`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`
`
`
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`
`
`
`
`APPLE INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`Zentian Limited
`Patent Owner.
`____________________
`
`Case IPR2023-00037
`Patent No. 10,971,140
`____________________
`
`
`
`PATENT OWNER’S SUR-REPLY
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2023-00037
`PATENT OWNER’S SUR-REPLY
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`
`
`I.
`
`II.
`
`4
`
`1
`4
`8
`15
`18
`19
`19
`21
`
`21
`
`23
`
`
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`Petitioner has failed to show obviousness as to limitations 1(d) and 1(e)
`The Petition’s combination lacks a reasonable expectation of success
`Patent Owner’s Response presented detailed evidence directed to the
`Petition’s combination and the abilities of the Petition’s POSA
`Petitioner’s Reply fails to rebut Patent Owner’s evidence, and instead
`relies on incorrect premises
`7
`Petitioner’s false logic 1: “a POSITA is assumed to have
`requisite knowledge” to enable the Petition’s combination
`Petitioner’s false logic 2: A POSA would have known how to
`achieve Petitioner’s combination through general knowledge of
`parallel processing architectures and various speech recognition
`systems
`Petitioner’s false logic 3: “Zentian does not argue that the
`combination is inoperable, [or] could not be done. . . .”
`Petitioner’s false logic 4: “Zentian’s alleged complications . . .
`would occur regardless of the type of information being
`processed.” Paper 22 at 14.
`Petitioner’s false logic 5: “Chen envisions its processors and
`memories are directly and adjacently accessible.” Paper 22 at
`16.
`
`1.
`2.
`3.
`4.
`5.
`III. The evidence proves no motivation to combine
`
`
`A.
`B.
`
`Patent Owner’s Response disproved Petitioner’s motivations
`Petitioner’s attempts to rehabilitate its motivations to combine are
`ineffective
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`- i -
`
`
`
`Exhibit No.
`
`2017
`
`2018
`
`2019
`
`2020
`
`2021
`
`
`
` Case IPR2023-00037
`PATENT OWNER’S SUR-REPLY
`
`EXHIBIT LIST
`
`
`Description
`
`Deposition of Christopher Schmandt dated September 6, 2023
`
`Intentionally left blank
`
`Intentionally left blank
`
`Declaration of David Anderson, Ph.D
`
`Binu K. Mathew et al., A Gaussian Probability Accelerator for
`SPHINX 3, (“Mathew I”)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`- ii -
`
`
`
`
`
`I.
`
`Case IPR2023-00037
`PATENT OWNER’S SUR-REPLY
`Petitioner has failed to show obviousness as to limitations 1(d) and 1(e)
`Limitations 1(d) and 1(e) require that the “speech recognition circuit is
`
`
`
`configured to generate an initial score,” 1(d), which is “used to determine whether
`
`to continue processing to determine a final score via processing a larger amount of
`
`data than that was processed to generate the initial score.” 1(e).
`
`
`
`To demonstrate obviousness, Mr. Schmandt and Petitioner were required to
`
`explain how Jiang’s tree search 74 modified in view of Chen, i.e., the combination
`
`as a whole, would allegedly operate to meet limitations 1(d) and 1(e). ActiveVideo
`
`Networks, Inc. v. Verizon, 694 F.3d 1312, 1327 (Fed. Cir. 2012); Ex. 2017 at
`
`46:12-22 (Schmandt admitting his theory requires modifying Jiang’s tree search
`
`engine 74 to use Chen’s clustered processor architecture); Ex. 2017 at 68:17-25,
`
`83:10-14 (Schmandt admitting his theory relies on tree search engine 74 for
`
`limitations 1(d) and 1(e)).
`
`
`
`Mr. Schmandt admitted, however, that his declaration’s discussions of
`
`limitations 1(d) and 1(e) contains no such explanation. Ex. 2017 at 79:11-23, 81:8-
`
`22, 83:15-18. The Petition fails on that basis alone. ActiveVideo, 694 F.3d at 1327.
`
`
`
`Moreover, the only theory Mr. Schmandt offered at his deposition was that
`
`one processor in one cluster in Chen would have been used to generate the “initial
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`- 1 -
`
`
`
`
`
` Case IPR2023-00037
`PATENT OWNER’S SUR-REPLY
`score” of limitation 1(d) and to determine whether to continue processing as
`
`
`
`recited in limitation 1(e). Ex. 2017 at 102:5-103:3.
