Applied Voice & Speech Technologies Avst v. IPVX PaTent HOldIngs Inc

1. Case Identification

• Patent #: 5,572,576
• Filed: March 26, 2013
• Petitioner(s): APPLIED VOICE & SPEECH TECHNOLOGIES, INC.
• Patent Owner(s): IPVX Patent Holdings
• Challenged Claims: 3, 4, 18, and 19

2. Patent Overview

• Title: TELEPHONE ANSWERING DEVICE LINKING DISPLAYED DATA WITH RECORDED AUDIO MESSAGE
• Brief Description: The ’576 patent describes methods for automatically answering telephone calls and allowing a user to manage voice messages. The system displays caller-identifying information on an answering device or a remote access device, permitting the user to selectively retrieve and listen to the corresponding stored voice messages.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Anticipation over Ertz - Claims 3, 4, 18, and 19 are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. §102(b) as anticipated by Ertz.

• Prior Art Relied Upon: Ertz (Patent # 5,003,577).
• Core Argument for this Ground:
  • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that Ertz discloses every element of the challenged claims. Ertz describes a voice mail service system (the claimed "telephone answering device") that automatically answers calls and is coupled to a telephone. The system receives caller-identifying information in message headers ("first signals"), stores corresponding voice messages, and links the headers to the messages. A user can access these message headers on a remote computer terminal ("remote access device"), which displays the caller information. The user then selects a displayed header to retrieve and play the corresponding voice message on demand. This process meets all limitations of independent claims 3 and 18, and the specific steps recited in dependent claims 4 and 19.

Ground 2: Anticipation over Kamel - Claims 3, 4, 18, and 19 are unpatentable under §102(b) as anticipated by Kamel.

• Prior Art Relied Upon: Kamel ("PX: Supporting Voice in Workstations," IEEE, August 1990).
• Core Argument for this Ground:
  • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner contended that Kamel’s "PX Answering Machine" system, which runs as a software application on a networked workstation, anticipates the challenged claims. The system automatically answers calls, plays a greeting, and records voice messages. It displays a message log on the workstation's screen, showing caller names ("first signals"), which are linked to the stored voice messages. The workstation and its user interface function as the "remote access device," allowing a user to view the list of callers and selectively play back messages with a point-and-click action. Kamel explicitly discloses using caller ID ("calling-line-based greetings") to identify callers, storing messages as files on a local or remote server, and linking the displayed caller name to the corresponding message file for retrieval.

Ground 3: Obviousness over Jachmann in view of Ertz - Claims 3, 4, 18, and 19 are obvious over Jachmann in view of Ertz.

• Prior Art Relied Upon: Jachmann (Patent # 4,853,952), Ertz (Patent # 5,003,577).

• Core Argument for this Ground:

  • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner asserted that Jachmann, a reference cited during prosecution, discloses a voice message system that stores messages and allows a remote station to retrieve caller information. Petitioner argued that the limitation added to overcome Jachmann—"available upon user demand"—is met by Jachmann's disclosure of a user initiating a call to the system to retrieve stored messages via DTMF codes, the same method described in the ’576 patent. Ertz is cited for its teaching of a more advanced graphical user interface that displays a list of messages for random, non-scrolling access.
  • Motivation to Combine (for §103 grounds): A person of ordinary skill in the art (POSITA) would have been motivated to combine Ertz's superior user interface with Jachmann's underlying system to improve usability. Providing a more comprehensive, list-based visual display of messages, as taught by Ertz, was a known method for improving user interaction with voicemail systems like Jachmann’s, which used a more limited display.
  • Expectation of Success (for §103 grounds): A POSITA would have had a reasonable expectation of success in implementing Ertz's graphical interface concepts into Jachmann's system, as both systems operated on the known principles of storing, retrieving, and displaying message data.

• Additional Grounds: Petitioner asserted additional anticipation challenges based on Coleman. Petitioner also asserted additional obviousness challenges based on Cohen in view of various combinations of Ertz, Kamel, Coleman, Schmandt, and Riley, all relying on combining a primary unified messaging system with references teaching more advanced visual interfaces for selective message retrieval.

4. Key Claim Construction Positions

• "such that said first signals are available upon user demand": Petitioner argued this phrase, added during prosecution to overcome Jachmann, should be construed in light of the ’576 patent’s specification. All disclosed embodiments require a user to initiate a telephone call to the base answering device to retrieve caller information. Therefore, Petitioner contended the term encompasses methods where caller information is made available by the user initiating a call to retrieve it. This construction is argued to be met by the prior art, including Jachmann.
• "remote access device": Citing the specification and prosecution history, Petitioner argued this term should be construed broadly to include both portable and non-portable devices, as well as devices that are physically separate from or in close proximity to the answering device.

5. Relief Requested

• Petitioner requests that the Board institute an inter partes review (IPR) and cancel claims 3, 4, 18, and 19 of the ’576 patent as unpatentable.