
`
`
`if said information to be
`retrieved is not found at said first web site, said
`computer configured to seguentiallv access said plural-
`fix of web sites until said information to be retrieved is
`found or until said plurality of web sites has been
`accessed;
`
`to obtain said inl'omtation to be retrieved. said
`set
`computer configured to lirst access said lirst web site of
`said plurality of web sites and. if said iutomtzttion to he
`retrie\ed is
`[lot
`found at said lirst web site. said
`computer configured to sequentially access said plural-
`ity of \\ eb sites ttntil said information to be retrie\ed is
`found or tutti] said plurality of web sites has been
`accessed;
`said speech synthesis device eotuigured to produce an
`
`attdio ttte
`containing any retrie\ed infonnatiou
`
`from said pre
`"lccted web sites, and said speech
`synthesis device further configured to transmit said
`audio message to said users via said toice enabled
`device,
`
`
`DEMOt-JSTRATIVE EXHIBIT — NOT EVIDENCE
`
`if the information to be retrieved is not found
`
`at the first web site, the 00111131??? configured to access
`the plurahty 0f web sites remainlng 111 an order defined
`for accessmg the llstlhg 0f web Sltes “htll the informa-
`tion to be retrieved is found in at least one of the
`plurality of web sites or until the plurality of web sites
`have been accessed;
`
`identify new web sites and to add the new web sites to
`the plurality of web sites. tlte computing device cott-
`
`ligured to act
`a first web site of the plurality of web
`sites and. it the tnforutation to be l‘Cll’lL‘V ed is not found
`at the first web site. the computer configured to access
`the plurality ol’ web sites remaining it an order delined
`for accessing the listing ol’wcb sites ttntil the informa-
`tion to be retrieved is found in at
`least one of the
`plurality ol'wcb sites or until the plurality of web sites
`hate been accessed:
`the speech synthesis detiee cottligured to produce zm
`audio message containing any retrieved inlonnatiou
`from the plurality ol'web sites. and
`the speech synthesis device lttnlter configured to transmit
`tlte audio tttcssage to the users via the voice-enabled
`device.
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`’431 Reply at 17; ’084 Reply at 21
`
`Kovatch Discloses Retrieving Desired Information
`F rom S U p pl ie r we b Sites
`
`,431Petmonat13_l7,gz;
`’084 Petition at 42-45, 59;
`
`Kovatch
`
`
`it
`
`_ Anita Queanngiue (4)
`
`FIG 4
`
`Maps commands to an application defined using the HeyAnita Speech Objects
`110 and Speech Applications 114, or HeyAnita function library (see example in
`
`Appendix A) and state machine definition language.
`
`:
`
`’
` , The Anita Query Engine does the following:
`
`'
`
`'
`
`Example 2: Buying a CD
`
`
`
`I like Amazon. Assistant:
`
`
`
`1) Play voice prompts for the user to exactly identify an application
`2) Generate web URLs to initiate execution of the selected application
`3) Hand over control to the Anita State Machine and Web Parser, described
`below
`
`*
`
`'k
`
`'k
`
`*
`
`Assistant: I
`
`How can I help you?
`
`User:
`Assistant:
`
`Iwanttobuy the newgiuns and Roses CD
`Please wait while'Ifind the cheapestpn'ce foryou.—
`has it for eleven dollars and ten cents. Would you like to buy it
`now?
`
`
`
`Kovatch (EX. 1005) at Fig. 4, annotated in
`‘431 Petition at 17; ‘084 Petition at 45
`
`
`
`
`*
`
`*
`
`*
`
`*
`
`Feature: User Preferences
`
`Example 2: Buying a CD
`
`Assistant:
`User:
`
`How can I help you?
`I want to buy CDs
`
`Would you like to_or find the
`
`Assistant:
`cheapest price.
`User:
`
`Please tell me the name of the CD or the artist...
`
`DEMOi-JSTRATIVE EXHIBIT - NOT EVIDENCE
`
`6
`
`Kovatch (EX. 1005) at 15, 20-21, cited at
`‘431 Petition at 14-15; ‘084 Petition at 42-43
`
`Kovatch (EX. 1005) at 23-24, cited at
`‘431 Petition at 14-15; ‘084 Petition at 42-43
`
`

