PTAB

IPR2018-01431

MModal LLC c/o Duane Morris LLP v. Nuance Communications

Log In

1. Case Identification

2. Patent Overview

  • Title: Synchronise an Audio Cursor and a Text Cursor During Editing
  • Brief Description: The ’034 patent is directed to a method for assisting in the correction of text transcribed by a speech recognition device. The core concept involves allowing a transcriptionist to edit text while audio playback continues in a "synchronous playback mode," thereby improving efficiency by eliminating the need to stop and restart the audio for each correction. This is achieved by synchronizing the movement of a text cursor with an audio cursor that highlights the corresponding word being played back.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Claims 8 and 13 are obvious over Schulz, alone or in view of Sumner and Applicant's Admitted Prior Art (AAPA)

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Schulz (Patent 6,360,237), Sumner (Application # 2002/0095291), and Applicant's Admitted Prior Art (AAPA), which refers to prior art acknowledged within the ’034 patent itself, such as Hollerbauer (Patent 5,031,113) and Bijl (Patent 6,173,259).
  • Core Argument: Petitioner's central argument was that the '034 patent was allowed based on features the examiner mistakenly believed were novel, primarily because the key prior art reference, Schulz, was not considered during prosecution. Petitioner contended that the state of the art, as established by AAPA, already included synchronous playback with audio cursors. The two supposedly novel features that led to allowance—(1) synchronizing a text cursor with the audio cursor, and (2) offsetting the text cursor to account for user reaction time—were both explicitly disclosed in Schulz. Therefore, Petitioner argued the claims would have been found obvious had the examiner been aware of Schulz.
    • Prior Art Mapping:
      • Petitioner performed a detailed mapping of the prior art to the challenged claims. For independent claim 8, which requires a method of providing both an audio and a text cursor during synchronous playback, Petitioner argued Schulz teaches all elements. Schulz discloses a "playback edit function mode" that allows text edits without stopping the audio, addressing the same problem as the '034 patent. It discloses an "audio cursor" equivalent that highlights the currently spoken word and a separate "text cursor" (a "targeted insertion point") that indicates where an edit will occur.
      • The allegedly critical limitation of automatically positioning the text cursor at a predetermined position relative to the audio cursor was argued to be directly taught by Schulz. Schulz discloses using a configurable "reaction time variable" to intentionally lag the text cursor behind the audio cursor. This ensures that when a user reacts to an error, the edit is applied to the correct word, even though the audio has advanced slightly. This lagging, adjustable cursor in Schulz was presented as a direct mapping to the relative positioning and synchronous movement recited in claim 8.
      • For dependent claim 13, which adds uncoupling and recoupling the cursors via keyboard inputs, Petitioner again pointed to Schulz. Schulz's system, upon receiving a first keyboard input (an edit command), positions the text cursor for an edit, effectively "uncoupling" it from the audio cursor, which continues to advance. After the edit is performed, Schulz describes automatically "re-aligning" the text cursor with the spoken words of the audio recording, which Petitioner argued meets the "recoupling" limitation.
    • Motivation to Combine: Petitioner argued that a person of ordinary skill in the art (POSA) would have been motivated to combine Schulz with Sumner to enhance usability. Sumner teaches using two separate, independent cursors for distinct functions (text correction and dictation resumption) and provides the user an option to make one cursor invisible to avoid distraction. Petitioner contended a POSA would see the benefit of applying Sumner's multi-cursor display logic to Schulz's system. This would allow for the simultaneous display of an audio cursor (showing playback progress) and a text cursor (showing the edit location), providing clearer visual feedback. This was framed as a simple, predictable combination of known user interface techniques from the same field to create a more intuitive product.
    • Expectation of Success: A POSA would have had a high expectation of success in this combination. The petition emphasized that features like synchronous playback and audio/text cursors were already well-known and "very much liked by users," as admitted by the '034 patent itself (the AAPA). Integrating Schulz's specific method for handling reaction time with Sumner's more general cursor management principles would have been a routine design choice for a POSA seeking to improve a known type of system. The result—a more efficient and user-friendly transcription editor—was entirely predictable.

4. Relief Requested

  • Petitioner requested that the Board institute an inter partes review and cancel claims 8 and 13 of Patent 8,117,034 as unpatentable.