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 HoldingsInc.
`(Patent Owner)
`
`
`
`Inter Partes Review
`
`
`
`
`
`No. IPR2020-00846 | U.S. Patent No. 7,076,431
`
`No. IPR2020-00847| U.S. Patent No. 9,451,084
`oe
`;
`|
`Petitioners’ Demonstrative Exhibits
`
`Google Exhibit 1058
`Google v. Parus
`IPR2020-00846
`
`July 27, 2021
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT — NOT EVIDENCE | 1
`
`

`

`The Parus Patents
`
`
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT — NOT EVIDENCE
`
`The ’431 Patent
`
`
`
`ABSTRACT
`(57)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`connected to
`a network. Each of the information sources is assigned a
`ong with the
`rank number which is listed in the database al
`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
`
`

`

`Disputed Issues
`
`Kovatch-based grounds
`
`¢ Whether Kovatch modified based on Neal meets the independentclaims’
`sequential accesslimitation
`
`¢ Whether there is motivation for modifying Kovatch based on Neal
`
`e Whether Parus metits burden to antedate Kovatch
`
`
`
`Kurganov-262-based grounds
`
`¢ Whetherthere is written description for the claims reciting periodically searching
`for new web sites (084 claim 1; 431 claim 9) for entitlement to priority claim
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT — NOT EVIDENCE
`
`5
`
`

`

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

`

`Kovatch-Based Grounds — Sole Disputed Limitation
`
`7431 Patent Claim 1
`
`
`
`
`
`at
`
`1. A systemforretrieving information from pre-selected
`websites byuttering speech commandsinto a voice enabled
`device andfor providingto users retrievedinformation in an
`audio form via said voice enabled device, said system
`comprising:
`a computer, said computer operatively connected to the
`internet;
`a voice enabled device operatively connected to said
`computer, said voice enabled device configured to
`receive speech commands from users;
`least one speaker-independent
`speech recognition
`device, said speaker-independent speech recognition
`device operatively connected to said computer and to
`said voice enableddevice:
`at least one speechsynthesis device, said speech synthesis
`device operatively connected to said computer and to
`said voice enableddevice;
`
`at least oneinstructionset for identifying said information
`to be retrieved, said instruction set being associated
`with said computer, said instruction set comprising:
`a plurality of pre-selected web site addresses, eachsaid
`website address identifying a web site containing
`said informationto be retrieved;
`
`’084 Patent Claim 1
`
`
`
`
`at
`
`1. A system for acquiring information from one or more
`sources maintaining a listing of web sites by receiving
`speech commands uttered by users into a voice-enabled
`device and for providing informationretrieved from the web
`sites to the users in an audio form via the voice-enabled
`device, the system comprising:
`the computing device
`at
`least one computing device,
`operatively coupled to one or more networks;
`least one
`speaker-independent
`speech-recognition
`
`device,
`the speaker-independent
`speech-recognition
`device operatively connected to the computing device
`and configuredto receive the speech commands;
`at least one speech-synthesis device, the speech-synthesis
`
`device operatively connected to the computing device;
`memory operatively associated with the computing
`device with at least one instructionset for identifying
`the informationtoberetrieved, the instructionset being
`associated with the computing device, the instruction
`set comprising:
`a plurality of web site addresses for the listing of web
`
`2s, each web site address identifying a web site
`
`containing the informationto be retrieved:
`at_least one recognition grammar associated with the
`
`
`
`if said information to be
`retrieved is not found at said first web site, said
`computer configured to sequentially access said plural-
`ity of websites until said informationto beretrieved is
`found or until said plurality of web sites has been
`accessed;
`
`to obtain said information to be retrieved, said
`set
`computer configuredtofirst access said first web site of
`said plurality of websites and, ifsaid informationto be
`retrieved is not
`found at said first web site, said
`computer configured to sequentiallyaccess said plural-
`ity of websites until said informationto be retrieved is
`found or until said plurality of web sites has been
`accessed;
`said speech synthesis device configured to produce an
`
`audio message
`containing any retrieved information
`
`from said pre-selected web sites, and said speech
`synthesis device further configured to transmit said
`audio message to said users via said voice enabled
`device.
`
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT — NOT EVIDENCE
`
`if the informationto 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 websites 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;
`
`
`
`
`
`identify new websites and to add the newwebsites to
`the plurality of web sites, the computing device con-
`
`figured to access
`afirst website ofthe plurality of web
`sites and, if the informationtobe retrievedis 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 websites until the informa-
`tion to be retrieved is found in at
`least one of the
`plurality of websites or until the plurality of web sites
`have been accessed;
`the speech synthesis device configured to produce an
`audio message containing any retrieved information
`from the plurality of web sites, and
`the speech synthesis device further configured to transmit
`the audio message to the users via the voice-enabled
`device.
`
`

