IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
`WACO DIVISION
`
`ZENTIAN LTD.,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`
`Defendant.
`
`
`APPLE INC.,
`
`
`
`
`
`Case No. 6:22-cv-00122-ADA
`
`
`
`JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`
`DEFENDANT APPLE INC.’S INVALIDITY CONTENTIONS
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`Pursuant to the September 23, 2022 Scheduling Order (Dkt. 37), Defendant Apple Inc.
`
`(“Apple”) provides these Preliminary Invalidity Contentions to Plaintiff Zentian Ltd. (“Zentian”)
`
`for the following Asserted Patents1 and Asserted Claims identified as asserted in Zentian’s
`
`Preliminary Infringement Contentions dated September 1, 2022 (“Infringement Contentions”):
`
`• U.S. Patent No. 7,979,277 (’277 patent): claims 1, 4, 5, 7, 9, 10, 12, 14–16
`
`• U.S. Patent No. 7,587,319 (’319 patent): claims 46–51, 53, 54, 58, 59, 64, 67
`
`• U.S. Patent No. 10,971,140 (’140 patent): claims 1–6
`
`• U.S. Patent No. 10,062,377 (’377 patent): claims 1–6
`
`• U.S. Patent No. 10,839,789 (’789 patent): claims 1, 2, 4, 6–14, 16–18, 20–29, 35,
`37–39, 42–45
`
`These Invalidity Contentions use the term “POSITA” to refer to a person having ordinary
`
`
`1 The Asserted Patents are governed by the pre-AIA statutory framework as the applications were filed before March
`16, 2013
`
` SF-4935723
`
`

`

`skill in the art to which the claimed inventions pertain.
`
`Apple reserves the right to rely on arguments made in the invalidity contentions of
`
`Amazon.com Services LLC and Amazon Web Services, Inc. in the related case of Zentian v.
`
`Amazon.com Services LLC, No. 6:22-cv-00123-ADA (W.D. Tex.). Apple’s Invalidity
`
`Contentions and Amazon’s Invalidity Contentions are collectively referred to herein as
`
`“Defendants’ Invalidity Contentions.”
`
`II.
`
`PRIORITY DATE OF THE ASSERTED PATENTS AND CLAIMS
`
`Zentian asserts that the ’319 and ’140 patents are each entitled to a priority date of no
`
`later than February 4, 2002 because they claim priority to a UK application (GB 0202546.8) filed
`
`on February 4, 2002.
`
`Zentian further asserts that the ’277, ’377, and ’789 patents are each entitled to a priority
`
`date of no later than September 14, 2004 because they claim priority to a UK application (GB
`
`0420464.0) filed on September 14, 2004.
`
`It is Zentian’s burden to show entitlement to its asserted priority dates, and Zentian has
`
`failed to meet that burden. As described below, elements of the Asserted Claims lack written
`
`description and enablement support, and those Asserted Claims therefore cannot claim priority to
`
`earlier applications listed on the Asserted Patents.
`
`III. LEGAL STANDARDS
`
`A.
`
`Invalidity Under 35 U.S.C. § 101
`
`To be patentable subject matter under § 101, a claim must be directed to one of four
`
`eligible subject matter categories: “new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or
`
`composition of matter.” 35 U.S.C. § 101. “Claims that fall within one of the four subject matter
`
`categories may nevertheless be ineligible if they encompass laws of nature, physical phenomena,
`
`or abstract ideas.” Digitech Image Techs., LLC v. Elecs. For Imaging, Inc., 758 F.3d 1344, 1350
`
`
` SF-4935723
`
`- 2 -
`
`
`
`

