`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`_________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`_________________
`
`
`
`APPLE INC.
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`ZENTIAN LIMITED,
`Patent Owner
`_________________
`
`
`
`Inter Partes Review Case No. IPR2023-00037
`U.S. Patent No. 10,971,140
`
`
`
`
`
`DECLARATION OF CHRISTOPHER SCHMANDT
`IN SUPPORT OF PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW OF
`U.S. PATENT NO. 10,971,140
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2023-00037
`Apple EX1003 Page 1
`
`

`

`Declaration of Chris Schmandt
`Patent No. 10,971,140
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION AND QUALIFICATIONS .......................................... 8
`A.
`EDUCATIONAL BACKGROUND AND PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE ........... 8
`II. METHODOLOGY; MATERIALS CONSIDERED ............................... 11
`III. OVERVIEW AND LEGAL STANDARDS ............................................. 13
`A.
`PERSON OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART ............................................ 14
`B.
`OBVIOUSNESS ...................................................................................... 14
`C.
`ANALOGOUS ART ................................................................................ 20
`D.
`CLAIM CONSTRUCTION ....................................................................... 21
`IV. LEVEL OF A PERSON OF ORDINARY SKILL .................................. 21
`V. OVERVIEW OF THE TECHNOLOGY ................................................. 22
`A.
`SPEECH RECOGNITION ......................................................................... 22
`B.
`FEATURE VECTORS ............................................................................. 30
`C.
`ACOUSTIC MODELS ............................................................................. 34
`D. HIDDEN MARKOV MODELS ................................................................. 35
`E.
`PRIOR ART SPEECH RECOGNITION SYSTEMS ....................................... 43
`VI. OVERVIEW OF THE ’140 PATENT ...................................................... 47
`VII. OVERVIEW OF THE PRIOR ART ........................................................ 48
`A. OVERVIEW OF JIANG ........................................................................... 48
`B.
`OVERVIEW OF CHEN ............................................................................ 48
`C.
`OVERVIEW OF LUCKE .......................................................................... 49
`D. OVERVIEW OF ROBINSON .................................................................... 49
`E.
`OVERVIEW OF WRENCH ...................................................................... 50
`VIII. OPINIONS REGARDING GROUND 1 ................................................... 50
`A. MOTIVATION TO COMBINE JIANG AND CHEN ....................................... 50
`B. MOTIVATION TO COMBINE CHEN AND JIANG ....................................... 52
`OBVIOUSNESS OF MODIFYING ELECTRONIC HARDWARE AND SOFTWARE
`C.
`TO BE CIRCUITRY ................................................................................ 52
`CLAIM 1 IS RENDERED OBVIOUS BY JIANG IN VIEW OF CHEN ............. 53
`1.
`Claim 1 ..................................................................................... 53
`Claim 1(Pre): “A speech recognition circuit comprising”
`a)
` ....................................................................................... 53
`
`D.
`
`
`
`IPR2023-00037
`Apple EX1003 Page 2
`
`