`

`’431 Reply at 17; ’084 Reply at 21
`
`Pease
`
`’084 Petition at 42-45, 59:
`
`Kovatch Discloses Retrieving Desired Information
`F rom S LG @ pl ie 8 We b S ets
`
`
`FIG. 4.
`
`da. Anita Query Engine (4)
`
`igo
`
`Kovatch
`
`
` Kovatch (Ex. 1005) at 15, 20-21, cited at
`
` Assistant:|How can J help you?
`A s. The Anita Query Engine doesthe following: 1) Play voice prompts for the user to exactly identify an application
`I like Amazon.
`
`Maps commandsto an application defined using the HeyAnita Speech Objects
`110 and Speech Applications 114, or HeyAnita functionlibrary (see example in
`Appendix A) andstate machinedefinition language.
`
`
`
`_ayAaitaMin
`
`2) Generate web URLs to initiate execution ofthe selected application
`3) Hand overcontrolto the Anita State Machine and Web Parser, described
`below
`
`*
`
`* *
`
`Example 2: Buying a CD
`
`
`
`I wantto buy the new Guns and Roses CD
`User:
`Kovatch (Ex. 1005) at Fig. 4, annotated in
`Please wait while'l find the cheapestprice for you.CD-now
`Assistant:
`431 Petition at 17; ’084 Petition at 45
`hasit for eleven dollars and ten cents..Would youlike to buyit
` now? ....
`
`Example 2: Buying a CD
`
`*
`
`ek
`
`*e
`
`OF
`
`Feature: User Preferences
`
`How can I help you?
`Assistant:
`I want to buy CDs
`User:
`
`
`Assistant: Would youlike tobuyCDsfromAmazon,CDNowor find the
`cheapestprice.
`User:
`Assistant:
`
`Please tell me the nameof the CD ortheartist...
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT — NOT EVIDENCE
`
`’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
`
`

`

`oueaeneael
`
`Neal Teaches to Access Sequentially
`to Efficiently Use Resources and Obtain the Desired Item
`
`Neal
`
`
`FIG. 2
`
`200
`
`
`catalog
`x
`Lbe
`1
`d by the algorithm 200 ‘and the Logic will
`
`
`_
`proceed along schematic lines 228 and 234 untilthe results
`
`of the match are reported to the user in block 236. Thegelthepeersetnafnblock206,altvougs
`RO EASTERN)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`.
`
`NO MATCH
`
`234
`
`
`
`
`Continuing with FIG. 2, if the second search strategy in
`210fails to yield a match,the algorithm 200 continues alon
`peneRua
`
`212 to the third search strategyslongin 214, and thereafter
`
`‘Tine216untilamatchisfound.The three vertical dots shown
`in 218 are meant to schematically illustrate that the number
`226
`of searchstrategies is arbitrary.
`
`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
`
`206
`
`
`
`210
`
`NO MATCH
`
`
`
`214~~\
`
`(DATASET), (SEARCH METHODOLOGY),
`
`216-—~|
`
`NO MATCH
`
`there may be additional steps associated with payment and
`order fulfillment.
`
`ele
`
`
`a seconddata set
`al
`gy. In general, there is no require-
`sec
`search metho
`
`ment that the second data set must bedifferentfrom the first
`
`data set. For example,if the first search strategy in 206 failed
`because there was no exactstring match, it may be desirable
`to perform a stem 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 embodimentthere is no require-
`ment that the second search methodology in 210 must be
`different from the fest aa aoe in 206. For
`
`*
`
`*
`
`*
`
`*
`
`