`

`(Fed. Cir. 2014) (citing Diamond). The Supreme Court established a two-step test for deciding
`
`the subject matter eligibility of claims under § 101. Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int’l, 134
`
`S. Ct. 2347, 2355 (2014). First, the claims must be analyzed to determine whether they are
`
`drawn to one of the statutory exceptions. Id. Claims that invoke generic computer components
`
`instead of reciting specific improvements in computer capabilities are abstract under this first
`
`step. See Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d 1327, 1335-36 (Fed. Cir. 2016). Second, the
`
`elements of the claims must be viewed both individually and as an ordered combination to see if
`
`there is an “inventive concept.” Id. at 1336. The mere fact that a claim recites or implies that an
`
`abstract idea is implemented using a general-purpose computer does not supply an inventive
`
`concept necessary to satisfy § 101. See Elec. Power Grp., LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350,
`
`1355 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2357-59.
`
`The Asserted Claims discussed below under the headings for each Asserted Patent are
`
`directed to ineligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101 and applicable case law.2
`
`B.
`
`Invalidity Under 35 U.S.C. § 112
`
`Section 112, ¶ 2 includes a definiteness requirement: “[T]he specification shall conclude
`
`with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter
`
`which the applicant regards as his invention.” 35 U.S.C. § 112, ¶ 2 (pre-AIA). “[A] patent is
`
`invalid for indefiniteness if its claims, read in light of the patent’s specification and prosecution
`
`
`2 See, e.g., Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int’l, 573 U.S. 208 (2014); SAP America, Inc. v.
`InvestPic, LLC, 898 F.3d 1161 (Fed. Cir. 2018); Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Fin.
`Corp., 850 F.3d 1332 (Fed. Cir. 2017); Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Erie Indemnity Co., 850
`F.3d 1315 (Fed. Cir. 2017); Elec. Power Grp., LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350 (Fed. Cir.
`2016); Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Bank (USA), 792 F.3d 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2015);
`OIP Techs., Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359 (Fed. Cir. 2015); Content Extraction &
`Transmission LLC v. Wells Fargo Bank, Nat’l Ass’n, 776 F.3d 1343 (Fed. Cir. 2014).
`
`
` SF-4935723
`
`- 3 -
`
`
`
`

`

`history, fail to inform, with reasonable certainty, those skilled in the art about the scope of the
`
`invention.” Nautilus, Inc. v. Biosig Instruments, Inc., 572 U.S. 898, 901 (2014).
`
`IPXL Holdings, LLC v. Amazon.com, Inc., 430 F.3d 1377 (Fed. Cir. 2005) held that a
`
`claim is indefinite if it is unclear whether infringement occurs when one creates a system that
`
`allows a user to perform a method or whether infringement occurs when the user actually uses
`
`the system that performs the method.
`
`Section 112 further includes an enablement requirement: “The specification shall contain
`
`a written description . . . of the manner and process of making and using [the invention] in such
`
`full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains,
`
`or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same.” 35 U.S.C. § 112, ¶ 1. To
`
`satisfy the enablement requirement, the disclosure “must teach those skilled in the art how to
`
`make and use the full scope of the claimed invention without ‘undue experimentation.’”
`
`Genentech, Inc. v. Novo Nordisk A/S, 108 F.3d 1361, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 1997); MagSil Corp. v.
`
`Hitachi Glob. Storage Techs., Inc., 687 F.3d 1377, 1380 (Fed. Cir. 2012); Sitrick v. Dreamworks,
`
`LLC, 516 F.3d 993, 999 (Fed. Cir. 2008). If a specification teaches away from a substantial
`
`portion of the claim or does not enable the full scope of the claim, there is no enablement. AK
`
`Steel Corp. v. Sollac, 344 F.3d 1234 (Fed. Cir. 2003); see also MagSil Corp., 687 F.3d at 1383-
`
`84 (Fed. Cir. 2012).
`
`Section 112 further includes a written description requirement: “The specification shall
`
`contain a written description of the invention . . . .” 35 U.S.C. § 112, ¶ 1. “To satisfy the written
`
`description requirement, a patent applicant must convey with reasonable clarity to those skilled
`
`in the art that, as of the filing date sought, he or she was in possession of the invention.” ICU
`
`Medical Inc. v. Alaris Medical Systems, Inc., 558 F.3d 1368, 1377 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (internal
`
`
` SF-4935723
`
`- 4 -
`
`
`
`