`

`1084petmon 6140-41
`
`Neal Teaches to Access Sequentially
`to Efficiently Use Resources and Obtain the Desired Item
`
`’431 Petition at 12-13-
`
`Neal
`
`
`FIG. 2
`
`INPUT SEARCH TERM(S)
`
`
`
`202
`
`[200
`
`
`
`
`
`
`catalog ‘
`'
`-
`,
`v
`,
`V by the algorithm 20(l and the logic will
`
`
`proceed along schematic lines 228 and 234 until the results
`of the match are re orted to the user 1n block 236. The
`_although
`there may be additional steps associated with payment and
`order fulfillment.
`
`,,
`1
`I
`.
`‘
`the algorithm 20(l proceeds along
`
`
`
`schematic line 208 to the second search strategy in block
`
`210
`1’.
`1
`‘.
`~
`- seeonddataset_
`
`‘ -'
`12
`~
`-
`11 1
`1
`1
`‘
`.1
`_ In general, there15 no require-
`ment that the second data set must be dilferent from the first
`
`data set. For example, if the first search strategy in 206 failed
`because there was no exact string match, it may be desirable
`to perform a stern search on the same data set. In that way,
`the preferred supplier may have more than one chance of
`identifying the desired item within its catalog.
`Similarly, in the preferred embodiment there is no require-
`ment that the second search methodology in 210 must be
`ditferent from the first search methodology in 206. For
`
`
`
`' deferred 5114.11-
`
`
`
`Continuing with FIG. 2, if the second search strategy in
`210 falls to yield a match, the algonthm 200 contmues alon
`212 to the third search strate
`in 214, andd
`dThe three vertical dots shown
`in 218 are meant to schematically illustrate that the number
`of search strategies is arbitrary.
`
`
`206
`
`210
`
`214
`
`
`
`
`
`(om sens (SEARCH METHODOLOGY);
`
`216
`
`N0 MATCH
`
`NO MATCH
`
`
`
`
`
`
`N0 MATCH
`
`REPORT NEGATIVE SEARCH RESULT
`
`234
`
`
`
`REPORT
`SEARCH RESULT
`
`
`
`226
`
`
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT — NOT EVIDENCE
`
`7
`
`Neal (Ex. 1007) at Fig. 2, cited at ‘431 Petition at 13;
`‘084 Petition at 41
`
`Neal (Ex. 1007) at 6:40-7:14, cited at ‘431 Petition at 12;
`‘084 Petition at 40-41
`
`

`

`The Kovatch/Neal Combination Applies Neal’s Teaching
`
`’084 Reply at 21 to Search Suppliers Sequentially in Order
`
`’431 Reply at 17;
`
`New
`
`202
`
`206
`
`210
`
`Neal (Ex. 1007)
`at Fig. 2, cited at
`‘431 Petition at 13;
`‘084 Petition at 41
`
`
`
` 222 KERRY FEGATIVE SEARCH RESULT
`
`Peflflon
`
` REPORT
`
`SEARCH RESULT
`
`Kovatch (Ex. 1005)
`at Fig. 4, annotated in
`‘431 Petition at 27;
`‘084 Petition at 55
`
` FIG. 2
`
`
`
`214
`
` Neal, 4:65-52,
`
`Neal teaches techniques for “optimiz[ing] [a] search process b
`
`
`
`Neal, Abstract. When, like in Kovatch. a user inputs a
`
`
`"search" for a “desired item“ that may be "available from more than one supplier,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Neal, 3:35-36, 2:54-57,
`
`5:55-60; IJpojffl 99.
`
`
`.
`as shown in FIG. 2 (reproduced below). Neal,
`
`
`Neal. 3:42-45. “[When] the search fails to
`
`
`
`6140-7: 14; Lipajffll loo.
`
`identify the desired item from any [supplier],. .. a negative search result is reported
`
`to the user." Neal, 7:30-33; [1qu 10].
`
`
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT — NOT EVIDENCE
`
`‘431 Petition at 12-14 (‘084 Petition at 40-42)
`
`