`

`c)
`
`d)
`
`e)
`
`f)
`
`b)
`
`Declaration of Christopher Schmandt
`Patent No. 10,971,140
`Claim 1(a): “one or more clusters of processors, each of
`the one or more clusters of processors comprising: a
`plurality of processors;” ................................................. 54
`Claim 1(b): “and [one or more clusters of processors,
`each of the one or more clusters of processors
`comprising:] an acoustic model memory storing acoustic
`model data” .................................................................... 59
`Claim 1(c): “wherein each of the plurality of processors
`is configured to compute a probability using the acoustic
`model data in the acoustic model memory” .................. 62
`Claim 1(d): “[wherein] the speech recognition circuit is
`configured to generate an initial score for an audio
`sample” .......................................................................... 70
`Claim 1(e): “[wherein] the initial score is used to
`determine whether to continue processing to determine a
`final score via processing a larger amount of model data
`than that was processed to generate the initial score.” .. 77
`Claim 2: “…wherein the probability is an input to an
`evaluation of a state transition of a model of states” .............. 83
`Claim 5: “…further comprising: a buffer for storing one or
`more feature vectors coupled to at least one of the plurality of
`processors of the one or more clusters of processors” ............ 85
`Claim 7: “…the one or more clusters of processors comprises a
`first cluster of processors and a second cluster of processors;
`the first cluster comprises a first acoustic model memory; and
`the second cluster comprises a second acoustic model memory
`that is distinct and separate from the first acoustic model
`memory” .................................................................................. 87
`IX. OPINIONS REGARDING GROUND 2 ................................................... 89
`CLAIMS 1–3, 5, AND 7-8 ARE RENDERED OBVIOUS BY JIANG IN VIEW OF
`A.
`CHEN AND LUCKE ................................................................................ 89
`1.
`Claim 1 ..................................................................................... 89
`Claim 1(e): “[wherein] the initial score is used to
`a)
`determine whether to continue processing to determine a
`final score via processing a larger amount of model data
`than that was processed to generate the initial score.” .. 89
`Claim 5: “…further comprising: a buffer for storing one or
`more feature vectors coupled to at least one of the plurality of
`processors of the one or more clusters of processors” ............ 91
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`4.
`
`2.
`
`
`
`IPR2023-00037
`Apple EX1003 Page 3
`
`

`

`Declaration of Christopher Schmandt
`Patent No. 10,971,140
`X. OPINIONS REGARDING GROUND 4 ................................................... 93
`CLAIM 4 IS RENDERED OBVIOUS BY JIANG IN VIEW OF CHEN AND
`A.
`ROBINSON ............................................................................................ 93
`Claim 4: “…wherein the probability is computed from a
`1.
`Gaussian mixture model and one or more feature vectors.” ... 93
`XI. OPINIONS REGARDING GROUND 6 ................................................... 94
`CLAIM 4 IS RENDERED OBVIOUS BY JIANG IN VIEW OF CHEN AND
`A.
`WRENCH .............................................................................................. 94
`XII. CONCLUSION ........................................................................................... 95
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2023-00037
`Apple EX1003 Page 4
`
`

`

`Declaration of Christopher Schmandt
`Patent No. 10,971,140
`
`
`CLAIM LISTING
`
`Claim 1:
`Claim 1[Pre] A speech recognition circuit comprising:
`
`1(a): one or more clusters of processors, each of the one or more clusters of
`
`processors comprising: a plurality of processors;
`
`1(b): and an acoustic model memory storing acoustic model data,
`
`1(c): wherein each of the plurality of processors is configured to compute a
`
`probability using the acoustic model data in the acoustic model memory,
`
`1(d): wherein: the speech recognition circuit is configured to generate an
`
`initial score for an audio sample;
`
`1(e): and the initial score is used to determine whether to continue processing
`
`to determine a final score via processing a larger amount of model data than that was
`
`processed to generate the initial score.
`
`Claim 2
`
`The speech recognition circuit of claim 1, wherein the probability is an input
`
`to an evaluation of a state transition of a model of states.
`
`Claim 3
`
`The speech recognition circuit of claim 2, wherein the model is a Hidden
`
`Markov Model.
`
`Claim 4
`
`
`
`IPR2023-00037
`Apple EX1003 Page 5
`
`