`

`The Kovatch/Neal Combination Applies Neal’s Teaching
`
`’084 Reply at 21 to Search Suppliers Sequentially in Order
`
`’431 Reply at 17;
`
`Kovatch
`
`206
`
`210.
`
`Neal (Ex. 1007)
`at Fig. 2, cited at
`431 Petition at 13;
`084 Petition at 41
`
`222
`
` REPORT
`
`SEARCH RESULT
`
`Kovatch (Ex. 1005)
`at Fig. 4, annotated in
`431 Petition at 27:
`084 Petition at 55
`
`
`
`
`
`identify the desired item from any [supplier],... a negative searchresult is reported
`
`to the user.” Neal, 7:30-33; Lipoff¥ 101.
`
`
`
`
`Neal FIG. 2
`Petition
`
` Neal, 4:65-5:2,
`
`Neal teaches techniques for “optimiz[ing] [a] search process by
`
`Neal, Abstract. When,like in Kovatch, a user inputs a
`
`“search”for a “desired item” that may be “available from more than one supplier,
`
`d,”
`
`as shown in FIG. 2 (reproduced below). Neal,
`
`6:40-7:14: Lipoff§ 100.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Neal, 3:35-36, 2:54-57,
`
`
`5:55-60; Lipoff§ 99.
`
`
`
`
`Neal, 3:42-45, “[When] the search fails to
`
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT — NOT EVIDENCE
`
`431 Petition at 12-14 ('084 Petition at 40-42)
`
`

`

`084 Limitation [1.j]
`’431 Limitation [1.j]
`
`Kovatch
`
`if said information to be
`é
`‘
`1
`retrieved is not found at said first web site, said
`computer configured lo 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 beretrieved 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 thelisting of websites 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;
`
`
`
`
`
`
`’431 Petition at 32-33;
`’084 Petition at 60-61
`
`Petition
`
`For instance, Kovatch describes an example wherethe user says, “I want to
`
`buy CDs,” thereby requesting information (e.g., price information) needed to buy
`
`CDs. Kovatch, 21:19-25, 20:29-21:3; Lipoff§ 105. Kovatch teaches 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; Lipoff§ 105.
`
`Ir
`
`Kovatch (Ex. 1005)
`at Fig. 4, annotated
`in 431 Petition at 27;
`'084 Petition at 55
`
`Neal
`
`
`FIG. 2
`
`INPUTSEARCHTERM(S)
`
`202
`
`x
`
`The Kovatch/Neal Combination Meets Limitation [1.j]
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`214-7]
`
`
`
`
`
`236
`
`REPORT
`‘SEARCH RESULT
`
`Kovatch, 20:31—analogous to Neal’s search for “a red Bie pen”
`
`Neal, 7:43-48)
`
`
`
`See also Kovatch, 24:1-2 with FIG. 4 (preferred Amazon
`
`
`
`website searched first for books, before Barnes and Nobel); Lipoff§§ 103-105.
`
`
`’431 Petition at 14-15 ('084 Petition at 42-43)
`
`Neal (Ex. 1007)
`at Fig. 2, cited at
`431 Petition at 13;
`084 Petition at 41
`
`222.
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT — NOT EVIDENCE
`
`9
`
`