`

`quotation marks and citations omitted); see also Synthes USA, LLC v. Spinal Kinetics, Inc., 734
`
`F.3d 1332, 1340 (Fed. Cir. 2013). “The test [for written description support] requires an
`
`objective inquiry into the four corners of the specification from the perspective of a person of
`
`ordinary skill in the art. Based on that inquiry, the specification must describe an invention
`
`understandable to that skilled artisan and show that the inventor actually invented the invention
`
`claimed.” Ariad Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Eli Lilly & Co., 598 F.3d 1336, 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2010)
`
`(en banc).
`
`The specification must describe the claimed invention in sufficient detail so that a
`
`POSITA can recognize what is claimed. “The appearance of mere indistinct words in a
`
`specification or a claim, even an original claim, does not necessarily satisfy that requirement.”
`
`University of Rochester v. G.D. Searle & Co., 358 F.3d 916, 923 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (internal
`
`quotation marks and citations omitted).
`
`The grounds identified below both individually and collectively render the Asserted
`
`Claims invalid under the statutory requirements of § 112. By identifying certain claim language
`
`below, Apple does not imply that such language is entitled to any patentable weight when
`
`comparing the claim as a whole to the prior art. Apple’s identifications are made based on
`
`Apple’s present understanding of the Asserted Claims and Zentian’s apparent interpretation of
`
`these claims as reflected in its Infringement Contentions. Apple reserves the right to amend
`
`these identifications, including in response to claim constructions and claim interpretations that
`
`would render claim limitations not enabled, lacking in written description, or indefinite. To the
`
`extent a claim element is contained within an element identified below or encompass an element
`
`identified below, that claim element also renders the claim invalid under 35 U.S.C. § 112.
`
`C.
`
`Obviousness and Motivation to Combine
`
`No showing of a specific motivation to combine prior art is required to combine the
`
`
` SF-4935723
`
`- 5 -
`
`
`
`

`

`references disclosed herein and in the attached charts, as each combination of art would have
`
`yielded expected results and at most would simply represent a known alternative to one of skill
`
`in the art. See Apple Inc. v. Samsung Elecs. Co., 839 F.3d 1034, 1058 (Fed. Cir. 2016);
`
`Intercontinental Great Brands LLC v. Kellogg N. Am. Co., 869 F.3d 1336, 1344 (Fed. Cir. 2017);
`
`KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-16 (2007) (rejecting the Federal Circuit’s
`
`“rigid” application of the teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine test, and instead
`
`applying an “expansive and flexible” approach). Indeed, the Supreme Court held that a POSITA
`
`is “a person of ordinary creativity, not an automaton” and “in many cases a person of ordinary
`
`skill will be able to fit the teachings of multiple patents together like pieces of a puzzle.” KSR,
`
`550 U.S. at 420-21. Nevertheless, in addition to the information contained under the headings
`
`for each Asserted Patent and elsewhere in these contentions, Apple hereby identifies motivations
`
`and reasons to combine.
`
`One or more combinations of the prior art references identified herein would have been
`
`obvious because these references would have been combined using: known methods to yield
`
`predictable results; known techniques in the same way; a simple substitution of one known,
`
`equivalent element for another to obtain predictable results; and/or a teaching, suggestion, or
`
`motivation in the prior art generally. See Apple, 839 F.3d at 1077; Intercontinental Great
`
`Brands, 869 F.3d at 1344. In addition, it would have been obvious to try combining the prior art
`
`references identified herein because there were only a finite number of predictable solutions
`
`and/or because known work in one field of endeavor prompted variations based on predictable
`
`design incentives and/or market forces either in the same field or a different one. See ACCO
`
`Brands Corp. v. Fellowes, Inc., 813 F.3d 1361, 1367 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Sanofi-Aventis
`
`Deutschland GmbH v. Glenmark Pharms. Inc., USA, 748 F.3d 1354, 1360 (Fed. Cir. 2014);
`
`
` SF-4935723
`
`- 6 -
`
`
`
`