`

`Declaration of Christopher Schmandt
`Patent No. 10,971,140
`The speech recognition circuit of claim 2, wherein the probability is computed
`
`from a Gaussian mixture model and one or more feature vectors.
`
`Claim 5
`
`The speech recognition circuit of claim 1, further comprising:
`
`a buffer for storing one or more feature vectors coupled to at least one of the plurality
`
`of processors of the one or more clusters of processors.
`
`Claim 6
`
`The speech recognition circuit of claim 5, further comprising:
`
`a search controller coupled to the at least one of the plurality of processors of the
`
`one or more clusters of processors, the search controller capable of controlling the
`
`at least one of the plurality of processors of the one or more clusters of processors to
`
`initiate speech recognition processing in at least a subset of processors of the one or
`
`more clusters of processors.
`
`Claim 7
`
`The speech recognition circuit of claim 1, wherein:
`
`the one or more clusters of processors comprises a first cluster of processors
`
`and a second cluster of processors;
`
`the first cluster comprises a first acoustic model memory; and
`
`the second cluster comprises a second acoustic model memory that is distinct
`
`and separate from the first acoustic model memory.
`
`
`
`IPR2023-00037
`Apple EX1003 Page 6
`
`

`

`Declaration of Christopher Schmandt
`Patent No. 10,971,140
`
`Claim 8
`
`The speech recognition circuit of claim 1, wherein:
`
`the one or more clusters of processors comprises a first cluster of processors;
`
`and
`
`the first cluster comprises a first acoustic model coupled to all processors of
`
`the first cluster.
`
`
`
`IPR2023-00037
`Apple EX1003 Page 7
`
`

`

`Declaration of Christopher Schmandt
`Patent No. 10,971,140
`
`I, Christopher Schmandt, declare as follows:
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION AND QUALIFICATIONS
`1.
`I am over the age of 21 and am competent to make this declaration.
`
`A. Educational Background and Professional Experience
`2.
`I retired several years ago after a 40-year career at the Massachusetts
`
`Institute of Technology (“MIT”); for most of that time I was employed as a Principal
`
`Research Scientist at the Media Laboratory. In that role I also served as faculty for
`
`the MIT Media Arts and Sciences academic program. I was a founder of the Media
`
`Laboratory, a research lab which now spans two buildings.
`
`3.
`
`I received my B.S. degree in Electrical Engineering and Computer
`
`Science from MIT in 1978, and my M.S. in Visual Studies (Computer Graphics) also
`
`from MIT. I was employed at MIT since 1980, initially at the Architecture Machine
`
`Group which was an early computer graphics and interactive systems research lab.
`
`In 1985, I helped found the Media Laboratory and continued to work there until
`
`retirement. I was director of a research group titled “Living Mobile.” My research
`
`spanned distributed communication and collaborative systems, with an emphasis on
`
`multi-media and user interfaces, with a strong focus on speech-based systems. I have
`
`over 70 published conference and journal papers and one book in the field of speech
`
`technology and user interaction.
`
`
`
`IPR2023-00037
`Apple EX1003 Page 8
`
`

`

`Declaration of Christopher Schmandt
`Patent No. 10,971,140
`For the first fifteen years of my career, my research emphasized speech
`
`4.
`
`recognition and speech user interfaces. I built the first conversational computer
`
`system utilizing speech recognition and synthesis (“Put That There”) starting in
`
`1980. I continued to innovate speech user interfaces using recognition, text-to-
`
`speech synthesis, and recorded audio in a wide variety of projects. I built one of the
`
`first graphical user interfaces for audio editing, employing keyword recognition on
`
`voice memos in 1982 (Intelligent Ear). I built the first research-grade unified
`
`messaging system, which combined text and voice messages into a single inbox,
`
`with speech recognition over the phone for remote access, and a graphical user
`
`interface for desktop access in 1983 (Phone Slave). Along with my students we built
`
`the first system for real time spoken driving directions, including speech-accessible
`
`maps of Cambridge, Massachusetts in 1987 (Back Seat Driver). We built some of
`
`the earliest speech-based personal assistants for managing messages, calendar,
`
`contacts, etc. (Conversational Desktop 1985, Chatter 1993, MailCall 1996). We built
`
`quite a few systems employing speech recognition in handheld mobile devices
`
`(ComMotion 1999, Nomadic Radio 2000, Impromptu 2001, and Symphony 2004,
`
`for example). We applied speech recognition to large bodies of everyday
`
`conversations captured with a wearable device and utilized as a memory aid
`
`(Memory Prosthesis 2004). We used speech recognition on radio newscasts to build
`
`a personalized version of audio newscasts (Synthetic News Radio, 1999) and also
`
`
`
`IPR2023-00037
`Apple EX1003 Page 9
`
`