`

`peeres
`
`Parus’s Arguments That Neal Does Not Teach Accessing
`Websites Fail to Address the Petition’s Combination
`
`’431 Reply at 16-20;
`
`
`
`
`
`First, as already noted, Neal does not teach accessing websites at all, and
`;
`:
`:
`.
`;
`instead teaches accessing static datasets in a partitioned database. Ex. 1007 at
`
`Abstract. Ex. 2059 at § 121. Neither the Petition, nor Mr. Lipoff, contend the
`contrary. Pet. at 12-15, Ex. 1002 at §§ 98-106
`*
`*
`*
`
`*
`
`In light of these explicit teachings from Neal, that a sequence of search
`algorithms should be used to avoid the drawbackswiththepriorart, the Petition, and
`aa
`oo.
`.
`,
`.
`Mr. Lipoff propose a combination with Nea/ 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
`&
`y
`
`y
`
`are
`
`doing.
`
`'431 POR at 37-38 ('084 PORat 43-45)
`
`Board’s Institution Decision:
`Parus’s POR
`
`
`
`
`Patent Ownercontends that Neal does not teach claimlimitation 1j
`becauseit does not disclose sequentially accessing websites; rather,it
`.
`—
`.
`describes accessing internal databasefiles. Prelim. Resp. 46 (citing
`Ex. 1007, 4:6-12). This argument does not accountfor Petitioner’s
`combination. As explained above,Petitioner cites Kovatchfor a teaching of
`accessing web sites and Neal for a teaching of sequentially accessing data.
`*
`*
`*
`*
`
`Patent Ownerfurther argues that theparticular searchstrategies
`described in Neal, e.g., proximitysearching and string matching, are not
`compatible with Kovatch,in that “[nJone of these are designed to
`;
`;
`;
`;
`;
`sequentially access a plurality of pre-selected websites until the desired
`informationis retrieved.” /d. at 48; see alsoid. at 39. More generally,
`Patent Ownerarguesthat “Nealis disclosing sequentially applying search
`strategies, or algorithms, to data sets in anelectronic catalog, not accessing
`os
`.
`.
`websites.”
`/d. at 49; see also id. at 37 (“Neal does not disclose sequentially
`accessing pre-selected websites; rather, the Neal disclosure relied on and
`
`identified by Petitioners discloses accessing pre-curated electronic catalogs,
`not websites.”). Petitioner, however, does not cite Neal for teachings of
`particular search strategies. Rather, Petitioner cites Kovatch for a teaching
`
`of searching websites and Neal for a technique of sequentially searching
`
`data sets. Pet. 12-15. Thus, Patent Owner’s argumentis not persuasive.
`
`See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 426 (CCPA 1981) (“[O]ne cannot show
`
`non-obviousness byattacking references individually where, as here, the
`
`rejections are based on combinations of references.”’).
`
`
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT — NOT EVIDENCE
`
`431 DI at 42-43 (see also '084 DI at 46)
`
`10
`
`
`
`

`

`cert eee
`
`The Kovatch/Neal Combination Uses Kovatch’s
`Website Search Methodology on Each Website
`
`’431 Reply at 17-20;
`
`Parus’s Sur-Reply
`
`Petition
`
`ij
`
`[1.i] “said computer further configured to access at
`least one ofsaid plurality of websites identified by
`said instruction set to obtain said information to be
`
`retrieved”
`
`17). Petitioners are now relying on Kovatch’s webparserto “search each individual
`
`(See Ex. 1005; Paper 22,
`
`computers)
`
`(part of the Anita Server and Application Server
`
`website.” /d. But a web parser, parses the HTML tags on a web page to expose or
`set executed by the Natural Language and Query Engines(see §§ VILA.4.f-i
`
`
`
`
`render the data to the user; it does not search any data, and Kovatch’s web parseris above)“andretrieves]information.”Kovatch, 13:33-14:1, 15:1-34,requested
`no different.
`17:28-18:5; Lipoff'4 157.
`
`identified by the instruction
`
`431 Sur-Reply at 16 (084 Sur-Reply at 18)
`
`’431 Petition at 32 (084 Petition at 59)
`
`Kovatch
`
`
`
`&"AnitaStateMachineandWebParser(8)
`
`Anita State Machine and Web Parser executes state machines written using a
`
`proprietary functionlibrary. This retrieves information websites 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,its w
`Anita State Machine and WebParser.
`
`
`.
`
`In this scenario the Yahoo! web site was not
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT — NOT EVIDENCE
`
`11
`
`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
`
`