`

`Bayer Pharma AG v. Watson Labs., Inc., 874 F.3d 1316, 1329 (Fed. Cir. 2017); KSR, 550 U.S. at
`
`420-21. Further, the combinations of the prior art references identified herein and in the claim
`
`charts would have been obvious because the combinations represent known potential options
`
`with a reasonable expectation of success. See InTouch Techs., Inc. v. VGo Comms., Inc., 751
`
`F.3d 1327, 1347 (Fed. Cir. 2014).
`
`Additional evidence that there would have been a motivation to combine the prior art
`
`references identified herein includes the interrelated teachings of multiple prior art references;
`
`the effects of demands known to the design community or present in the marketplace; the
`
`existence of a known problem for which there was an obvious solution encompassed by the
`
`Asserted Claims; the existence of a known need or problem in the field of the endeavor at the
`
`time of the alleged inventions; and the background knowledge that would have been possessed
`
`by a POSITA. See Arctic Cat Inc. v. Bombardier Rec. Prod. Inc., 876 F.3d 1350, 1359 (Fed. Cir.
`
`2017); Intercontinental Great Brands LLC v. Kellogg N. Am. Co., 869 F.3d 1336, 1344 (Fed. Cir.
`
`2017); Unwired Planet, LLC v. Google Inc., 841 F.3d 995, 1003 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Norgren Inc.
`
`v. Int’l Trade Comm’n, 699 F.3d 1317, 1322-23 (Fed. Cir. 2012).
`
`The motivation to combine the teachings of the prior art references disclosed herein is
`
`also found in the references themselves and in: (1) the nature of the problem being solved;
`
`(2) the express, implied and inherent teachings of the prior art; (3) the knowledge of POSITAs;
`
`(4) the predictable results obtained in combining the different elements of the prior art; (5) the
`
`predictable results obtained in simple substitution of one known element for another; (6) the use
`
`of a known technique to improve similar devices, methods, or products in the same way; (7) the
`
`predictable results obtained in applying a known technique to a known device, method, or
`
`product ready for improvement; (8) the finite number of identified predictable solutions that had
`
`
` SF-4935723
`
`- 7 -
`
`
`
`

`

`a reasonable expectation of success; and (9) known work in various technological fields that
`
`could be applied to the same or different technological fields based on design incentives or other
`
`market forces. See above legal background regarding obviousness combinations and MPEP
`
`§ 2143.
`
`Thus, to the extent one or more of the references do not explicitly or inherently disclose
`
`any claim limitation, that reference combined with one or more other primary references or
`
`obviousness references would have rendered the Asserted Claims obvious.
`
`IV.
`
`’277 PATENT
`
`A.
`
`Prior Art References
`
`Apple identifies the following prior art now known to Apple to anticipate or render
`
`obvious the Asserted Claims of the ’277 patent under at least 35 U.S.C. §§ 102(a), (b), (e),
`
`and/or (g), and/or § 103, either expressly or inherently as understood by a POSITA.
`
`1.
`
`Prior Art Publications
`
`• U.S. Patent App. Pub. No. 2002/0049582 (“Baumgartner”). See Ex. A-01.
`
`• U.S. Patent No. 5,699,456 (“Brown”). See Ex. A-02.
`
`• U.S. Patent No. 6,374,219 (“Jiang”). See Ex. A-03.
`
`• U.S. Patent No. 6,879,954 (“Nguyen”). See Ex. A-04.
`
`• Mosur K. Ravishankar, Efficient Algorithms for Speech Recognition (May 15, 1996)
`(“Ravishankar”). See Ex. A-05.
`
`• U.S. Patent No. 5,819,222 (“Smyth”). See Ex. A-06.
`
`• S. Yoshizawa et al., A Low-Power VLSI Design of an HMM Based Speech
`Recognition System, The 2002 45th Midwest Symposium on Circuits and Systems,
`2002. MWSCAS-2002, II-489-92 (2002) (“Yoshizawa 1”). See Ex. A-07.
`
`• U.S. Patent No. 6,490,559 (“Budde”). See Ex. A-10.
`
`• CN1503220 (“Jiang 220”). See Ex. A-11
`
`
` SF-4935723
`
`- 8 -
`
`
`
`