`

`Declaration of Christopher Schmandt
`Patent No. 10,971,140
`investigated adding speech recognition to a mouse-based window system a few years
`
`earlier.
`
`5.
`
`I was later awarded the prestigious Association for Computing
`
`Machinery (ACM) Computer Human Interface (CHI) Academy membership
`
`specifically for those years of work pioneering speech user interfaces.
`
`6.
`
`In the course of my research, I built a number of speech recognition
`
`client/server distributed systems, with the first being in 1985. Much of the initial
`
`motivation for a server architecture was that speech recognition required expensive
`
`digital signal processing hardware that we could not afford to put on each computer,
`
`so a central server with the required hardware was used. Later versions of the speech
`
`recognition server architecture allowed certain computers to perform specialized
`
`tasks serving a number of client computers providing voice user interfaces, either on
`
`screens or over telephone connections.
`
`7.
`
`Because of my early work with distributed speech systems, I served for
`
`several years in the mid-1990s with a working group on the impact of multimedia
`
`systems on the Internet reporting to the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) and
`
`later the Internet Activities Board (IAB). This work impacted emerging standards
`
`such as Session Initiation Protocol (SIP).
`
`8.
`
`In my faculty position I taught graduate level courses in speech
`
`technology and user interaction design, and directly supervised student research and
`
`
`
`IPR2023-00037
`Apple EX1003 Page 10
`
`

`

`Declaration of Christopher Schmandt
`Patent No. 10,971,140
`theses at the Bachelors, Masters, and PhD level. I oversaw the Masters and PhD
`
`thesis programs for the entire Media Arts and Sciences academic program during
`
`my more senior years. I also served on the Media Laboratory intellectual property
`
`committee for many years.
`
`II. METHODOLOGY; MATERIALS CONSIDERED
`9.
`I have relied upon my education, knowledge and experience with
`
`speech recognition systems more generally, as well as the other materials as
`
`discussed in this declaration in forming my opinions.
`
`10. For this work, I have been asked to review U.S. Patent No. 10,971,140
`
`(“’140 Patent”) (Ex. 1001) including the specification and claims, and the ’140
`
`Patent’s prosecution history (“’140 File History”) (Ex. 1002). In developing my
`
`opinions relating to the ’140 Patent, I have considered the materials cited or
`
`discussed herein, including those itemized in the Exhibit Table below.
`
`Description
`Exhibit
`Exhibit 1001 U.S. Patent No. 10,971,140 (“’140 Patent”)
`Exhibit 1002 Prosecution History for the 10,971,140 Patent (“’140 File
`History”)
`Exhibit 1004 U.S. Patent No. 6,374,219 to Jiang (“Jiang”)
`Exhibit 1005 U.S. Patent No. 5,428,803 to Chen et al. (“Chen”)
`Exhibit 1006 Hsiao-Wuen Hon, A survey of hardware architectures designed for
`speech recognition, Carnegie Mellon University, 1991 (“Hon”)
`Exhibit 1007 Ph.D. Thesis of Mosur Ravishankar (“Ravishankar”)
`Exhibit 1008 U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2001/0053974 to Lucke et
`al. (“Lucke”)
`Exhibit 1009 U.S. Patent No. 5,983,180 to Robinson (“Robinson”)
`Exhibit 1010 U.S. Patent No. 5,036,539 to Wrench Jr., et al. (“Wrench”)
`
`
`
`IPR2023-00037
`Apple EX1003 Page 11
`
`