`
`
`
`
`
`As Patent Owner’s Response demonstrated, however, that theory would fail
`
`because it would require one processor in one of Chen’s clusters to receive
`
`necessary information from all four memories within Chen’s Fig. 4 embodiment,
`
`Paper 19 at 32-34, whereas Mr. Schmandt’s declaration admits that the four
`
`memories are not all “interconnected,” and that no one processor in one cluster can
`
`directly or adjacently access all of the data stored across the four memories. Paper
`
`19 at 34-35; Ex. 1003 ¶ 95; Ex. 2020 ¶¶ 50-51; Ex. 1005, 9:10-39.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`- 2 -
`
`
`
`
`
` Case IPR2023-00037
`PATENT OWNER’S SUR-REPLY
`Accordingly, Patent Owner demonstrated that Petitioner has not proven that
`
`
`
`
`
`its combination would meet limitations 1(d) and 1(e).
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s Reply arguments only further prove that reality. Petitioner
`
`argues that “Jiang’s algorithm of generating an initial score and using the initial
`
`score to determine whether to continue processing (the functionality of claims
`
`1(d)-1(e)) would be replicated across Chen’s processors.” Paper 22 at 2 (emphasis
`
`Petitioner’s). That theory, however, does not solve Petitioner’s problems; it makes
`
`them worse.
`
`First, Petitioner’s Reply theory requires every processor in Chen’s four
`
`clusters to perform limitations 1(d) and 1(e), and is thus not Mr. Schmandt’s
`
`deposition theory, which required only one processor in one cluster to do so.
`
`Petitioner thus abandons its own expert’s testimony, discrediting Mr. Schmandt.
`
`Second, Petitioner’s Reply theory would require every processor in Chen’s
`
`four clusters to calculate the same initial score and make the same determination
`
`whether to continue processing towards a final score—a design proposal that
`
`makes no sense and for which Petitioner has provided neither a reasonable
`
`expectation of success nor a motivation.
`
`Third, Mr. Schmandt’s deposition testimony explained that there would be
`
`no advantage from using all of Chen’s processors to calculate the initial score and
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`- 3 -
`
`
`
`
`
` Case IPR2023-00037
`PATENT OWNER’S SUR-REPLY
`determine whether to continue processing because “[a]t that point, we have
`
`
`
`finished our parallel processing operation and we’re back to serial operation.” Ex.
`
`2017 at 102:5-103:3.
`
`Fourth, Petitioner’s Reply theory would still require each processor to
`
`obtain necessary information stored across all four memories 104(a)-(d) in Chen,
`
`Ex. 2020 ¶ 51, whereas none of Chen’s processors can directly or adjacently access
`
`all cluster memories. Ex. 1003 ¶ 95; Ex. 2020 ¶¶ 50-51; Ex. 1005, 9:10-39. Indeed,
`
`Petitioner’s Reply admits that “[o]nce the cumulative probability score is
`
`calculated, inter-cluster processing of the results for each tree search would be
`
`communicated[.]” Paper 22 at 16. Petitioner’s Reply theory is thus no more
`
`feasible than Mr. Schmandt’s deposition theory.
`
`Fifth, Petitioner’s Reply theory was not set forth in the Petition. Petitioner’s
`
`Reply citations are to aspects of the Petition discussing other limitations, not
`
`limitations 1(d) and 1(e). Paper 22 at 2 (citing Pet. at 1, 17-18, 24, 30, Ex. 1003 ¶¶
`
`74, 76-77, 83). Petitioner’s Reply theory is thus foreclosed.
`
`Accordingly, Petitioner has not proven unpatentability.
`
`II. The Petition’s combination lacks a reasonable expectation of success
`A.
`Patent Owner’s Response presented detailed evidence directed to
`the Petition’s combination and the abilities of the Petition’s POSA
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`- 4 -
`
`
`
`
`
` Case IPR2023-00037
`PATENT OWNER’S SUR-REPLY
`Patent Owner’s Response demonstrated through extensive evidence that the
`
`
`
`Petition’s combination lacks a reasonable expectation of success. Paper 19 at 7-16.
`
`Each aspect of Patent Owner’s argument was directed to problems and deficiencies
`
`arising out of the Petition’s specific combination, not the ’140 Patent. Id.