`

`Parus’s New Argument That Kovatch Cannot Find Information
`to Be Retrieved from Websites Is Unsupported and Wrong
`
`’431 Reply at 17-20;
`
`Parus’s Sur-Reply
`
`7431 Limitation [1.i]
`
`‘084 Reply at 21-24
`
`
`
`For example,Petitioners now argue that Kovatchis relied upon “for a teaching
`
`of searching websites” and refer to “Kovatch’s website search methodology,” but
`
`“access at least one of said plurality of web
`
`there is no disclosure of website searching in Kovatch.
`(See Ex. 1005; Paper 22,
`17). Petitioners are nowrelying on Kovatch’s web parserto “searcheach individual
`
`sites...to obtain said information to be retrieved”
`
`website.” /d. But a web parser, parses the HTML tags on a webpage to expose or
`
`Kovatch
`
`
`@
`
`Anita State Machine and Web Parser (8)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`renderthe data to the user; it does not search any data, and Kovatch’s webparseris
`no different.
`
`No
`EVIDENTIARY
`SUPPORT
`
`,
`
`_
`,
`z
`431 Sur-Reply at 16 (084 Sur-Reply at 18)
`=
`y=
`;
`
`Petitioners Expert Anita State Machine and Web Parser executes state machines written using a
`proprietary functionlibrary. This retrieves information websites and other
`
`13.
`
`[understand that Parus’s and Mr. Occhiogrosso’s fourth and
`
`“[final[]” argumentis that “neither Mr. Lipoffnor the Petition explain how one
`
`would apply Neal’s search techniques to websites.” Occhiogrosso-Decl., { 128-
`
`129; POR, page 40. Again, I disagree because the Kovatch/Neal combination does
`page
`. — °
`.
`°
`information from anindividual website. As I discussed in §§ 5-11 above, the
`
`Kovatch/Neal combination uses Kovatch’s search methodologies (e.g., Kovatch’s
`web parsing) to retrieve information fromeach of Kovatch’s websites. My original
`
`declaration explained how a POSA would have applied Neal’s sequential-search
`teaching to Kovatch’s existing system that searches websites. For example,asI
`~ ee LS
`
`applications that are enabledforthis operation. In addition, its web-parsing function
`also allows Anita Query Engineto retrieve web pages from any conventional website
`
`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 this would be the operations
`performed to pass in a zip code to the Yahoo website, execute the form to retrieve the
`results, select and formattheresults, play relevant information in the form of
`concatenated speech fragments. In this scenario the Yahoo! website was not
`
`modified to support the operations nor was it aware that a voice-enabledapplication
`was using its HTMLbased services.
`
`*
`
`ok *
`
`stated in § 104 ofmy original declaration:
`“ee
`
`Weather
`
`Ex. 1057 in IPR2020-00846, ] 13, cited at '431 Reply at 20:
`[Ex. 1057 in IPR2020-00847, {J 21, cited at 084 Reply at 24-25]
`
`o 5-day forecasts for weather in over 6,000 U.S. and Internationalcities
`o User can search for weather at a particular location by specifying city and state
`(U.S. only), zip code (U.S. only), or city and country (International)
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT — NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Kovatch (Ex. 1005) at 15-16; 33
`
`12
`
`