`

`Declaration of Christopher Schmandt
`Patent No. 10,971,140
`Exhibit 1011 Frederick Jelinek, Statistical Methods for Speech Recognition, The
`MIT Press, 1997 (“Jelinek”)
`Exhibit 1012 Christopher Schmandt, Voice Communication with Computers,
`Van Nostrand Reinhold, 1994 (“Schmandt”)
`Exhibit 1013 Lawrence Rabiner and Biing-Hwang Juang, Fundamentals of
`Speech Recognition, Prentice Hall PTR, 1993 (“Rabiner”)
`Exhibit 1014 Richard Klevans and Robert Rodman, Voice Recognition, Artech
`House, 1997 (“Klevans”)
`Exhibit 1015 U.S. Patent No. 7,120,582 to Young et al. (“Young”)
`Exhibit 1016 John Holmes and Wendy Holmes, Speech Synthesis and
`Recognition, 2nd Edition, Taylor & Francis, 2001 (“Holmes”)
`Exhibit 1017 U.S. Patent No. 4,926,488 to Nadas et al. (“Nadas”)
`Exhibit 1018 U.S. Patent No. 6,182,037 to Maes (“Maes”)
`Exhibit 1019 U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2003/0220796 to Aoyama
`et al. (“Aoyama”)
`Exhibit 1020 U.S. Patent No. 6,092,045 to Stubley et al. (“Stubley”)
`Exhibit 1021 U.S. Patent No. 6,151,574 to Lee et al. (“Lee”)
`Exhibit 1022 U.S. Patent No. 6,580,814 to Ittycheriah et al. (“Ittycheriah”)
`Exhibit 1023 U.S. Patent No. 6,452,348 to Toyoda (“Toyoda”)
`Exhibit 1024 William A. Wulf and C.G. Bell, C.mmp–A multi-mini-processor,
`Carnegie-Mellon University, 1972 (“Wulf”)
`Exhibit 1025 Lee D. Erman, Richard D. Fennell, Victor R. Lesser, and D. Raj
`Reddy, System Organizations
`for Speech Understanding:
`Implications of Network and Multiprocessor Computer
`Architectures for AI, IEEE Transactions on Computers, Vol. C-25,
`No. 4, April 1976 (“Erman”)
`Exhibit 1026 U.S. Patent No. 6,393,481 to Deo et al. (“Deo”)
`Exhibit 1027 U.S. Patent No. 6,615,338 to Tremblay et al. (“Tremblay”)
`Exhibit 1028 U.S. Patent No. 5,922,076 to Garde (“Garde”)
`Exhibit 1029 Lawrence R. Rabiner, A Tutorial on Hidden Markov Models and
`Selected Applications in Speech Recognition, Proceedings of the
`IEEE, Vol. 77, No. 2, February 1989 (“Rabiner 89”)
`Exhibit 1030
`Intentionally Left Blank
`Exhibit 1031
`Intentionally Left Blank
`Exhibit 1033 Declaration of June Ann Munford (“Munford”)
`
`11.
`
`I have considered these materials from the viewpoint of a POSITA as
`
`
`
`of the priority date of the ’140 Patent. For the purposes of this declaration, I have
`
`
`
`IPR2023-00037
`Apple EX1003 Page 12
`
`

`

`Declaration of Christopher Schmandt
`Patent No. 10,971,140
`been asked to assume that the priority date of the ’140 Patent is February 4, 2002. I
`
`note that my opinions provided in this Declaration are made from the perspective of
`
`a POSITA as of this priority date of the ’140 Patent, unless expressly stated
`
`otherwise. To the extent that I use any verb tense in this Declaration that is present
`
`tense (e.g., “a POSITA would understand” instead of “a POSITA would have
`
`understood”), such verb tense should be understood to be my opinion as of the ’140
`
`Patent’s priority date (again, unless expressly stated otherwise). I merely use the
`
`present verb tense for ease of reading.
`
`III. OVERVIEW AND LEGAL STANDARDS
`12.
`In formulating my opinions, I have been instructed to apply certain
`
`legal standards. I am not a lawyer. I do not expect to offer any testimony regarding
`
`what the law is. Instead, the following sections summarize the law as I have been
`
`instructed to apply it in formulating and rendering my opinions found later in this
`
`declaration. I understand that, in an inter partes review (“IPR”) proceeding, patent
`
`claims may be deemed unpatentable if it is shown that they were anticipated or
`
`rendered obvious in view of the prior art. I understand that prior art in an IPR review
`
`is limited to patents or printed publications that predate the priority date of the patent
`
`at issue. I understand that questions of claim clarity (definiteness) and enablement
`
`cannot be considered as a ground for considering the patentability of a claim in these
`
`proceedings.
`
`
`
`IPR2023-00037
`Apple EX1003 Page 13
`
`