`

`The Kovatch/Neal Combination Meets Limitation [1 .j]
`
`’431 Petition at 32-33;
`’084 Petition at 60-61
`
`’084 Limitation [1 .j]
`’431 Limitation [1 .j]
`
`
`
`if said information to be
`_
`.
`retrieved is not found at said first web site, said
`computer configured to sequentially access said plural—
`ity of web sites until said information to be retrieved is
`found or until said plurality of web sites has been
`accessed;
`
`
`
`
`
`if the information to be retrieved is not found
`'
`at the first web site, the computer configured to access
`the plurality of web sites remaining in an order defined
`for accessing the listing of web sites until the informa—
`tion to be retrieved is found in at least one of the
`plurality of web sites or until the plurality of web sites
`have been accessed;
`
`
`
`
`
`Petition
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Kovatch (Ex. 1005)
`at Fig. 4, annotated
`in ‘431 Petition at 27;
`'084 Petition at 55
`
`Neal
`
`FIG. 2
`—200
`202/“
`"PUTSEARCH ERM(S]
`
`206»
`
`214’
`
`(Mus
`
`51);. (SEARCR METHODOLOGY);
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`222
` 236
`
`
`REPORT NEGATIVE SEARCH REsur
`
`REPORT
`SEARCH RESULT
`
`226
`
`
`For instance, Kovatch describes an example where the user says, “I want to
`
`buy CDs thereby requesting information (e.g., price information) needed to buy
`
`CD5. Kavulch, 2l:19-25, 20:29~21:3; Lipujfli 105. Kovatchteaches that a
`
`plurality of web sites (“Amazon“ and “CD Now") may contain the requested
`
`information, and the system learns that the user prefers Amazon. Kovatch, 21:22-
`
`24, 23:25-29, FIG. 4; Lipqfl‘rn 105.
`
`,
`
`‘
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Kovutch, 20:31#analogous to Neal’s search for “a red Bic pen"
`
`Neal. 7:43-48)
`
`
`Sue aim KnvuIc/i, 2411-2 with FIG, 4 (preferred Amazon
`
`
`web site searched first for books, before Barnes and Nobel); L/‘pqfi'filfil 103-105.
`
`‘431 Petition at 14-15 (‘084 Petition at 42-43)
`
`DEMOi-JSTRATIVE EXHIBIT A NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Neal (Ex. 1007)
`at Fig. 2, cited at
`‘431 Petition at 13;
`‘084 Petition at 41
`
`

`

`Parus’s Arguments That Neal Does Not Teach Accessing
`
`Websites Fail to Address the Petition’s Combination
`
`’431 Reply at 16-20;
`’084 Reply at 20-25
`
`Parus’s POR
`Board’s Institution Decision:
`
`
`First, as already noted, Neal does not teach accessing websites at all, and
`
`instead teaches accessing static datasets in a partitioned database. Ex.
`
`I007 at
`
`Abstract. Ex. 2059 at 1[ I2]. Neither the Petition, nor Mr. Lipoff, contend the
`
`contrary. Pet. at 12-15, Ex. I002 at W 98-IO6.
`*
`‘k
`‘k
`
`'k
`
`In light of these explicit teachings from Nail, that a sequence of search
`
`algorithms should be used to avoid the drawbacks with the prior art. the Petition, and
`
`Mr. Lipoff propose a combination with Ai’ca/ that employs a single keyword
`
`matching search strategy — which Neal explicitly teaches away from. Neither the
`
`Petition nor Mr. Lipoff‘s declaration explicitly say they are relying on the keyword
`
`search, but a close reading of the two demonstrates that is exactly what they are
`
`
`
`doing,
`
`
`
`
`Patent Owner contends that Neal does not teach claim limitation l j
`
`because it does not disclose sequentially accessing web sites; rather, it
`
`describes accessing intemal database files. Prelim Resp 46 (citing
`
`Ex. 1007, 4:642). This argument does not account for Petitioner‘s
`
`combination As explained above, Petitioner cites Kovatch for a teaching of
`
`accessing web sites and Neal for a teaching of sequentially accessing data.
`*
`9:
`'k
`*
`
`Patent Owner further argues that the particular search strategies
`
`described in Neal, e.g., proximity searching and string matching, are not
`
`compatible with Kovatch, in that "[n]0ne of these are designed to
`
`sequentially access a plurality of pie-selected web sites until the desired
`
`infomiation is retrieved." Id. at 48; we also id. at 39. More generally,
`
`Patent Owner argues that “Neal is disclosing sequentially applying search
`
`strategies, or algorithms, to data sets in an electronic catalog, not accessing
`
`web sites.“ Id. at 49; we also id. at 37 (“Neal does not disclose sequentially
`
`accessing pre-selected web sites; rather, the Neal disclosure relied on and
`
`identified by Petitioners discloses accessing pre-curated electronic catalogs,
`
`not web sites"). Petitioner. however. does not cite Neal for teachings of
`particular search strategies. Rather, Petitioner cites Kovatch for a teaching
`of searching web sites and Neal for a technique of sequentially searching
`
`data sets. Pet. 12715. Thus, Patent Owner‘s argument is not persuasive.
`
`See In re ’cl/cr, 642 F.2d 413, 426 (CC PA l98l ) (“[O]ne cannot show
`
`non-obviousness by attacking references individually where. as here. the
`
`rejections are based on combinations of references").
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`‘431 POR at 37-38 (‘084 POR at 43—45)
`
`DEMOI‘JSTRATIVE EXHIBIT — NOT EVIDENCE
`
`‘431 DI at 42-43 (see also ‘084 DI at 46)
`
`10
`
`