`
`
`
`In particular, Patent Owner’s Response proved:
`
`• The Petition’s combination requires performing the speech recognition
`
`techniques of Jiang on the clustered processor and memory architecture of
`
`Chen, Ex. 1003 ¶ 68;
`
`• Jiang does not enable performing its speech recognition on Chen’s clustered
`
`processors, nor does Chen enable using its hardware to perform Jiang’s
`
`speech recognition, Ex. 2017 at 86:9-17, Ex. 2020 ¶ 24;
`
`• Mr. Schmandt’s declaration did not provide any underlying details to
`
`support his conclusion as to the POSA’s capability, Ex. 2017 at 48:13-21;
`
`• Mr. Schmandt has never supervised anyone involved in mapping a speech
`
`recognition model to a clustered processor and memory architecture like
`
`Chen’s, Ex. 2017 at 145:20-24, nor has he built the processor to memory
`
`architecture of any speech recognition system identified in his background
`
`experience, Id. at 34:24-35:5, 32:3-9, 106:10-23.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`- 5 -
`
`
`
`
`
` Case IPR2023-00037
`PATENT OWNER’S SUR-REPLY
`• Implementing the Petition’s combination of Jiang and Chen would have
`
`
`
`been highly complex and well beyond the skill level of the POSA prior to
`
`the ’140 Patent, Ex. 2020 ¶¶ 17-19, 27 (page 16), because:
`
`o porting Jiang’s speech recognition techniques to Chen’s clustered
`
`parallel processors and memories would have required coordinating
`
`multiple caches, avoiding memory conflicts, controlling task sharing
`
`in an efficient manner, resolving synchronous bottlenecks, addressing
`
`communication bandwidth and latency issues among the various
`
`hardware, and developing a messaging strategy to coordinate
`
`information sharing between and within the clusters, Ex. 2020 ¶ 27,
`
`whereas;
`
`o the ordinary artisan in the field of speech recognition was a specialist
`
`in digital signal processing and speech recognition, not parallel
`
`processing architectures or high performance computing, Ex. 2020 ¶
`
`28, and further because;
`
`o Jiang teaches the use of the Viterbi decoding algorithm, which
`
`requires extensive communication between computational
`
`components of a system, whereas Chen’s cluster memories are not all
`
`directly or adjacently accessible to the processors and memories in
`
`
`- 6 -
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` Case IPR2023-00037
`PATENT OWNER’S SUR-REPLY
`each other cluster, rendering it unlikely that Jiang’s Viterbi algorithm
`
`
`
`could successfully be run on Chen’s clustered processors in a practical
`
`system. Ex. 2020 ¶ 29;
`
`o It was known in the art that communication between parallel
`
`processing nodes can determine the feasibility of a parallel processing
`
`architecture for a given problem, and that a memory model in which
`
`memory is connected only within a cluster (as in Chen) may be
`
`appropriate “for applications that require little or no communication,”
`
`whereas Jiang’s speech recognition stage requires significant
`
`communication, and is thus poorly suited for Chen. Ex. 2020 ¶ 30;
`
`o Even Dr. Anderson, who is a person of extraordinary skill, along with
`
`a team of engineers and a DSP expert from Texas Instruments, could
`
`not successfully transition existing signal processing software to a
`
`parallel processing architecture after six months. Ex. 2020 ¶ 31.
`
`B.
`
`Petitioner’s Reply fails to rebut Patent Owner’s evidence, and
`instead relies on incorrect premises
`In the face of the extensive evidence summarized above, Petitioner does not
`
`
`
`present a supplemental declaration from Mr. Schmandt. Moreover, Petitioner
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`- 7 -
`
`
`
`
`
` Case IPR2023-00037
`PATENT OWNER’S SUR-REPLY
`abandoned its deposition of Dr. Anderson after merely one hour, and thus has
`
`
`
`nothing substantive to introduce from Dr. Anderson’s testimony. Ex. 1035.
`
`
`
`Instead, Petitioner’s Reply presents a series of incorrect conclusions built on
`
`inaccurate or inapplicable premises. Each of Petitioner’s logically false arguments
`
`is addressed and refuted in turn below.
`
`1.
`
`Petitioner’s false logic 1: “a POSITA is assumed to have
`requisite knowledge” to enable the Petition’s combination
`Petitioner attempts to conflate the Petition’s combination with the
`
`
`
`embodiments and claims of the ’140 Patent. Petitioner argues that if the patent did
`
`not discuss the problems with the Petition’s combination, it must be assumed that
`
`the POSA would have known how to overcome the problems with the Petition’s
`
`combination. Paper 22 at 4-6. That logic is false.