`

`084 Reply at 24-25
`
`Kovatch’s Websites Are Separately Searched Datasets
`
`reer
`
`
`
`Petitioners’ Expert Kovatch
`
`14.|Mr. Occhiogrosso morespecifically asserts that “neither Mr. Lipoff,
`
`northe Petition, explain howthe data from websites would be pre-segmented to
`
`employ the searchstrategies disclosed by Neal.” Occhiogrosso-Decl., | 129.
`Again, the Kovatch/Neal combination does not rely on using any particular search
`
`
`
`methodology from Neal for retrieving information from an individual website.
`
`
`
`
`
`Ex. 1057 in IPR2020-00846, J 14, cited ’431 Reply at 20;
`[Ex. 1057 in IPR2020-00847, {[ 22, cited 084 Reply at 24-25]
`
`Kovatch (Ex. 1005) at Fig. 4, annotated in ’431 Petition at 17;
`084 Petition at 45
`
`
`
`Parus’s Sur-Reply Petition
`
`Forinstance, Kovatch describes an example where the user says, “I want to
` Petitioners do not even attempt
`buy CDs,”thereby requesting information(¢.g., price information) needed to buy
`
`CDs. Kovatch, 21:19-25, 20:29-21:3: Lipoff§ 105.
`to argue that the Internet 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 pre-segmented into websites, which apparently are
`Kovatch, 21:22-
`
`:
`s
`in Neal’
`Petiti
`a. ae
`aca wiry
`nae
`akin to datasets in
`24, 23:25-29, FIG. 4: Lipoff§ 105. Int
`Neal. Petitioners fail to indicate how this pre-segmentationo!
`
`
` the Internet into web pages “enablethe identification of items from the most st (Kovatch, 21:19-25, 23:25-
`
`
`economical sources,”like the datasets in Neal. (Paper 14, 25; Ex. 1007, 3:13-17).
`
`
`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 ArgumentThat Kovatch Lacks a Plurality of
`
`Pre-Selected Destinations Is Waived and Wrong
`
`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 mannerthat is completely opposite of Kovatch’s stated goal.
`
`Patent Owner may file—
`
`a. A response to the petition (37 C.F.R. § 42.120). If Patent Owner
`
`elects not to file a response, Patent Owner must arrange a conferencecall
`
`431 Sur-Reply at 15 (084 Sur-Reply at 16-17)
`
`with the parties and the Board.
`
`
`
`Board’s Institution Decision:
`
`Patent Ownerargues “Kovatch discloses neither a plurality of web
`
`sites for each application nor addresses for the web sites.” Prelim. Resp. 48.
`
`Patent Owneralsostates that an inquiry to Kovatch’s “system results in the
`
`identification of a single application for accessing a single website” andthat
`
`“Kovatch never identifies a plurality of possible web sites for answering the
`
`inquiry.” /d. at 49.
`
`
`
`
`
`Ex. 1005, 21:19-25. For example, Kovatch’s
`
`Anita systemasks a user “[w]Jould youlike to buy CDs from Amazon, CD
`Now,or find the cheapest price [?].” /d. at 21:22—23; Fig. 4. At this stage
`
` of the proceeding,
` in order to “find the cheapest
`price.” /d. at 21:22—23; see alsoid. at 20:29-21:3
`I
`nse
`
`to
`
`an
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT — NOT EVIDENCE
`
`084 DI at 45 (see also 431 DI at 39)
`
`431 POR at 43 (084 POR at 50)
`
`14
`
`Board’s Scheduling Order:
`
`
`Parus’s POR Admits:
`
`Board’s Scheduling Order (Paper No. 10) at 8
`
`Without being prompted
`
`ased
`
`to ensureit finds the cheapestprice for the
`
`user,
`
`/d.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`es without being told to do so, which demonstrates thatit is fault
`tolerant and maximizes the likelihood of finding the requested information. Bx
`
`

`

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

`

`Teer
`
`Parus Presented No Showing Against the Motivation
`the Petition Asserted
`
`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,
`
`Parus’s Expert
`Neal searches the suppliers’ “data sets” “in a hierarchy”(/.¢., an ordered ranking)
`
`in which “more favored suppliers [are] searched first.” Neal, 3:35-36, 2:54-57,
`
`5:55-60; Lipoff499. “Ifthe preferred supplier” does not “ha[ve] the exact item,”
`the search “proceeds... to the second”supplier, “and thereafter along [the
`hierarchy] until a match is found,” as shown in FIG. 2 (reproduced below). Neal,
`
`
`
`Neal, 3:42-45. “[When] the searchfails to
`
`6:40-7:14; Lipoff§ 100.
`
`*
`
`
`
`
`
`identify the desired item from any [supplier],... a negative search result is reported
`
`to the user.” Neal, 7:30-33; Lipoff'} 101.
`
`*
`ok
`*
`k
`A POSAwould have been motivated to apply Neal’s above-described
`
`hierarchical ordering and search techniques whenretrieving information from web
`
`sites in Kovatch’s HeyAnita system,
`
`
`
`Neal, 4:65-5:2,
`
`
`
`
`
`Q And tf a search engine searched Paver
`2
`sites. would that involve lower expenditure
`of processing resources?
`
`
` D
`—_
`=
`oe
`if it presented fewersites.
`
`
`
`Deposition of Benedict Occhiogrosso (Ex. 1051) at 43:5-10
`(cited '431 Reply at 22; 084 Reply at 26)
`
`431 Petition at 12-14
`
`(084 Petition at 40-42)
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT — NOT EVIDENCE
`
`16
`
`