`

`loanepwatm
`
`The Kovatch/Neal Combination Uses Kovatch’s
`
`Website Search Methodology on Each Website
`
`’431 Reply at 17-20;
`
`Parus’s Sur-Reply
`
`Petition
`
`retrieved”
`
`j.
`
`|l.i| “said computer further configured to access at
`least one of said plurality of web sites identified by
`said instruction set to obtain said information to be
`
`(part of the Anita Server and Application Sewer
`
`identified by the instruction
`
`
`
`(See Ex. 1005; Paper 22,
`
`l7). Petitioners are now relying on Kovatch’s web parser to “search each individual
`
`website.” Id. But a web parser, parses the HTML tags on a web page to expose or
`
`render the data to the user; it does not search any data, and Kovatch’s web parser is
`no different.
`
`‘431 Sur—Reply at 16 (‘084 Sur-Reply at 18)
`
`above)_ KUWIIL‘IL l3i33-l411. l5il-34,
`17228-185; Liqui‘fil 157.
`
`‘431 Petition at 32 (‘084 Petition at 59)
`
`Kovatch
`
`
`a_
`
`Anita State Machine and Web Parser executes state machines written using a
`
`proprietary function library. This retrieves information web sites and other
`
`It is not mandatory to make changes to existing web sites to make them work with
`
`applications that are enabled for this operation. In addition,
`
`1:
`
`'
`Anita State Machine and Web Parser.
`
`
`
`.
`In this scenario the Yahoo! web site was not
`
`modified to support the operations nor was it aware that a voice—enabled application
`
`was using its HTML based services.
`
`
`Kovatch (EX. 1005) at 15-16
`
`DEMOr-ISTRATIVE EXHIBIT — NOT EVIDENCE
`
`11
`
`computers)
`
`
`set executed by the Natural Language and Query Engines (see §§ VIl,A.4,f-i
`
`
`
`
`