`
`
`
`“Skill in the art does not act as a bridge over gaps in substantive presentation
`
`of an obviousness case, but instead supplies an important guarantee of objectivity
`
`in the process.” Al-Site Corp. v. VSI Int'l, Inc., 174 F.3d 1308, 1324 (Fed. Cir.
`
`1999) (emphasis added).
`
`
`
`Here, the Petition’s combination begins with Jiang and Chen, and proposes
`
`to combine those references in particular ways that neither reference enables.
`
`Section II.A, supra. Petitioner has failed to demonstrate through actual evidence
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`- 8 -
`
`
`
`
`
` Case IPR2023-00037
`PATENT OWNER’S SUR-REPLY
`that the POSA, as defined in the Petition, would have the necessary skill or
`
`
`
`knowledge to in fact achieve the Petition’s combination with a reasonable
`
`expectation of success. Section II.A, supra. Patent Owner has demonstrated
`
`through detailed evidence that the POSA could not. Section II.A, supra.
`
`Petitioner’s assertion that the POSA should be “assumed to have requisite
`
`knowledge” to achieve the Petition’s contorted and highly complex combination,
`
`Paper 22 at 4, is the essence of hindsight bias. Petitioner cannot weaponize the
`
`level of ordinary skill in the art, which is a safeguard against hindsight bias, to fill
`
`substantive gaps in its obviousness case. Al-Site, 174 F.3d at 1324.
`
`Petitioner’s premise is that if the ’140 Patent did not teach how to solve the
`
`specific problems arising out of Petition’s combination, then the Board must
`
`conclude that the POSA would know how to solve Petitioner’s problems. Paper 22
`
`at 2-5. That reasoning is false: the ’140 Patent does not teach performing Jiang’s
`
`speech recognition techniques, which require extensive communication between a
`
`system’s computational components, within memory and processor clusters that
`
`are not all directly or adjacently accessible to each other, as Petitioner’s
`
`combination requires. Ex. 2020 ¶¶ 29-30. The ’140 Patent thus has no reason to
`
`teach solutions to problems arising out of Petitioner’s combination. Paper 22 at 4.
`
`The patent’s silence on those issues is certainly not evidence that the solutions
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`- 9 -
`
`
`
`
`
` Case IPR2023-00037
`PATENT OWNER’S SUR-REPLY
`were within the skill level of the Petition’s POSA. The consequence of the
`
`
`
`Petition’s absurd combination theory lies with Petitioner, not Patent Owner.
`
`Moreover, Dr. Anderson explained at his deposition that the ’140 Patent
`
`does provide important teachings and solutions that Petitioner has not shown were
`
`known in the prior art, and that are distinct in key respects from Petitioner’s
`
`combination of Jiang and Chen. Ex. 1035 at 23:6-27:3.
`
`Petitioner may not, of course, demonstrate obviousness based on the ’140
`
`Patent’s own teachings. “[T]he inventor’s own path itself never leads to a
`
`conclusion of obviousness; that is hindsight.” Univ. of Strathclyde v. Clear-Vu
`
`Lighting LLC, 17 F.4th 155, 162 (Fed. Cir. 2021) (emphasis added); TQ Delta,
`
`LLC v. Cisco Sys., 942 F.3d 1352, 1362 (Fed. Cir. 2019).
`
`Petitioner’s case law citations do not establish otherwise. In Uber Techs.,
`
`Inc. v. X One, Inc., 957 F.3d 1334, 1339 (Fed. Cir. 2020), the issue was whether a
`
`POSA would have been motivated to select between one of only two known, finite
`
`approaches. Because the challenged patent was directed to both solutions, the
`
`Federal Circuit held that the appropriate choice was within the level of skill of the
`
`POSA. Id. Here, the issue is expectation of success, not motivation to combine,
`
`there are not finite choices, and the ’140 Patent does not teach Petitioner’s
`
`combination.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`- 10 -
`
`
`
`
`
` Case IPR2023-00037
`PATENT OWNER’S SUR-REPLY
`In In re Publicover, 813 F. App’x 527, 531-32 (Fed. Cir. 2020), the prior art
`
`
`
`and the challenged patent both taught identification of vestibulo-ocular movement,
`
`a type of eye movement. Patent Owner presented only “attorney argument,” not
`
`evidence, that the prior art’s disclosures failed to adequately explain how to
`
`identify that type of eye movement. Id. The Federal Circuit rejected that “attorney
`
`argument” because the challenged patent likewise taught identifying that type of
`
`eye movement but did not provide a detailed teaching of how to do so. Id. Here,
`
`neither Jiang nor Chen teaches implementing Jiang’s speech recognition
`
`techniques on a clustered parallel processing, shared cluster-memory
`
`architecture—much less in the manner Petitioner has proposed. Ex. 2017 at 86:9-
`
`17, Ex. 2020 ¶ 24. Accordingly, the prior art does not and cannot carry any
`
`presumption of enablement as to Petitioner’s combination. In re Antor Media
`
`Corp., 689 F.3d 1282, 1287-88 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (prior art only presumed enabling
`
`for what it teaches). Moreover, the ’140 Patent teaches approaches that are distinct
`
`in key respects from Petitioner’s combination of Jiang and Chen, and provides
`
`solutions that, in any case, have not been shown in the prior art. Ex. 1035 at 23:6-
`
`27:3. Thus, the ’140 Patent provides no assumption that Petitioner’s combination
`
`was within the POSA’s skill. Finally, Patent Owner’s demonstration of a lack of a
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`- 11 -
`
`
`
`
`
` Case IPR2023-00037
`PATENT OWNER’S SUR-REPLY
`reasonable expectation of success in this proceeding is based on extensive
`
`
`
`evidence, not “attorney argument.” Publicover is thus inapposite.
