PTAB

IPR2020-00081

Google LLC v. Hammond Development Intl Inc

Log In
Key Events
Petition
petition

1. Case Identification

2. Patent Overview

  • Title: Communication System and Method
  • Brief Description: The ’816 patent discloses a communication system where a user device interacts with a remote application server. The server establishes a communication session, executes a voice processing application, generates a voice representation of information from the application, and transmits it to the user device for presentation.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Obviousness of Claims 1-6 and 11-13 over Gilmore, Dhara, and Dodrill

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Gilmore (Application # 2003/0216923), Dhara (Application # 2003/0202504), and Dodrill (6,766,298).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that Gilmore taught the fundamental architecture of the claimed system, including an interactive voice response (IVR) system with an application server (a "voice gateway") that remotely executes VoiceXML applications from a repository in response to a user's call. However, Gilmore did not explicitly disclose that the initial request from the user device comprises packetized voice data, nor that the server sends an executable file containing the voice representation. Dhara allegedly supplied the missing element of initiating a session with an "audio command" sent as packetized voice data over an IP network. Dodrill allegedly supplied the missing element of transmitting the voice representation as an executable file (e.g., an embedded .wav file) along with an instruction for the user device to play it, rather than streaming the audio directly.
    • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA would combine Gilmore and Dhara to improve user options and efficiency, allowing a session to be initiated with a specific spoken command instead of navigating menus. A POSITA would further incorporate Dodrill's teachings to improve system performance and robustness by distributing processing load to the user's device, freeing up server resources and mitigating quality issues from poor network connections that affect streaming audio.
    • Expectation of Success: Petitioner contended that combining these known elements for their intended purposes—using packetized voice for requests and sending executable files for playback—was a predictable application of conventional technologies in the IVR field.

Ground 2: Obviousness of Claims 14 and 16 over Gilmore and Creamer

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Gilmore (Application # 2003/0216923) and Creamer (Application # 2004/0122941).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: This ground challenged independent claim 14, which requires a "plurality of application servers" with functions split between a "first one" and a "second one." Petitioner asserted that while Gilmore disclosed a single application server performing all the required functions (e.g., establishing a session, receiving and executing applications), Creamer explicitly taught that an IVR system could be implemented using multiple servers in a distributed fashion as an alternative to a single-server solution. Creamer's teaching allegedly rendered it obvious to distribute the various application functions of Gilmore's server (e.g., telephony services, script interpretation) across a plurality of servers as recited in the claims.
    • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA would combine Gilmore and Creamer to create a more robust, scalable, and reliable IVR system. Distributing functions across multiple servers, as taught by Creamer, would prevent a single point of failure, allow specialization of server functions, and better handle a large number of concurrent users, which were all well-known goals in network architecture design.
    • Expectation of Success: Because distributing software applications across multiple servers was a conventional and well-understood practice, a POSITA would have had a high expectation of success in applying Creamer's distributed architecture to Gilmore's IVR system to achieve predictable benefits of improved scalability and reliability.

Ground 3: Obviousness of Claims 9, 10, 29, and 30 over Gilmore, Dhara, Dodrill, and Ladd

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Gilmore (Application # 2003/0216923), Dhara (Application # 2003/0202504), Dodrill (6,766,298), and Ladd (6,269,336).

  • Core Argument for this Ground:

    • Prior Art Mapping: This ground challenged claims requiring a "speech-to-text application" (claim 9) and a method of translating voice to text to identify a second application to execute (claim 29). Petitioner argued that the base combination of Gilmore, Dhara, and Dodrill taught most claim elements, but Ladd was necessary to explicitly teach a speech-to-text (STT) module. Ladd disclosed an IVR system with a voice recognition unit that included an STT unit to convert user speech into textual information. This text could then be used to navigate to a URL or generate content requests, which Petitioner argued corresponds to identifying a second application for execution based on the translated text.
    • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA would have been motivated to add Ladd's STT functionality to the Gilmore-based system to expand its capabilities. This would enable features like dictating voice messages, performing voice-based web browsing, and using text-matching to simplify the processing of voice commands, thereby creating a more powerful and flexible IVR system.
    • Expectation of Success: Integrating an off-the-shelf or well-known STT component, as described in Ladd, into an existing IVR system like Gilmore's was a straightforward and predictable modification that merely combined known elements to achieve their expected functions.

  • Additional Grounds: Petitioner asserted additional obviousness challenges against the remaining claims based on various combinations of the aforementioned references, plus Fawcett (5,802,526) for teaching data socket connections and Patel (Application # 2006/0256950) for teaching touch/stylus input.

4. Relief Requested

  • Petitioner requests institution of an inter partes review and cancellation of claims 1-30 of the ’816 patent as unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. §103.