`

`logiRepiyam- 4
`
`Parus’s New Argument That Kovatch Cannot Find Information
`to Be Retrieved from Websites |s Unsupported and Wrong
`
`’431 Reply at 17-20;
`
`Parus’s Sur-Reply
`
`’431 Limitation [1.i]
`
`For example. Petitioners now argue that Kovatch is relied upon “for a teaching
`
`of searching web sites“ and refer to “Kovatch’s website search methodology,” but
`
`there is no disclosure of website searching in Kovatch.
`
`(Sec Ex, 1005; Paper 22,
`
`“access at least one of said plurality of web
`
`sites...to obtain said information to be retrieved”
`
`
`
`l7). Petitioners are now relying on Kovatch’s web parser to "search each individual
`
`
`
`website." It]. But a web parser, parses the HTML tags on a web page to expose or
`
`render the data to the user; it does not search any data, and Kovatcli’s web parser is
`
`KovatCh
`
`
`no different
`
`
`
`
`I3,
`
`I understand that l’ai‘us's and Mr ()ccliiogrosso‘s t'ounh and
`
`applications that are enabled for this Operation. In addition, its web-parsing motion
`
`"[liinalll” argument Is that “neither Mr. Lipotl'nor the Petition explain lion one
`
`nould apply Neal's search techniques to web sites," ()cchiogrosso-lkcl .‘l‘l [28-
`
`IZK); POR. )au ‘ 40. Again. I disaurc * 1) -cause tli ' Koxatchi‘N *al combination do ‘s
`l
`‘ t
`‘
`‘
`‘
`i
`k
`k
`“
`information t'I‘oIii an indiudual nebsne. As i discussed In ‘5" 5-1 l abm e. the
`
`also allows Anita Query Engine to retrieve web pages from any conventional web site
`
`on the Internet and convert unstructured HTML data into meaningful structured data.
`It is not mandatory to make changes to existing web sites to make them work with
`.
`.
`.
`.
`Anita State Machine and Web Parser. An example of tins would be the operations
`
`performed to pass in a zip code to the Yahoo web site: execute the form to retrieve the
`
`Kmatcli Neal combination uses li'ovulch‘s search methodologies (tan. Koiinch‘s
`net) parsing) to I'elrie\e inloriiiation from each ol‘lt'owrlcli 's \iebsites. M) original
`
`results, select and format the results, 51a}: relevant information in the form of
`concatenated Speech fragments. In this scenario the Yahoo! web site was not
`
`declaration explained liO\\ a POS/\ \\ould hm e applied Neal‘s sequential-search
`‘ —
`teaching to Km atch's euslinu s\ stem that searches nehsiies For example. as l
`stated in ‘ [04 ohm oriuinal dcclflr'llloll‘
`‘
`'
`“
`‘
`
`EX. 1057 in lPR2020-00846, Ti 13’ cited at I431 Reply at 20;
`[EX. 1057 in lPR2020-00847, TI 21, cited at ‘084 Reply at 24-25]
`
`modified to support the operations nor was it aware that a voice—enabled application
`
`was usmg Its HTML based serv1ces.
`
`*
`
`*
`
`*
`
`*
`
`Weather
`0 5-day forecasts for weather in over 6,000 US. and International cities
`0 User can search for weather at a particular location by specifying city and state
`(US. only), Zip code (US. only), 01' city and Country (International)
`
`
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT — NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Kovatch (Ex. 1005) at 15-16; 33
`
`12
`
`N O
`EVIDENTIARY
`S U P PORT
`
`'
`
`_
`I
`_
`431 Sur Reply at 16 (084 Sur Reply at 18)
`.
`.
`,
`
`Pet'tloners Expert Anita State Machine and Web Parser executes state machines written using a
`proprietary function library. This retrieves information web sites and other
`
`e.
`
`Anita State Machine and Web Parser (8)
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`Kovatch’s Websites Are Separately Searched Datasets
`
`’431 Reply at 20;
`’084 Reply at 24-25
`
`
`Petitioners’ Expert
`Kovatch
`
`14. Mr. Occlriogrosso more specifically asserts that “neither Mr. Lipofl',
`
`nor the Petition, explain how the data from web sites would be pre-segmented to
`
`employ the search strategies disclosed by Neal“ Occhiogrosso-Decl,,1[ 1291
`
`Again, the Kovatch/Neal combination does not rely on using any particular search
`
`methodology from Neal for retrieving information from an individual website.
`
`
`
`
`
`HG. 4
`
`,40
`
`\
`
`__“%‘£_
`
`
`
`,3” —,—'
`
`“av“
`
`Fondling:
`—;~ -4 T
`
`l _ M
`
`W San:
`M I
`———_"
`__js°°'
`7‘ mm .
`
`DID!
`
`
`
`:1mi
`
`
`
`
`
`
`EX. 1057 in |PR2020-00846, 1] 14, Cited ‘431 Reply at 20;
`[EX. 1057 in |PR2020-00847, 1] 22, Cited ‘084 Reply at 24-25]
`
`Kovatch (EX. 1005) at Fig. 4, annotated in ‘431 Petition at 17;
`‘084 Petition at 45
`
`Petition
`Parus’s Sur—Reply
`
`
`
` Petitioners do not even attempt
`to argue that the [ntemet is segmented into multiple tiers, as Neal discloses.
`
`Instead, Petitioners now claim that the Internet‘ which apparently is akin to a
`
`database in Neal, is already pro-segmented into websites, which apparently are
`
`akin to datasets in Neal. Petitioners fail to indicate how this pre-segmentation of
`
`the lntemet into web pages “enable the identification of items from the most
`
`economical sources," like the datasets in Neal, (Paper 14. 25; Ex. l007, 3zl3—l 7).
`
`
`
`
`For instance, Kovatch describes an example where the user says, “I want to
`
`buy CDs,“ thereby requesting infonnation (Lag, price information) needed to buy
`
`
`CD5. Kovatch, 21:19-25, 20129-213; /.Ipujf1i 105.
`
`Knvulch, 21:22-
`
`24, 23:25-29, FIG. 4; Lipofl'fil 105‘
`it
`I
`
`'
`(Kovatch, 21:19-25, 23:25-
`
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT — NOT EVIDENCE
`
`‘431 Sur-Reply at 19 (‘084 Sur—Reply at 21)
`
`‘431 Petition at 14-15 (‘084 Petition at 42-43)
`
`13
`
`