`

`ener
`
`Parus’s Assertion That Kovatch Requires “Dead Space”
`for Playing Advertisements Is Wrong
`
`’431 Reply at 22-23:
`
`
`
`Parus’s POR Petitioners’ Expert
`
` mapped to the HeyAnita application at the destination node
`
`
`Kovatch teaches that informationis retrieved, and then
`“an audio stream based on commercials and web information returned by™the
`(_——> searchcanbeplayed,withthecommercialsandinformation“[i]ntermix[ed]...ina
`
`seamless manner.” Kovatch, 18:1-15, 14:1-8. A POSA would have understood
`
`
`
`
`
`Kovatch understoodthat this dead space was an uncaptured advertising
`
`market, and this was an opportunity to generate revenue “for HeyAnita to connect
`
`eyeballs to eardrums, thereby enabling these companies to target and reach a
`
`significantly expanded audience. See Ex. 1005 at 3:13-14, 6:9-I1. Reading the
`
`teachings ofKovatch,
`
`|
`
`eee
`
`,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`NO RESPONSE and sends it to Anita Telephone Interface 12.
`
`ofthe destination tree. Ex, 2059 at #4133-134,
`
`'431 PORat 42 ('084 PORat 49)
`
`See Kovatch, 20:5-22:21. Similarly, Kovatch’s independent claim doesnot recite
`an ad generator; an ad generator is only in a dependent claim in Kovatch. See
`
`Kowaten, 35:3-25.
`
`Ex. 1057 in IPR2020-00846, §] 18, cited at’431 Reply at 22-23;
`Kovatch [Ex. 1057 in IPR2020-00847, {] 26, cited at ’084 Reply at 27]
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`|RieconesSorinisomilnemannefo gemeeato Parus’s Sur-Reply
`
`
`
`
`
`unique entertaining experience for the user
`
`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
`
`’431 Reply at 23-24;
`’084 Reply at 27-29
`
`Parus’s POR
`
`Parus’s POR
`
`
`Therefore, there is no motivation to combine Kovatch with Neal because a
`
`A POSITA would understand that this behavior indicates that HeyAnita is
`
`POSITA would understand that Kovatch's HeyAnita system used its inventive
`
`very interactive, and i
`
`advertisements to entertain the user as it awaited a response to its request, and
`
`Refuted by Both Experts
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Ex. 2059 at
`
`140.
`
`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 | wanted to try to buy it
`
`from CD Now. Ex. 2059 at 4 139.
`
`Parus’s Expert
`
`40. While systems like Perrone andKovatch returned relatively rapid
`answers if the speech command was a priori mapped to a web resource, they still
`
`431 POR at 44 ('084 POR at 51)
`
`Petitioners’ Expert
`
`suffered from additional drawbacks. For example, because these systems mapped a
`(Mr. Occhiogrosso
`
`
`
`
`single web resource to a single speech command,thesesystemswerenotfault
`‘tolerant’,If the URLofthe web resource was inaccessible, there would be no way
`
`
` A POSA would have understood that searching a second website
`to get the requested information. For example, using the weather example from
`automatically would have beenjust as “logical”(if not more so) as doing so after a
`
`earlier, if the “weather” command corresponded to the “www.weather.com” web
`
`resource, and weather.com wasnot currently accessible,
`
`
`
`
`k
`
`O*
`
`*k
`
`O*
`
`' Kovatch doesnot appearto 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
`
`information
`
`POSA would have understood this to be beneficial given users’ knownpreference
`
`for shorter dialogs with voice response systems.
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT — NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Occhiogrosso Declaration (Ex. 2059) at J] 40
`(cited ’431 Reply at 24; 084 Reply at 28)
`
`Ex. 1057 in IPR2020-00846, J 22, cited ’431 Reply at 24;
`[Ex. 1057 in IPR2020-00847, {j 30, cited ’084 Reply at 29]
`
`18
`
`

