PTAB

IPR2018-01431

MModal LLC Duane Morris LLP v. Nuance Communications

Log In
Key Events
Petition
petition

1. Case Identification

2. Patent Overview

  • Title: Synchronise an Audio Cursor and a Text Cursor During Editing
  • Brief Description: The ’034 patent relates to a method for assisting in the correction of text generated by a speech recognition system. The core technology involves synchronizing a text cursor with an audio cursor during audio playback, which allows a user to perform edits without deactivating the synchronous playback mode, thereby improving editing efficiency.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

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

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Schulz (Patent 6,360,237), Sumner (Application # 2002/0095291), and Applicant's Admitted Prior Art (AAPA).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that Schulz discloses all key limitations of the challenged claims. Schulz teaches a system for editing recognized text during continuous audio playback, solving the same time-consumption problem addressed by the ’034 patent. It describes highlighting the currently spoken word (the "audio cursor") and automatically positioning a text-editing cursor at a targeted insertion point to perform edits without stopping playback. Critically, Petitioner asserted that Schulz explicitly teaches the two features the ’034 patent examiner identified as novel during prosecution: (1) synchronizing a text cursor with an audio cursor, and (2) offsetting the text cursor's position relative to the audio cursor to account for a user's reaction time. Specifically, Schulz's cursor 60 tracks the spoken word, while its cursor 61 marks the targeted insertion point, which can trail the spoken word by a configurable "reaction time variable." For claim 13, Schulz teaches uncoupling the text cursor from the audio cursor upon a keyboard input to perform an edit, and then automatically re-synchronizing the cursors after the edit is complete. Sumner was introduced as analogous art that teaches using two separate, independent cursors for different functions (e.g., correction and insertion) in a speech recognition system and provides the option of making one cursor invisible to avoid distracting the user.
    • Motivation to Combine (for §103 grounds): Petitioner contended that Schulz alone renders the claims obvious. Alternatively, a person of ordinary skill in the art (POSITA) reading Schulz would be motivated to combine its teachings with Sumner to enhance user interface clarity. If Schulz were interpreted as only teaching two cursor positions but not two distinct cursors, a POSITA would combine it with Sumner’s explicit teaching of using multiple cursors for independent functions. This would predictably improve the system by clearly and separately indicating both the current audio playback location and the text editing location, which was a known design goal in the field. The combination would have been a straightforward application of known UI principles to improve a known editing system.
    • Expectation of Success (for §103 grounds): A POSITA would have had a high expectation of success in combining the well-understood user interface concepts from Sumner with the speech editing system of Schulz, as it involved the application of known software techniques to achieve a predictable improvement in usability.

4. Key Technical Contentions (Beyond Claim Construction)

  • Petitioner's central technical contention was that the functionality described in the prior art directly corresponds to the key limitations of the challenged claims, regardless of the specific terminology used. Specifically, Petitioner argued that Schulz's "cursor 60," which highlights the currently spoken word, is functionally identical to the claimed "audio cursor." Likewise, Schulz's "cursor 61," which represents a "targeted insertion point" for edits and can be offset to account for user reaction time, is functionally identical to the claimed "text cursor." The petition argued that a POSITA would have immediately recognized this functional equivalence.

5. Relief Requested

  • Petitioner requests institution of an inter partes review and cancellation of claims 8 and 13 of Patent 8,117,034 as unpatentable.