`

`Declaration of Christopher Schmandt
`Patent No. 10,971,140
`
`Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art
`I understand that the ’140 Patent, the record of proceedings at the Patent
`
`A.
`13.
`
`Office (which I understand is called the “File History” or “Prosecution History”),
`
`and the teachings of the prior art are evaluated from the perspective of a person of
`
`ordinary skill in the art (“POSITA”). I understand that the factors considered in
`
`determining the ordinary level of skill in the art include: (i) the levels of education
`
`and experience of persons working in the field; (ii) the types of problems
`
`encountered in the field; and (iii) the sophistication of the technology. I may also
`
`consider, if available, the education level of the inventor, prior art solutions to the
`
`problems encountered in the art, and the rapidity with which innovations are made
`
`in the relevant art.
`
`14.
`
`I understand that a person of ordinary skill in the art is not a specific
`
`real individual, but rather a hypothetical individual having the qualities reflected by
`
`the factors above. This hypothetical person has knowledge of all prior art in the
`
`relevant field as if it were arranged on a workshop wall and takes from each reference
`
`what it would teach to a person having the skills of a POSITA.
`
`B. Obviousness
`15.
`I understand that a claim may be invalid under § 103(a) if the subject
`
`matter described by the claim as a whole would have been “obvious” to a
`
`hypothetical POSITA in view of a single prior art reference or in view of a
`
`
`
`IPR2023-00037
`Apple EX1003 Page 14
`
`

`

`Declaration of Christopher Schmandt
`Patent No. 10,971,140
`combination of references at the time the claimed invention was made. Therefore, I
`
`understand that obviousness is determined from the perspective of a hypothetical
`
`POSITA. I further understand that a hypothetical POSITA is assumed to know and
`
`to have all relevant prior art in the field of endeavor covered by the patent in suit and
`
`all analogous prior art. I understand that obviousness in an IPR review proceeding
`
`is evaluated using a preponderance of the evidence standard, which means that the
`
`claims must be more likely obvious than nonobvious.
`
`16.
`
`I also understand that an analysis of whether a claimed invention would
`
`have been obvious should be considered in light of the scope and content of the prior
`
`art, the differences (if any) between the prior art and the claimed invention, and the
`
`level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art involved. I understand as well that a prior
`
`art reference should be viewed as a whole. I understand that in considering whether
`
`an invention for a claimed combination would have been obvious, I may assess
`
`whether there are apparent reasons to combine known elements in the prior art in the
`
`manner claimed in view of interrelated teachings of multiple prior art references, the
`
`effects of demands known to the design community or present in the marketplace,
`
`and/or the background knowledge possessed by a POSITA. I also understand that
`
`other principles may be relied on in evaluating whether a claimed invention would
`
`have been obvious, and that these principles include the following:
`
`
`
`IPR2023-00037
`Apple EX1003 Page 15
`
`