`

`• Rajeev Krishna et al., Architectural Optimizations for LowPower, RealTime Speech
`Recognition, Int’l. Conf. on Compilers, Architectures & Sythesis for Embeded
`Systems (CASES) (Oct. 30-Nov. 2, 2003) (“Krishna”). See Ex. A-12.
`
`Int’l. Patent Pub. No. WO2000/060577 (“Lund”). See Ex. A-13.
`
`•
`
`• Binu Mathew et al., A Low-Power Accelerator for the SPHINX 3 Speech Recognition
`System, Proceedings of the International Conference on Compilers, Architectures and
`Synthesis for Embedded Systems, CASES 2003, 210-19 (Oct. 30, 2003) (“Mathew”).
`See Ex. A-14.
`
`• S. Melnikoff et al., Speech Recognition on an FPGA Using Discrete and Continuous
`Hidden Markov Models, 12th International Conference on Field Programmable Logic
`and Applications (2002) (“Melnikoff”). See Ex. A-15.
`
`• S. Melnikoff et al., Performing Speech Recognition on Multiple Parallel Files Using
`Continuous Hidden Markov Models on an FPGA (“Melnikoff II”). See Ex. A-16.
`
`• P. Stogiannos et al., A Configurable Logic Based Architecture for Real-Time
`Continuous Speech Recognition Using Hidden Markov Models, Journal of VLSI
`Signal Processing Systems (2000) (“Stogiannos”). See Ex. A-17.
`
`• Anton Stolzle et al., Integrated Circuits for a Real-Time Large-Vocabulary
`Continuous Speech Recognition System, IEEE Journal of Solid-State Circuits, Vol.
`26, No. 1 (Jan. 1991) (“Stolzle”). See Ex. A-18.
`
`• “Telecommunications Applications with the TMS320C5x DSPs,” Texas Instruments
`Inc. (1994) (“TMS320C”). See Ex. A-19.
`
`• U.S. Patent No. 6,070,140 (“Tran”). See Ex. A-20.
`
`• S. Yoshizawa et al., A High-Speed HMM VLSI Module With Block Parallel
`Processing, Electronics and Communications in Japan, Vol. 87, No. 5 (2004)
`(“Yoshizawa II”). See Ex. A-21.
`
`Apple additionally identifies and relies on patent or publication references that describe
`
`
`
`or are otherwise related to the prior art systems identified below. Apple’s investigation into prior
`
`art patent and publication references remains ongoing, and Apple reserves the right to identify
`
`and rely on additional patent or publication references that are identified through further
`
`investigation or discovery. Apple reserves the right to supplement as further prior art is
`
`identified through investigation or discovery.
`
`
` SF-4935723
`
`- 9 -
`
`
`
`

`

`2.
`
`Prior Art Systems
`
`The following systems are prior art to the Asserted Claims of the ’277 patent under at
`
`least 35 U.S.C. §§ 102(a), (b) and/or (g), because they were either (1) in public use or on sale in
`
`the United States no later than the priority date of the Asserted Claims or (2) reduced to practice
`
`in the United States no later than the priority date of the Asserted Claims without being
`
`abandoned, suppressed, or concealed. Apple also identifies and relies on prior art systems
`
`discussed in the prior art publications listed in the preceding section. Apple reserves the right to
`
`rely on other sources of evidence identified as discovery and Apple’s investigation progresses.
`
`• Products, components, systems, and methods invented, designed, developed, reduced
`to practice, and/or in public use or on sale related to SPHINX-II. See Ex. A-08.
`
`• Products, components, systems, and methods invented, designed, developed, reduced
`to practice, and/or in public use or on sale related to the Texas Instruments TMS320C
`System (“TMS320C System”). See Ex. A-22.
`
`3.
`
`Obviousness Prior Art
`
`A POSITA would have known that any of the references identified above would have
`
`rendered the Asserted Claims obvious, alone or in combination. Additionally, Apple identifies
`
`the following prior art now known to Apple that, in combination with the foregoing patents,
`
`publications, and systems, render obvious the Asserted claims under 35 U.S.C. § 103, either
`
`expressly or inherently as understood by a POSITA, for at least the reasons stated in Section
`
`III.C. An invalidity claim chart for these prior art obviousness references is provided in Exhibit
`
`A-09.
`
`• U.S. Patent No. 6,374,219 (“Jiang”)
`
`• U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2002/0049582 (“Baumgartner”)
`
`• U.S. Patent No. 5,819,222 (“Smyth”)
`
` •
`
`
`
` U.S. Patent No. 5,699,456 to Brown (“Brown”)
`
`
` SF-4935723
`
`- 10 -
`
`
`
`