`

`Obviousness Does Not Require Bodily Incorporation
`
`Neal
`
`
`wa:
`;
`
`
`Petitioners’ Reply
`
`FIG.2
`
`a
`
`
`
`INPUTSEARCH TERM(S)
`204-4
`_———— 228
`
`
`
`206“|
`(DATASET),,(SEARCHMETHODOLOGY),
`208-~Y NO MATCH
`
`In the Kovatch‘Neal combination, each data set 1s a supplier's website{ensaemnesens
`searched using Kovatch’s website search methodology. consistent with Neal’s
`new jpoue
`
`| (DATASET),(SEARCHMETHODOLOGY),
`
`NEGATIVE SEARCH RESULT
`222 REPORT
`
`224
`REPORT
`‘SEARCH RESULT
`
`
`
`(DATA SET),, (SEARCH METHODOLOGY)».
`
`216~—~) NO MATCH
`v
`
`218-—~
`
`226
`
`Neal explains that its search strategies. which Petitioners alleged they
`
`were relying on, “mayinclude one or more of the following: exact search, stem
`
`
`
`431 Sur-Reply at 21 (084 Sur-Reply at 23)
`
`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
`references would have suggested to those
`of ordinary skill in the art.”
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE 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)
`
`2)
`
`202-4
`
`
`
`es. Petition. 12-13.
`
`210
`
`teachings that each “data set” can be a different “supplier” (Neal, 6:39-65) and
`
`~[t]here are manypossible sequences of search algorithms” (Neal, 7:56). Petition,
`
`13-15, 32-34.
`
`'431 Reply at 17-18 ('084 Reply at 21-22)
`
`Parus’s Sur-Reply
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Antedate Kovatch
`
`Parus Failed to
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT — NOT EVIDENCE
`
`20
`
`

`

`Per earns,
`
`Parus Failed to Meet Its Burden to Antedate Kovatch,
`for Multiple Independent Reasons
`
`‘431 Reply at 1-16;
`
`
`
`
`
`GAS(FederalCircuit):
`
`
`
`
`
`
`its rules. T
`enforcement of
`ati
`]
`;
`blishin
`
`
`Barliernnoriv date than an ascerted nriorart reterence:
`
`In re Magnum Oil Tools Int'l, Ltd., 829 F.3d 1364, 1375-76
`(Fed. Cir. 2016). Thus, GAS hadto present a case to estab-
`lish prior conception of every claim limitation. GAS’sbrief-
`ing failed to meet this burden.
`
`Gen. Access Sols. v. Sprint Spectrum, 811 F. App’x 654, 657-59
`(Fed. Cir. 2020) (“GAS”) (cited 431 Reply at 1-4; 084 Reply at 5-8)
`
`Petitioners’ Reply
`
`I. GROUNDS1-4: KOVATCH IS PRIOR ART o....ccccecccccccecseseeseeteeseenes ]
`A. The POR’s Conclusory Allegation of Antedating Kovatch Should
`Be Rejected... .ccccecccccecsess esses essesseesesseesenssaseesessesseeseeseeseesseseasseseesseseenseenens2
`B. If Considered, the Declarations’ ArgumentsFail to Demonstrate
`REdUCHON tO PIACHOE seta, carcictsvesescoseestensvensssneesenesscvaesssunvavetenneseveeenennesess5
`1. The Inventor’s Testimony Lacks Independent Corroboration..............6
`2. Parus’s Evidence Meets Neither Reduction-to-Practice Prong............8
`a. Prong 1: No Evidence Demonstrates an Embodiment
`Meeting All Limitations of Any Challenged Claim ................0. 9
`i. No Evidence Demonstrates a Constructed
`Embodiment Having a Computer Meeting All
`Claimed Limitations ...........ccccccsesesesseeeneteneneeeteeeseceeneuenenenens 9
`
`
`
`
`
`ii. No Evidence Demonstrates a Constructed
`Embodiment Met Limitations [1 pre], [1-h]-[1-k] .....0.000.. 10
`
`iil. No Evidence Demonstrates an Embodiment Meeting
`Claim 9’s Additional Limitations...........0.0:0::ccceeeeeeees 11
`
`iv. No Evidence Demonstrates an Embodiment Meeting
`Claim 14’s Additional Limitations.......0.0.000.00ccceeeeee 12
`
`b. Prong 2: No Evidence Demonstrates a Working
`Embodiment .......0.cccccccccceesesesesessesesesesesereeesessesesseasavsnsneeeeeeeenes 13
`
`3. The Alleged Reduction-to-Practice Dates Are Uncorroborated......... 15
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT — NOT EVIDENCE
`
`21
`
`431 Reply at | (084 Reply ati)
`
`

`

`et Seen
`
`Parus’s Brief Failed to P