PTAB

IPR2015-01889

CaptionCall LLC v. Ultratec Inc

Log In
Key Events
Petition
petition

1. Case Identification

2. Patent Overview

  • Title: System for Text Assisted Telephony
  • Brief Description: The ’045 patent discloses a telecommunications system that provides voice-to-text transcription for an "assisted user" during a telephone call. The system uses a "two-line" architecture, where a first communication link connects the assisted user to a hearing user for a standard voice call, and a second link connects the assisted user's device to a captioning relay service that transcribes the hearing user's speech.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Claims 1-74 are obvious over Liebermann in view of Engelke ’405, Mukherji, and Engelke ’482.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Liebermann (Patent 5,982,853), Engelke ’405 (Patent 5,724,405), Mukherji (Patent 7,117,152), and Engelke ’482 (Patent 5,909,482).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that the combination of references taught every limitation of the challenged claims, which centered on a two-line captioned telephone where the captioning service could be invoked mid-conversation.
      • Liebermann disclosed the foundational two-line architecture: a first line for a voice call between a hearing-impaired user and a hearing user, and a second line connecting the user's device to a voice-to-text translation "center."
      • Engelke ’405 taught adapting relay systems for hard-of-hearing users (who can still hear voice) by providing both the original audio and the text captions. It also disclosed an "on/off" switch, giving users control over whether to receive captions for a call.
      • Mukherji addressed the core feature of mid-call invocation, which Petitioner asserted was the alleged novelty of the ’045 patent. Mukherji taught a system where text assistance could be enabled by a user request at any time during a session, including after a voice conversation had already begun, by establishing a second "text link."
      • Engelke ’482, which is incorporated by reference in the ’045 patent, taught improvements to the relay center itself, such as a call assistant "revoicing" the hearing user's speech into a voice recognition system and performing error correction on the resulting text.
    • Motivation to Combine (for §103 grounds): Petitioner asserted multiple, sequential motivations for a person of ordinary skill in the art (POSITA) to combine the references. First, a POSITA would combine Liebermann and Engelke ’405 to upgrade Liebermann’s two-line device to serve hard-of-hearing users by providing both voice and text, and to add the known benefit of user control via an on/off switch. Second, a POSITA would incorporate Mukherji’s teaching of on-demand, mid-conversation text assistance into the improved Liebermann/Engelke ’405 device. This was presented as applying a known technique to improve a similar device to yield predictable results, as Mukherji solved the same problem of providing text assistance during a call. The petition framed this as an "obvious to try" combination, as initiating captions before, during, or not at all represented a small, finite number of predictable options. Finally, a POSITA would incorporate the relay efficiencies from Engelke ’482, such as revoicing and error correction, to improve the accuracy and performance of the combined system.
    • Expectation of Success (for §103 grounds): Petitioner argued a POSITA would have a reasonable expectation of success because the combination involved simple, predictable modifications. The two-line architecture from Liebermann was already in place; adding a user control to delay the connection of the second line until requested mid-conversation, as taught by Mukherji, was a straightforward implementation that would predictably result in the claimed functionality.

4. Key Claim Construction Positions

  • The petition argued that several key terms should be construed consistent with prior Board decisions in related IPRs involving the patent family.
  • "control limitation": Petitioner noted the Board had previously construed this limitation ("operating a control...to initiate a captioning service") as comprising a timing element, a context element, and an action element.
  • "third communication link separate from the first and second communication links" (claims 6 and 38): Petitioner proposed this be construed as "any communication session, protocol, link, connection, or path distinguishable from the claimed first and second communication links." This construction was based on the specification’s disclosure of three separate telephone lines and its broad definition of "telephone line" to include IP connections.

5. Relief Requested

  • Petitioner requested the institution of an inter partes review and the cancellation of claims 1-74 of the ’045 patent as unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. §103.