`

`Parus’s New Argument That Kovatch Lacks a Plurality of
`
`Pre-Selected Destinations ls Waived and Wrong
`
`Board’s Scheduling Order:
`
`Patent Owner may file—
`
`a. A response to the petition (37 CPR. § 42.120). If Patent Owner
`
`elects not to file a response, Patent Owner must arrange a conference call
`
`with the panics and the Board.
`
`
`
`
`
`Parus’s Sur-Reply
`
`Petitioners argue that it would be obvious to add the functionality of claim
`
`limitation 1(j) to Kovatch, which would
`
`while completely ignoring and not explaining why a POSITA
`
`in a manner that is completely opposite of Kovatch’s stated goal.
`
`
`‘431 Sur—Reply at 15 (‘084 Sur—Reply at 16-17)
`
`Board’s Institution Decision:
`
`
`Patent Owner argues “Kovatch discloses neither a plurality of web
`
`sites for each application nor addresses for the web sites.” Prelim. Resp. 48.
`
`Board‘s Scheduling Order (Paper No. 10) at 8
`
`
`tolerant and maximizes the likelihood of finding the requested information. -
`
`
`Patent Owner also states that an inquiry to Kovatch’s "system results in the
`
`Parus’s POR Admits:
`
`identification of a single application for accessing a single web site" and that
`
`“Kovatch never identifies a plurality of possible web sites for answering the
`
`inquiry." Id. at 49.
`
`
`
`
`Ex. 1005, 21:19—25. For example, Kovatch’s
`Anita system asks a user “[w]ould you like to buy CDs from Amazon, CD
`
`Now, or find the cheapest price [‘.’].” Id. at 21:22-23; Fig. 4. At this stage
`
`of the proceeding,
`
`price." It]. at2l:22~23; .ree also id. at 20297213
`
`.
`
`r
`
`*
`
`i
`
`in order to “find the cheapest
`
`Without being prompted
`
`-
`_
`,
`to ensure it finds the cheapest price for the
`
`
`'
`: without being told to do so, which demonstrates that it is fault
`
`
`
`
`‘431 POR at 43 (‘084 POR at 50)
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT — NOT EVIDENCE
`
`‘084 D| at 45 (see also ‘431 D| at 39)
`
`14
`
`

`

`Motivation to Combine
`
`Kovatch/Neal Combination:
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT — NOT EVIDENCE
`
`15
`
`

`

`’084 Reply at 25-26
`
`Parus Presented No Showing Against the Motivation
`the Petition Asserted
`
`’431 Reply at 21;
`
`Petition
`
`
`
`
`Neal, Abstract. When, like in Kovatch, a user inputs a
`
`“search” for a “desired item“ that may be "available from more than one supplier,
`
`Neal searches the suppliers’ “data sets“ "in a hierarchy" (i.e., an ordered ranking)
`
`in which "more favored suppliers [are] searched first.“ Neal, 3:35-36, 2:54-57,
`
`5:55-60; Lipaflfl 99, "If the preferred supplier" does not “ha[ve] the exact item,"
`
`the search “proceeds. .. to the second“ supplier, “and thereafier along [the
`
`hierarchy] until a match is found,“ as shown in FIG. 2 (reproduced below). Neal,
`
`
`6240-7214:].Ipq1f1l IOO.
`‘
`
`Neal, 3:42-45. “[When] the search fails to
`
`identify the desired item from any [supplier],. .. a negative search result is reported
`
`to the user." Neal, 7:30-33; Lipqlf1] 101.
`*
`*
`
`*
`
`*
`
`A POSA would have been motivated to apply Neal‘s above—described
`
`hierarchical ordering and search techniques when retrieving information fi'om web
`
`sites in Kovatch’s HcyAnita system,
`
`
`
`Neal, 4:65-52,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT — NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Parus’s Expert
`
`Q. And if a search engine searched fewer
`
`sites, would that involve lower expenditure
`
`
`
`
`
`of processing resources?
`
`
` ll}?
`_
`.
`if it presented fewer sites.
`
`Deposition of Benedict Occhiogrosso (Ex. 1051) at 435-10
`(cited ‘431 Reply at 22; ‘084 Reply at 26)
`
`‘431 Petition at 12-14
`
`(‘084 Petition at 40-42)
`
`16
`
`