`

`International Publication No. WO 99/41684 (“Kazeroonian”)
`
` U.S. Patent No. 4,567,606 (“Vensko”)
`
`•
`
` •
`
`B.
`
`The Asserted Claims Would Have Been Obvious in View of the Prior Art
`
`To the extent one or more of the references do not explicitly or inherently disclose any
`
`claim limitation, that reference combined with one or more other primary references or
`
`obviousness references would have rendered the Asserted Claims obvious.
`
`No showing of a specific motivation to combine prior art is required to combine the
`
`references disclosed above and in the attached charts, as each combination of art would have
`
`yielded expected results and at most would simply represent a known alternative to one of skill
`
`in the art. Nevertheless, Apple provides the following examples of how and why a POSITA
`
`would have combined the references above.
`
`The speech recognition circuits and methods claimed in the ’277 patent utilize a front end
`
`to generate a feature vector, a calculating circuit to indicate the similarity between the feature
`
`vector and predetermined acoustic states, and a search stage to identify words within a lexical
`
`tree. ’277 patent, 3:51–4:18, 10:35-61, 11:65–12:10. The claimed speech recognition circuits and
`
`methods also pipeline data from the front end to the calculating circuit to the search stage. ’277
`
`patent, 4:8-18.
`
`As discussed in the attached claim charts, Jiang alone or in combination with
`
`Baumgartner teaches or renders obvious the functionalities of an “audio front end,” a
`
`“calculating circuit,” and a “search stage” as claimed. The figures of Jiang do not expressly
`
`show the functionalities of the claimed “audio front end” and “search stage” implemented using
`
`a “first processor,” and the functionality of the claimed “calculating circuit” implemented using a
`
`“second processor,” as recited in claim of the ’277 patent. Baumgartner, however, teaches a
`
`
` SF-4935723
`
`- 11 -
`
`
`
`

`

`similar front end and search stage as Jiang’s but provided on a first processor, and a similar
`
`calculating circuit as Jiang’s but provided on a second processor. Compare ’277 patent, Fig. 21
`
`with Baumgartner, Fig. 19; see Ex. A-01, limitation 1.e.
`
`A POSITA would have found it obvious and been motivated to modify Jiang, such that
`
`Jiang’s mapped audio front end and search stage were implemented using a first processor, as
`
`taught by Baumgartner, and Jiang’s mapped calculating circuit was implemented using a second
`
`processor, as taught by Baumgartner. Jiang teaches its speech recognition system may be
`
`“practiced with other computer system configurations, including … multi-processor systems,
`
`microprocessor-based or programmable consumer electronics, network PCs, minicomputers,
`
`main-frame computers, and the like.” Jiang, 4:60-65. Thus, a POSITA would have understood
`
`Jiang contemplated modifications to its hardware architecture, including using two processors.
`
`Jiang already teaches that the mapped audio front end, i.e., the feature extraction module, may be
`
`a processor, and that the mapped search stage, i.e., tree search engine performing tree searching,
`
`is a dedicated processor. Jiang, 6:32-36, 6:39-42.
`
`Given that a POSITA would have understood Jiang’s disclosures to contemplate various
`
`hardware architectures, a POSITA looking to design a speech recognition system at the time of
`
`the ’277 Patent would have looked to additional sources—leading a POSITA to Baumgartner.
`
`Baumgartner explains “[s]peech recognition … is currently a computationally intensive task,”
`
`that “it would be beneficial to reduce the load on the processors of the system when the system
`
`performs speech recognition,” and “a need exists for techniques to reduce the computational load
`
`of a processor during speech recognition.” Baumgartner, [0003]-[0006]. A POSITA would have
`
`recognized Baumgartner’s “invention provides Speech Label Accelerators (SLAs), … speeds
`
`processing during the labeling stage of a speech recognizer[,] and frees one or more processors
`
`
` SF-4935723
`
`- 12 -
`
`
`
`