`
`In re Epstein, 32 F.3d 1559, 1568 (Fed. Cir. 1994), fails to support Petitioner
`
`for the same reasons. There, the Federal Circuit simply held that “one of skill in the
`
`art would have known how to implement the features of the references” as taught
`
`in each reference individually. Id. (emphasis added). Here, Petitioner’s
`
`combination does not simply require practicing what Jiang or Chen taught
`
`individually—it requires a combination that neither reference taught, and that a
`
`POSA would not have been able to achieve. Ex. 2020 ¶¶ 23-32 (pages 15-20).
`
`Petitioner’s reliance on the Board’s decisions in Walmart and Samsung is
`
`misplaced because those decisions do not carry legal authority. Nonetheless, both
`
`decisions also fail to support Petitioner’s argument.
`
`In Walmart, the Board relied on the challenged patent’s teaching that “a
`
`plurality of light panels 40 may be disposed end to end,” and the patent’s silence as
`
`to how to address challenges that would arise “when disposing the panels in
`
`electrical series.” IPR2022-00534, Paper 50 at 32 (emphasis added). By contrast,
`
`the problems Patent Owner has identified with Petitioner’s combination do not
`
`arise out of practicing what the ’140 patent itself teaches; they arise out of
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`- 12 -
`
`
`
`
`
` Case IPR2023-00037
`PATENT OWNER’S SUR-REPLY
`Petitioner’s combination design. The Board’s decision in Walmart is thus
`
`
`
`inapposite.
`
`In Samsung, the prior art disclosed wireless communication, and thus was
`
`entitled to a presumption of enablement for its own teachings. IPR2022-00324,
`
`Paper 33 at 36-37. Moreover, the challenged patent itself disclosed the same
`
`wireless communication techniques as the prior art without implementation details.
`
`By contrast, the problems with Petitioner’s combination here do not arise out of the
`
`individual teachings of any reference, but from a combination of teachings that is
`
`neither disclosed nor enabled by either reference. Section II.A, supra. Petitioner’s
`
`combination thus carries no presumption of enablement. Nor does the ’140 patent
`
`disclose Petitioner’s combination without implementation details. Ex. 1035 at
`
`23:6-27:3.
`
`Petitioner’s reliance on Keynetik is further misplaced. Paper 22 at 6. There,
`
`the patent owner had “cited no evidence” to contradict petitioner’s assertions of a
`
`reasonable expectation of success, and had instead relied only on “attorney
`
`argument.” Keynetik, Inc. v. Samsung Elecs. Co., Ltd., 2023 U.S. App. LEXIS
`
`3567, at *3-4 (Fed. Cir. 2023). The Federal Circuit held that even though
`
`petitioner’s alleged evidence was “brief, in the absence of any contradictory
`
`evidence, it constitutes substantial evidence to support the Board’s finding.” Id.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`- 13 -
`
`
`
`
`
` Case IPR2023-00037
`PATENT OWNER’S SUR-REPLY
`Here, by contrast, Patent Owner has presented extensive evidence disproving a
`
`
`
`reasonable expectation of success, and showing that Petitioner’s combination
`
`would not have simply required routine and simple software programming within
`
`the POSA’s skill. Section II.A, supra. In particular, Dr. Anderson (one of
`
`extraordinary skill) has testified that he and a team of engineers failed to
`
`successfully port far simpler signal processing software to a parallel processing
`
`hardware architecture. Ex. 2020 ¶ 31. Keynetik is thus inapposite.
