PTAB

IPR2020-01388

Amazon.com Inc v. VB Assets LLC

Log In
Key Events
Petition
petition

1. Case Identification

2. Patent Overview

  • Title: SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR DELIVERING TARGETED ADVERTISEMENTS AND/OR PROVIDING NATURAL LANGUAGE PROCESSING BASED ON ADVERTISEMENTS
  • Brief Description: The ’097 patent describes systems and methods for selecting and presenting advertisements based on the natural language processing of a user's voice-based input. The system interprets a user's spoken utterance, presents a relevant advertisement, and then processes a subsequent spoken response to that advertisement, particularly when the response includes a pronoun referring to the advertised product or service.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Obviousness over Core Speech Recognition References - Claims 1-20 and 22-23 are obvious over Cohen, Yonebayashi, and Potter.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Cohen (Patent 6,859,776), Yonebayashi (Japanese Patent Pub. No. 2002/297626), and Potter (Patent 5,729,659).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that Cohen taught the foundational system: a voice-activated browser for engaging in e-commerce, including presenting an advertisement (e.g., for a rental car) after a related transaction (e.g., booking a flight) and processing a user's verbal response. However, Cohen did not explicitly teach how to handle pronoun-based responses (e.g., "Reserve it"). Yonebayashi was alleged to cure this deficiency by disclosing a conversational speech system where a user responds to an advertisement using a pronoun (e.g., "I don't need that now"), which the system understands refers to the advertised product. Potter was asserted to provide the specific, known technical means for implementing this, teaching a tabular data structure with "object flags" to resolve which previously identified object a pronoun refers to.
    • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA would combine these references to improve the usability and naturalness of the conversational interface in Cohen. Since a user responding verbally to an advertisement might forget the full product name, incorporating Yonebayashi’s teaching of pronoun recognition is a logical improvement. Potter provided a well-understood method for implementing this pronoun resolution, making it an obvious choice to integrate into the Cohen/Yonebayashi system.
    • Expectation of Success: Petitioner asserted a high expectation of success because all three references operate in the same field of interactive speech technology and share a similar system architecture (voice input, recognition engine, response output). A POSITA could predictably modify Cohen’s system to include Potter’s tabular data structure to implement the pronoun functionality taught by Yonebayashi.

Ground 2: Obviousness over Core References and Kennewick - Claims 8, 10-11, and 16-18 are obvious over Cohen, Yonebayashi, and Potter in view of Kennewick.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Cohen (Patent 6,859,776), Yonebayashi (Japanese Patent Pub. No. 2002/297626), Potter (Patent 5,729,659), and Kennewick (Application # 2004/0193420).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: This ground built upon the combination in Ground 1, adding Kennewick to teach limitations in dependent claims regarding interactive sessions and multi-device control. Kennewick was argued to disclose reinterpreting an initial utterance based on subsequent user feedback (a second utterance) to resolve ambiguity, directly mapping to limitations in claims 8, 16, 17, and 18. For claims 10 and 11, Kennewick taught a speech interface for use in a vehicle that could control multiple, different types of external devices, such as a GPS navigation unit and a radio or CD player, through voice commands.
    • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA would have been motivated to add Kennewick's teachings to the base combination to improve the system's accuracy and versatility. Improving interpretation accuracy by allowing for clarification and reinterpretation is an inherent goal of any speech system. Furthermore, extending the voice control system to operate multiple distinct devices, as taught by Kennewick, was a known way to enhance functionality, particularly in a vehicle environment like that also contemplated by Cohen.

Ground 3: Obviousness over Core References and Treyz - Claims 20-21 are obvious over Cohen, Yonebayashi, and Potter in view of Treyz.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Cohen (Patent 6,859,776), Yonebayashi (Japanese Patent Pub. No. 2002/297626), Potter (Patent 5,729,659), and Treyz (Patent 6,526,335).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: This ground added Treyz to the core combination to address limitations in claims 20 and 21 related to performing a purchase transaction and delivering a product. While Cohen taught facilitating transactions generally, Treyz was asserted to provide more specific teachings. Treyz disclosed an in-vehicle computer system that allowed a user to order products (e.g., CDs) via voice command after hearing a preview clip. The system would then perform a purchase transaction by supplying the user’s financial information to a remote server and facilitate delivery of the purchased product (e.g., as a digital download) to the user's device.
    • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA would combine Treyz with the base Cohen system to enhance the user’s entertainment and e-commerce experience while driving. Treyz’s teachings on purchasing and delivering digital media via voice commands represented a known and desirable feature for in-vehicle systems, making its inclusion a predictable design choice.

4. Arguments Regarding Discretionary Denial

  • Petitioner argued that the Board should not exercise its discretion to deny institution under §314(a) or §325(d). The petition contended that denial would be improper because the parallel district court litigation only asserted claim 1, whereas the IPR sought to invalidate all 23 claims, making the IPR a more efficient alternative. Petitioner also argued that although Kennewick was cited in an IDS during prosecution, it was part of a list containing hundreds of references and was never substantively evaluated by the examiner; therefore, denial under §325(d) would be inappropriate as the Examiner never considered the specific arguments or combinations presented in the petition.

5. Relief Requested

  • Petitioner requests institution of an IPR and cancellation of claims 1-23 of the ’097 patent as unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. §103.