`

`from performing labeling.” Baumgartner, [0007]. A POSITA would have further understood that
`
`Baumgartner’s hardware architecture—utilizing an accelerator for expensive calculations—
`
`provides an efficient solution to the computational load issues identified by the prior art.
`
`Baumgartner at [0200]–[0205].
`
`A POSITA would have had a reasonable expectation of success implementing the
`
`distance calculation on a second processor without undue experimentation at least because
`
`Baumgartner expressly illustrated its feasibility. Additionally, the use of accelerators, such as
`
`Baumgartner’s SLA, or co-processors—sometimes called math-processors—was a well-known
`
`technique to offload computation tasks in general, prior to the ’277 Patent. The determination of
`
`whether to use an accelerator for computationally expensive tasks—as opposed to using a sole
`
`processor for the entire system—would have been a simple design choice well within the skill set
`
`of a POSITA. Given the widespread use of accelerators at the time, a POSITA would have been
`
`able to implement an accelerator into a speech recognition system without undue
`
`experimentation. The same analysis would apply to other references that expressly teach
`
`utilizing different hardware to perform distance calculation and other speech recognition tasks.
`
`To the extent one or more references do not explicitly or inherently disclose pipelining, a
`
`POSITA would have been motivated and found it obvious to modify the Jiang-Baumgartner
`
`system to pipeline data according to Brown’s teachings. A POSITA would have understood and
`
`found obvious that pipelining data offered numerous well-known advantages including greater
`
`overall throughput of the processor, improved performance, decreased cost, and simplified
`
`programming. Utilizing the well-known pipelining technique would have improved the Jiang-
`
`Baumgartner system in the same way as Brown’s speech recognition system.
`
`Claim 4 of the ’277 patent additionally requires that the first processor supports
`
`
` SF-4935723
`
`- 13 -
`
`
`
`

`

`multithreaded operation. Multithreading was well known in the art, and Kazeroonian teaches an
`
`automated real-time system for processing audio-video data including speech recognition
`
`functionality and expressly teaches using multi-threaded operations for pipelined processing.
`
`Kazeroonian, Abstract, 13:33-14:1, 17:30–18:5, 19:9-11, Fig. 2. Additionally, Kazeroonian
`
`teaches “different processor threads are assigned to different stages of processing.” Kazeroonian,
`
`19:9-11. A POSITA would have been motivated and found it obvious to modify the Jiang-
`
`Baumgartner-Brown system to utilize a multi-threaded operation for the claimed “first
`
`processor” to run the claimed “search stage” and “front end” as separate threads. Kazeroonian
`
`expressly motivates the combination, to provide high throughput, high segmentation speed, and a
`
`result only moments after the data is input. Yet further, such a modification would have
`
`advantageously “improve[d] performance by judicious assignment of various tasks (stages) to
`
`separate threads,” as expressly taught by Kazeroonian. Kazeroonian, 18:3-5.
`
`Claim 9 of the ’277 patent describes “interrupt” functionality. A POSITA would have
`
`been motivated and found it obvious to further modify the Jiang-Baumgartner-Brown system to
`
`include Vensko’s interrupt functionality. See Vensko, 6:29-33, 6:48-51, 10:10-19. For example,
`
`Baumgartner already contemplates the use of an interrupt in Baumgartner’s SLA. Baumgartner,
`
`[0179]-[0180]. A POSITA would have further understood that pipelined systems process system
`
`stages concurrently—for example the claimed “audio front end,” “calculating circuit,” and
`
`“search stage.” See Brown, 3:32-48. Therefore, modifying Jiang’s system such that the second
`
`processor performing distance calculation is ready to receive a next feature vector for processing
`
`is a routine and obvious modification for obtaining efficient processing.
`
`Claim 10 of the ’277 patent recites signaling to the search stage. Because Vensko’s
`
`interrupt functionality on the template processor signals that results are ready for transfer in a
`
`
` SF-4935723
`
`- 14 -
`
`
`
`