`
`Finally, the problems Patent Owner has identified with respect to
`
`Petitioner’s combination are not “generic,” as Petitioner contends. Paper 22 at 7.
`
`They are highly detailed and specific to Petitioner’s combination, and supported by
`
`the testimony of both experts. Section II.A, supra; Ex. 1035 at 23:6-27:3. For the
`
`same reasons, the challenged claims do not need to recite either the problems
`
`arising from Petitioner’s combination theory or the solutions to those problems, as
`
`Petitioner argues. Paper 22 at 7. The question of a reasonable expectation of
`
`success for the combination must be assessed based on the details Petitioner has
`
`proposed for the combination, not the words of the challenged claims. Arctic Cat
`
`Inc. v. Bombardier Rec. Prods., 876 F.3d 1350, 1360-61 (Fed. Cir. 2017)
`
`(requiring proof that “an ordinarily skilled artisan would [ ] believe that a
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`- 14 -
`
`
`
`
`
` Case IPR2023-00037
`PATENT OWNER’S SUR-REPLY
`particular combination would have a reasonable expectation of ‘anticipated
`
`
`
`success’) (emphasis added).
`
`2.
`
`Petitioner’s false logic 2: A POSA would have known how
`to achieve Petitioner’s combination through general
`knowledge of parallel processing architectures and various
`speech recognition systems
`Petitioner argues that because Jiang allegedly taught “using multiple
`
`processors,” and because references like Mathew taught parallel processing in
`
`speech recognition, it follows that the POSA would have known how to achieve
`
`Petitioner’s specific combination of Jiang and Chen. Paper 22 at 11-15.
`
`That logic is false. Prior art is only presumptively enabled for what it
`
`teaches. In re Antor Media Corp., 689 F.3d 1282, 1287-88 (Fed. Cir. 2012). Mr.
`
`Schmandt has admitted that neither Chen nor Jiang teaches Petitioner’s
`
`combination, and thus neither reference is entitled to a presumption of enablement
`
`with respect to Petitioner’s combination, as Petitioner contends. Compare Paper 22
`
`at 12-15 with Ex. 2017 at 86:9-17, Ex. 2020 ¶¶ 23-32 (p. 15-19); Raytheon Techs.
`
`Corp. v. GE, 993 F.3d 1374, 1380-81 (Fed. Cir. 2021). Even assuming Chen
`
`teaches an “operable clustered processor architecture,” Paper 22 at 15, Chen does
`
`not teach or enable using its architecture to run Jiang’s speech recognition
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`- 15 -
`
`
`
`
`
` Case IPR2023-00037
`PATENT OWNER’S SUR-REPLY
`techniques (much less in the manner the Petition has proposed), or to run any
`
`
`
`speech recognition. Ex. 2017 at 86:9-17.
`
`And Petitioner itself states that “Mathew is dissimilar architecture” to the
`
`combination, so Mathew could not have enabled the combination. Paper 22 at 21
`
`(emphasis added). The same is true for Hon and Ravishankar. Indeed, the evidence
`
`is uncontroverted that Petitioner’s combination appears nowhere in the prior art,
`
`but is instead a novel fabrication concocted from multiple modifications to the
`
`teachings of two entirely distinct references, one of which (Chen) is not even in the
`
`field of speech recognition, in a manner not taught or enabled by any reference.
`
`Section II.A, supra. The law does not permit assuming a combination to be
`
`enabled when the prior art of record does not enable the combination. Raytheon,
`
`993 F.3d at 1380-81.
`
`
`
`Moreover, Dr. Anderson’s detailed testimony refutes Petitioner’s conclusory
`
`assumptions of a reasonable expectation of success. Ex. 2020 ¶¶ 23-32. Indeed, Dr.
`
`Anderson has explained that, despite his extraordinary level of skill, and the help
`
`of multiple other engineers, he could not successfully transition existing signal
`
`processing software to a parallel processing architecture after many months. Ex.
`
`2020 ¶ 31.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`- 16 -
`
`
`
`
`
` Case IPR2023-00037
`PATENT OWNER’S SUR-REPLY
`Petitioner argues that Dr. Anderson’s testimony merely “impugns Dr.