`

`Declaration of Christopher Schmandt
`Patent No. 10,971,140
`• A combination of familiar elements according to known methods is
`
`likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results;
`
`• When a device or technology is available in one field of endeavor,
`
`design incentives and other market forces can prompt variations of it,
`
`either in the same field or in a different one, so that if a POSITA can
`
`implement a predictable variation, the variation is likely obvious;
`
`• If a technique has been used to improve one device, and a POSITA
`
`would have recognized that it would improve similar devices in the
`
`same way, using the technique is obvious unless its actual application
`
`is beyond his or her skill;
`
`• An explicit or implicit teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine
`
`two prior art references to form the claimed combination may
`
`demonstrate obviousness, but proof of obviousness does not depend on
`
`or require showing a teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine;
`
`• Market demand, rather than scientific literature, can drive design trends
`
`and may show obviousness;
`
`• In determining whether the subject matter of a patent claim would have
`
`been obvious, neither the particular motivation nor the avowed purpose
`
`of the named inventor controls;
`
`
`
`IPR2023-00037
`Apple EX1003 Page 16
`
`

`

`Declaration of Christopher Schmandt
`Patent No. 10,971,140
`• One of the ways in which a patent’s subject can be proved obvious is
`
`by noting that there existed at the time of invention a known problem
`
`for which there was an obvious solution encompassed by the patent’s
`
`claims;
`
`• Any need or problem known in the field of endeavor at the time of
`
`invention and addressed by the patent can provide a reason for
`
`combining the elements in the manner claimed;
`
`• “Common sense” teaches that familiar items may have obvious uses
`
`beyond their primary purposes, and in many cases a POSITA will be
`
`able to fit the teachings of multiple patents together like pieces of a
`
`puzzle;
`
`• A POSITA is also a person of ordinary creativity, and is not an
`
`automaton;
`
`• A patent claim can be proved obvious by showing that the claimed
`
`combination of elements was “obvious to try,” particularly when there
`
`is a design need or market pressure to solve a problem and there are a
`
`finite number of identified, predictable solutions such that a POSITA
`
`would have had good reason to pursue the known options within his or
`
`her technical grasp; and
`
`
`
`IPR2023-00037
`Apple EX1003 Page 17
`
`

`

`Declaration of Christopher Schmandt
`Patent No. 10,971,140
`• One should not use hindsight in evaluating whether a claimed invention
`
`would have been obvious.
`
`17.
`
`I also understand that an obviousness determination includes the
`
`consideration of various factors such as: (1) the scope and content of the prior art,
`
`(2) the differences between the prior art and the asserted claims, (3) the level of
`
`ordinary skill in the pertinent art, and (4) the existence of secondary considerations
`
`such as commercial success, long-felt but unresolved needs, failure of others, and so
`
`forth.
`
`18.
`
`I am informed that it is improper to combine references where the
`
`references teach away from their combination. I am informed that a reference may
`
`be said to teach away when a person of ordinary skill in the relevant art, upon reading
`
`the reference, would be discouraged from following the path set out in the reference,
`
`or would be led in a direction divergent from the path that was taken by the patent
`
`applicant. In general, a reference will teach away if it suggests that the line of
`
`development flowing from the reference’s disclosure is unlikely to be productive of
`
`the result sought by the patentee. I am informed that a reference teaches away, for
`
`example, if (1) the combination would produce a seemingly inoperative device, or
`
`(2) the references leave the impression that the product would not have the property
`
`sought by the patentee. I also am informed, however, that a reference does not teach
`
`away if it merely expresses a general preference for an alternative invention but does
`
`
`
`IPR2023-00037
`Apple EX1003 Page 18
`
`