`

`pipelined system, in the modified Jiang-Baumgartner-Brown-Vensko system, it would have been
`
`obvious for the accelerator (i.e., the component with the calculated distances) to signal the search
`
`stage (i.e., the component that next uses the calculated distances) when distances for a new frame
`
`are available. Further, Jiang teaches tree search engine 74 accesses information stored in memory
`
`72. Jiang, 7:31-34.
`
`The above descriptions of possible combinations are exemplary and not limiting. It would
`
`have been obvious to combine any of the references that teach the individual limitations of the
`
`’277 patent following a similar analysis.
`
`C.
`
`Invalidity Under 35 U.S.C. § 101
`
`The Asserted Claims of the ’277 patent are directed to patent-ineligible subject matter
`
`under 35 U.S.C. § 101. Claims 1, 14, 15, and 16 of the ’277 patent (and all claims that depend
`
`from them) are directed to the abstract idea of calculating data (e.g., feature vectors and
`
`distances) and using that data in a known field. Courts have acknowledged that performing
`
`calculations such as statistics is a patent-ineligible, abstract idea. See, e.g., OIP Technologies,
`
`Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363-64 (Fed. Cir. 2015).
`
`The elements recited in the claims of the ’277 patent are well understood, routine, and
`
`conventional and thus do not provide an “inventive concept.” For example, audio front ends,
`
`distance calculations with acoustic models, search software, and using multiple processors, and
`
`pipelining were all well understood, routine, and conventional at the time of the application for
`
`the ’277 patent.
`
`The elements recited in the dependent claims were also well understood, routine, and
`
`conventional. These elements include, without limitation, multi-threading, feature vectors
`
`comprising spectral components, interrupt signals, signaling within software, and digital audio
`
`signals.
`
`
` SF-4935723
`
`- 15 -
`
`
`
`

`

`The specification of the ’277 patent (and the references cited therein) support the
`
`contention that the elements discussed in the preceding paragraphs were well understood,
`
`routine, and conventional. Apple incorporates by reference the prior art cited in the Ex. A charts,
`
`which provide further evidence that the above elements were well understood, routine, and
`
`conventional.
`
`D.
`
`Invalidity Under 35 U.S.C. § 112
`
`1.
`
`Lack of Enablement and Written Description Under U.S.C. § 112 ¶1
`
`Based on Apple’s present understanding of the Asserted Claims and Zentian’s apparent
`
`interpretation of these claims as reflected in its Infringement Contentions, the Asserted Claims
`
`may fail to satisfy the requirements of § 112, ¶ 1 because the specification and original patent
`
`application fail to provide an enabling disclosure of and written description support for at least
`
`the following limitations:
`
`• “a search stage for using said calculated distances to identify words within a lexical
`tree, the lexical tree comprising a model of words” (claim 1, 14)
`
`• “using a search stage to identify words within a lexical tree using said calculated
`distances, the lexical tree comprising a model of words” (claim 15)
`
`• “code for controlling the processor to identify words within a lexical tree using said
`calculated distances, the lexical tree comprising a model of words” (claim 16)
`
`• “autonomously calculate” (claim 5)
`
`2.
`
`Indefiniteness Under 35 U.S.C. § 112 ¶2
`
`Based on Apple’s present understanding of the Asserted Claims and Zentian’s apparent
`
`interpretation of these claims as reflected in its Infringement Contentions, the Asserted Claims
`
`may fail to satisfy the requirements of § 112, ¶ 2 because the precise scope of at least the terms
`
`listed below cannot be determined with reasonable certainty by a POSITA when reading the
`
`claims in light of the specification and prosecution history. Additionally, certain claim language
`
`
` SF-4935723
`
`- 16 -
`
`
`
`

`

`below is indefinite under § 112 ¶ 2 due to mixing method and apparatus classes. See IPXL, 430
`
`F.3d at 1384.
`
`• “calculating distances indicating the similarity between a feature vector and a plurality
`of predetermined acoustic states of an acoustic model” (claim 1)
`
`• “using said calculated distances to identify words within a lexical tree” (claims 1, 14)
`
`• “wherein said audio front end and said search stage are implemented using a first
`processor, and said