`
`
`
`
`
`Anderson’s credibility,” but “does not prove a POSITA would lack the knowledge
`
`to reasonably succeed in the combination.” Paper 22 at 10-11. That is incorrect. Dr.
`
`Anderson’s testimony demonstrates that even a person of extraordinary skill in the
`
`art “could not necessarily expect success with respect to far simpler combinations
`
`than the one the Petition has proposed,” Ex. 2020 ¶ 31, and thus supports the
`
`credibility of Dr. Anderson’s testimony that the Petition’s combination was beyond
`
`the level of ordinary skill. Ex. 2020 ¶¶ 23-32 (pages 15-20). Petitioner
`
`hypothecates that “[p]erhaps Dr. Anderson simply did not have the necessary
`
`skills,” Paper 22 at 11, but Dr. Anderson’s qualifications and experience far exceed
`
`Mr. Schmandt’s, and Petitioner did not even attempt to question Dr. Anderson
`
`regarding the challenges he faced in porting existing signal processing software to
`
`a parallel processing architecture. Ex. 1035.
`
`
`
`By contrast, Mr. Schmandt’s lack of experience in building the processor to
`
`memory architecture of any speech recognition system, Ex. 2017 at 34:24-35:5,
`
`32:3-9, 106:10-23, or supervising anyone involved in mapping a speech
`
`recognition model to a clustered memory and processor architecture, id. at 145:20-
`
`24, greatly undermines his opinions regarding a reasonable expectation of success.
`
`And Mr. Schmandt’s opinion is further discredited by his testimony that his
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`- 17 -
`
`
`
`
`
` Case IPR2023-00037
`PATENT OWNER’S SUR-REPLY
`declaration does not explain how a POSA could have achieved his combination,
`
`
`
`Ex. 2017 at 48:13-21.
`
`
`
`Petitioner argues that Mr. Schmandt’s testimony is admissible despite those
`
`flaws, Paper 22 at 9-10, but the issue here is not admissibility but rather credibility.
`
`Mr. Schmandt’s conclusory assertions of a reasonable expectation of success
`
`should be given no weight in view of the evidence of record, including his own
`
`admissions.
`
`3.
`
`Petitioner’s false logic 3: “Zentian does not argue that the
`combination is inoperable, [or] could not be done. . . .”
`Petitioner appears to suggest that Patent Owner must prove that Petitioner’s
`
`
`
`combination could never be achieved even with unlimited knowledge, skill, and
`
`resources. Paper 22 at 18. That is false. Patent Owner need only demonstrate that
`
`Petitioner has not proven that a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the
`
`invention would have reasonably expected to succeed in combining the prior art
`
`elements in the way Petitioner has proposed. KEYnetik, Inc. v. Samsung Elecs.
`
`Co., 841 F. App’x 219, 227 (Fed. Cir. 2021); Arctic Cat Inc. v. Bombardier Rec.
`
`Prods., 876 F.3d 1350, 1360-61 (Fed. Cir. 2017); In re Cyclobenzaprine
`
`Hydrochloride Extended-Release Capsule Patent Litig., 676 F.3d 1063, 1069 (Fed.
`
`Cir. 2012). Patent Owner has met and exceeded that requirement. Section II.A,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`- 18 -
`
`
`
`
`
` Case IPR2023-00037
`PATENT OWNER’S SUR-REPLY
`supra. Petitioner’s arguments fundamentally ignore the crucial distinction between
`
`
`
`persons of ordinary skill and those of extraordinary skill.
`
`4.
`
`Petitioner’s false logic 4: “Zentian’s alleged complications
`. . . would occur regardless of the type of information being
`processed.” Paper 22 at 14.
`Petitioner contends that the problems arising out of its combination would
`
`
`
`occur in any clustered processing architecture. Paper 22 at 14. But Petitioner cites
`
`no evidence in support of that assertion. Id.
`
`
`
`Petitioner later attempts to flip its burden onto Patent Owner, arguing that
`
`Zentian never explains why certain problems “would be present in the combination
`
`but not” in the system of Claim 1. Paper 22 at 20. That argument also fails.
`
`Petitioner cannot shift its burden of proof to Patent Owner. Nonetheless, Patent
`
`Owner has demonstrated in detail that Petitioner’s problems arise out of the
`
`requirements Petitioner and its expert have identified for Petitioner’s combination,
`
`and the teachings of the prior art references they have relied upon, Ex. 2020 ¶¶ 23-
`
`32, not the ’140 Patent. Ex. 1035 at 23:6-27:3.
`
`5.