`

`[084Rep1yat2e27
`
`Parus’s Assertion That Kovatch Requires “Dead Space”
`for Playing Advertisements Is Wrong
`
`’431 Reply at 22-23;
`
`
`
`Parus’s POR Petitioners’ Expert
`
`
`Kovatch teaches that information iS TEITiCVCd, and the"
`“an audio stream based on commercials and web information returned by“ the
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`NO RESPONSE and sends it to Anita Telephone Interface 12.
`
`Kovatch understood that this dead space was an uncaptured advertising
`
`market, and this was an opportunity to generate revenue “for HeyAnita to connect
`
`eyeballs to eardnlms, thereby enabling these companies to target and reach a
`
`significantly expanded audience. See Ex, 1005 at 31344‘ 629-”. Reading the
`
`teachings of Kovatch,
`
`,
`
`_
`
`,
`
`,
`
`,,
`
`
`
` mapped to the HeyAnita application at the destination node
`
`, I:> searchcanbeplayed,withthecommercialsand information“[i]ntem1ix[ed].r.ina
`
`seamless manners“ Kovatch, l8: 1-15, l4: l-8. A POSA would have understood
`
`ofthe destination tree, Ex, 2059 3‘11'133‘134'
`
`‘431 POR at 42 (‘084 POR at 49)
`
`Sec Kovatch, 20:5-22:2 1‘ Similarly, Kovatch‘s independent claim does not recite
`an ad generator; an ad generator is only in a dependent claim in Kovatch. See
`
`K°Va‘°h~ 3513‘”-
`
`EX. 1057 in |PR2020-00846,1118, cited at '431 Reply at 22—23;
`Kovatch [Ex. 1057 in |PR2020-00847, 11 26, cited at ‘084 Reply at 27]
`
`
`
`9—10 generate
`unique entertaining experience for the user
`
`Parus’s Sur-Reply
`
`
`Kovatch (Ex. 1005) at 14, 18 (cited ‘431 Reply at 23; ‘084 Reply at 27)
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT — NOT EVIDENCE
`
`17
`
`

`

`
`
`Parus’s Fault Tolerance Arguments Are
`Refuted by Both Experts
`
`’431 Reply at 23-24;
`’084 Reply at 27-29
`
`Parus’s POR,
`
`
`Parus’s POR
`
`
`Therefore, there is no motivation to combine Kevan-h with Neal because a
`
`POSITA would understand that Kavalch's HeyAnita system used its inventive
`
`advertisements to entertain the user as it awaited a response to its request, and
`
`
`
`
`Ex. 2059 at 1] 140.
`
`A POSITA would understand that this behavior indicates that HeyAnita is
`
`very interactive, and ‘
`
`For example, if a user told HeyAnita that it wanted to buy
`
`the Guns N Roses CD from Amazon, and HeyAnita was not able to retrieve the
`
`‘431 POR at 44 (‘084 POR at 51)
`
`information from Amazon, a logical follow-up would be if I wanted to try to buy it
`
`from CD Now. Ex. 2059 at fil I39.
`
`Parus’s Expert
`
`
`‘431 POR at 44 (‘084 POR at 51)
`
`40. While systems like l’errom' and- retumcd relatively rapid
`answers if the speech command was a priori mapped to a web resource, they still
`
`suffered from additional drawbacks. For example, because these systems mapped a
`
`single web resource to a single speech command,—
`-If the URL of the web resource was inaccessible, there would be no way
`to get the requested information. For example, using the weather example from
`
`earlier, if the “weather" command corresponded to the “www.weather.com" web
`
`
`resource, and weather.com was not currently accessible,
`
`*
`*
`*
`*
`
`' Kovalch does not appear to concern itself with fault tolerance due to the system's
`
`ability to ask follow up questions to determine the most appropriate single answer.
`
`the Kovatch/Neal combination does once the first site fails to provide the requested
`
`infonnation
`
`POSA would have understood this to be beneficial given users‘ known preference
`
`for shorter dialogs with voice response systems,
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT — NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Occhiogrosso Declaration (EX. 2059) at 1] 4O
`(cited ‘431 Reply at 24; ‘084 Reply at 28)
`
`EX. 1057 in |PR2020-00846, 1] 22, Cited ‘431 Reply at 24;
`[EX. 1057 in |PR2020-00847, 1] 30, Cited ‘084 Reply at 29]
`
`18
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Petitioners’ Expert
`
`(Mr. Occhiogrosso
`
`
`A POSA would have understood that searching a second website
`
`
`automatically would have been just as “logical" (if not more so) as doing so after a
`
`