`

`Declaration of Christopher Schmandt
`Patent No. 10,971,140
`not criticize, discredit, or otherwise discourage investigation into the invention
`
`claimed.
`
`19.
`
`I am informed that even if a prima facie case of obviousness is
`
`established, the final determination of obviousness must also consider “secondary
`
`considerations” if presented. In most instances, the patentee raises these secondary
`
`considerations of non-obviousness. In that context, the patentee argues an invention
`
`would not have been obvious in view of these considerations, which include: (a)
`
`commercial success of a product due to the merits of the claimed invention; (b) a
`
`long-felt, but unsatisfied need for the invention; (c) failure of others to find the
`
`solution provided by the claimed invention; (d) deliberate copying of the invention
`
`by others; (e) unexpected results achieved by the invention; (f) praise of the
`
`invention by others skilled in the art; (g) lack of independent simultaneous invention
`
`within a comparatively short space of time; (h) teaching away from the invention in
`
`the prior art.
`
`20.
`
`I am further informed that secondary considerations evidence is only
`
`relevant if the offering party establishes a connection, or nexus, between the
`
`evidence and the claimed invention. The nexus cannot be based on prior art features.
`
`The establishment of a nexus is a question of fact. While I understand that the Patent
`
`Owner here has not offered any secondary considerations at this time, I will
`
`
`
`IPR2023-00037
`Apple EX1003 Page 19
`
`

`

`Declaration of Christopher Schmandt
`Patent No. 10,971,140
`supplement my opinions in the event that the Patent Owner raises secondary
`
`considerations during the course of this proceeding.
`
`21. Finally, I understand that obviousness in an IPR must be proven by a
`
`preponderance of the evidence.
`
`C. Analogous Art
`22.
`I have been informed that for a prior art reference to be proper for use
`
`in an obviousness analysis, the reference must be “analogous art” to the claimed
`
`invention. I have been informed that a reference is analogous art to the claimed
`
`invention if: (1) the reference is from the same field of endeavor as the claimed
`
`invention (even if it addresses a different problem); or (2) the reference is reasonably
`
`pertinent to the problem faced by the inventor (even if it is not in the same field of
`
`endeavor as the claimed invention). In order for a reference to be “reasonably
`
`pertinent” to the problem, it must logically have commended itself to an inventor’s
`
`attention in considering his problem. In determining whether a reference is
`
`reasonably pertinent, one should consider the problem faced by the inventor, as
`
`reflected either explicitly or implicitly, in the specification. I believe that all of the
`
`references that my opinions in this IPR are based upon are well within the range of
`
`references a person having ordinary skill in the art would consult to address the type
`
`of problems described in the Challenged Claims.
`
`
`
`IPR2023-00037
`Apple EX1003 Page 20
`
`

`

`Declaration of Christopher Schmandt
`Patent No. 10,971,140
`
`D. Claim Construction
`23.
`I understand that the claim terms in this IPR will be construed according
`
`to their ordinary and customary meaning as understood in light of the claim
`
`language, the patent’s description, and the prosecution history viewed from the
`
`perspective of a POSITA. I further understand that where a patent defines claim
`
`language, the definition in the patent controls, even if there are other definitions that
`
`might be understood by those working in the art.
`
`IV. LEVEL OF A PERSON OF ORDINARY SKILL
`24. Based on my review and analysis of the ’140 Patent, the prior art cited
`
`herein, and the ordinary skill factors described in this section, a POSITA in the field
`
`of the ’140 Patent at the time of the earliest possible priority date (February 4, 2002)
`
`would have been knowledgeable regarding the field of speech recognition
`
`technology. In my experience working in this field, most workers of ordinary skill
`
`in the art as of the earliest possible priority date of February 4, 2002 would have had
`
`a master’s degree in computer science, computer engineering, electrical engineering
`
`or an equivalent, and at least four years of professional experience relating to speech
`
`recognition technology. See, e.g., the ’140 Patent (Ex. 1001) at 1:18-58 (describing
`
`the “Field of the Invention” and providing a “Description of the Related Art”). A
`
`person with less relevant practical experience but with additional education can also
`
`qualify as a POSITA in the field of the ’140 Patent provided the additional education
`
`
`
`IPR2023-00037
`Apple EX1003 Page 21
`
`

`

`Declaration of Christopher Schmandt
`Patent No. 10,971,140
`focused on speech recognition technology. When I refer to the understanding of a
`
`POSITA, I am referring to the understanding of such a person as of February 4, 2002.
`
`25. As of February 4, 2002, I had more than ordina