`
`Petitioner’s false logic 5: “Chen envisions its processors and
`memories are directly and adjacently accessible.” Paper 22
`at 16.
`Petitioner admits that its combination must communicate the probability
`
`
`
`scores calculated by the various processors and stored within the various memories
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`- 19 -
`
`
`
`
`
` Case IPR2023-00037
`PATENT OWNER’S SUR-REPLY
`of Chen’s clusters across the different clusters. Paper 22 at 16 (“Once the
`
`
`
`cumulative probability score is calculated, inter-cluster processing of the results of
`
`each tree search would be communicated”).
`
`
`
`Petitioner instead contends that Chen’s “processors and memories are
`
`directly and adjacently accessible.” Id. But Petitioner cites no testimony from its
`
`expert witness. Instead, it cites to Chen’s “Prior Art” discussion, where Chen
`
`theorizes an idealized parallel processing system in general terms. Id. (citing Ex.
`
`1005 at 1:56-2:1). That passage of Chen does not describe the embodiment
`
`Petitioner relies upon. Rather, Mr. Schmandt’s own declaration stated that in the
`
`relevant embodiment of Chen, “not all[ ] the clusters are interconnected,” and “the
`
`processors 102a in cluster 100a . . . cannot directly or adjacently access the
`
`memory 104d of cluster 100d, while processors 102d in cluster 100d . . . cannot
`
`directly or adjacently access the memory 104a.” Ex. 1003 ¶ 95. That fact is further
`
`set forth in Chen, Ex. 1005 at 9:10-39, and is demonstrated by Dr. Anderson. Ex.
`
`2020 ¶¶ 50-51. Petitioner’s Reply contention is thus false.
`
`
`
`Petitioner next argues that Chen’s “node switching mechanism” permits the
`
`necessary communications between different cluster processors and memories.
`
`Paper 22 at 17. Again, Petitioner does not cite to any testimony from Mr.
`
`Schmandt. And once again, Petitioner’s assertions are false. Petitioner cites to
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`- 20 -
`
`
`
`
`
` Case IPR2023-00037
`PATENT OWNER’S SUR-REPLY
`Chen at 5:54-6:3, which explains that the “two or more processors, and one or
`
`
`
`more input/output ports” within a single cluster are “symmetrically connected by a
`
`node switching mechanism to a homogenous cluster shared memory.” Id.
`
`(emphasis added). Thus, Chen’s “node switching mechanism” allows processors
`
`within one cluster to access the “cluster shared memory” of that same cluster, and
`
`thus does not support Petitioner or disprove Patent Owner. Petitioner’s citation to
`
`Chen at 10:36-55 contains the same teaching, describing access by processors 102a
`
`within cluster 104a to the memory 100a of that same cluster. Ex. 1005 at 10:36-
`
`55. Petitioner’s citation to Chen at 8:52-64 is likewise off the mark. That passage
`
`does not address or negate Chen’s express teachings at 9:34-39 that the processors
`
`in cluster 100a cannot directly or adjacently access the memory of cluster 100d,
`
`and the processors of cluster 100d cannot directly or access the memory of cluster
`
`100a. Ex. 1005 at 9:34-39, Ex. 1003 ¶ 95, Ex. 2020 ¶¶ 50-51.
`
`III. The evidence proves no motivation to combine
`A.
`Patent Owner’s Response disproved Petitioner’s motivations
`Patent Owner’s Response refuted each of the Petition’s motivations through
`
`
`
`
`
`the testimony of both experts. Paper 19 at 17-28.
`
`
`
`With respect to increasing processing power and speed, Mr. Schmandt’s
`
`declaration did not provide any analysis to explain why Chen would allegedly
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`- 21 -
`
`
`
`
`
` Case IPR2023-00037
`PATENT OWNER’S SUR-REPLY
`speed up Jiang or relax its pruning threshold, or by how much. Ex. 2020 ¶ 35. To
`
`
`
`the contrary, Mathew I taught that a five-processor system parallel processing
`
`speech recognition system was slower than a two-processor system due to high
`
`synchronization
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
Still Working On It
This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.
Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.
A few More Minutes ... Still Working
It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.
Thank you for your continued patience.
This document could not be displayed.
We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
Set your membership
status to view this document.
With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll
get a whole lot more, including:
- Up-to-date information for this case.
- Email alerts whenever there is an update.
- Full text search for other cases.
- Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.
One Moment Please
The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.
Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.
Your document is on its way!
If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.
Sealed Document
We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.
If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.
Access Government Site