`

`Obviousness Does Not Require Bodily Incorporation
`
`Neal
`
`
`.
`.
`,
`
`Petitioners Reply
`
`In the Kovatch-"Neal combination, each data set is a supplier's website
`
`searched using Kovatch's website search methodology. consistent with Neal‘s
`
`teachings that each “data set“ can be a different “supplier” (Neali 6:39-65) and
`
`rm
`
`202-”
`
`no.2
`INPJTSEARCH TERMS]
`204/“
`—_Y—_
`
`2051mm 83% (SEARCH METHODOLOGY),
`205.» NO MATCH
`
`[DATA SET): (SEARCH METHODOLOG’Q
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`42:1; ':-':5‘
`
`
`
`
`226
`Petition. 12-13.
`
`
`
`
`212» "MC"
`anal (mmSign1(semenmommy),
`ZISJ‘ NOMATCH
`
`“[t]here are many possible sequences of search algorithms“ (Neal. 7:56). Petition.
`
`13-15. 32-34.
`
`222
`
`'431 Reply at 17-18 (‘084 Reply at 21—22)
`
`Parus’s Sur—Reply
`
`213/":
`220
`
`REPDRY NEGAINE SEARCH RESUU
`
`
`
`
`REPORT
`SEARCH RESULT
`
`226
`
`Neal explains that its search strategies. which Petitioners alleged they
`
`were relying on. “may include one or more of the following: exact search. stem
` search. soundex search. and fuzzy logic search." 113.3: mi:
`" “ri:
`1.1:2'Wii-‘3;
`
`Neal (Ex. 1007) at Fig. 2 (cited ‘431 Reply at 17-18;
`‘084 Reply at 21-22)
`
`“The test for Obviousness is not whether
`
`the features of a secondary reference may
`
`be bodily incorporated into the structure of
`
`the primary reference;... Rather, the test is
`
`what
`
`the
`
`combined teachings
`
`of
`
`the
`
`‘431 Sur—Reply at 21 (‘084 Sur-Reply at 23)
`
`references would have suggested to those
`
`of ordinary skill in the art.”
`
`DEEMGi-IGTRATIVE EXHIBIT - NOT EVIDENCE
`
`In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425 (C.C.P.A. 1981)
`(cited ‘431 Reply at 17; ‘084 Reply at 20)
`
`19
`
`

`

`Antedate Kovatch
`
`Parus Failed to
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT — NOT EVIDENCE
`
`2O
`
`

`

`Parus Failed to Meet Its Burden to Antedate Kovatch,
`
`’431 Reply at 1-16; for Multiple Independent Reasons
`
`[084Replyat5so
`
`
`Petitioners’ Reply
`
`
`, w“:
`
`7‘
`
`,1-
`
`
`
`5 _ ,
`In e Magnum Oil Tools Int’l, Ltd., 829 F.3d 1364, 1375_76
`(Fed. Cir. 2016). Thus, GAS had to present a case to estab-
`fish prior conception of every claim limitation. GAS’S brief-
`ing failed to meet this burden,
`
`,. e
`
`..
`
`;
`
`Gen-Access SOIS- V- Sprint Spectrum, 811 F- APP‘X 654, 657-59
`(Fed. CIr. 2020) (“GAS“) (Clted ‘431 Reply at ’1—4; ‘084 Reply at 5—8)
`
`l. GROUNDS 1-4: KOVATCH IS PRIOR ART ................................................ l
`
`A. The POR’s Conclusory Allegation of Antedating Kovatch Should
`Be Rejected .................................................................................................. 2
`
`B If Considered, the Declarations’ Arguments Fail to Demonstrate
`Reduction to Practice ...................................................................................5
`1. The Inventor’s Testimony Lacks Independent Corroboration ..............6
`2. Parus’s Evidence Meets Neither Reduction-to-Practice Prong ............ 8
`a. Prong I: No Evidence Demonstrates an Embodiment
`Meeting All Limitations of Any Challenged Claim ..................... 9
`
`1'. No Evidence Demonstrates a Constructed
`Embodiment Having a Computer Meeting All
`Claimed Limitations ............................................................. 9
`
`ii. No Evidence Demonstrates a Constructed
`Embodiment Met Limitations [lpre], [1 .h]-[1 .k] ............... 10
`
`iii. No