Google LLC v. Dialect LLC

1. Case Identification

• Case #: IPR2024-00753
• Patent #: 7,640,160
• Filed: April 5, 2024
• Petitioner(s): Google LLC
• Patent Owner(s): Dialect, LLC
• Challenged Claims: 12

2. Patent Overview

• Title: Systems and Methods for Responding to Natural Language Speech Utterance
• Brief Description: The ’160 patent describes a system for processing natural language speech utterances to determine a user's intent. It uses a "knowledge-enhanced speech recognition engine" that receives a transcription of an utterance, identifies and scores potential contexts, and selects the most likely context to formulate a request to a domain-specific agent.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Obviousness over Kennewick and Ross - Claim 12 is obvious over Kennewick in view of Ross.

• Prior Art Relied Upon: Kennewick (Application # 2004/0044516) and Ross (Application # 2002/0133354).

• Core Argument for this Ground:

  • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that Kennewick, which shares a common inventor and substantial verbatim text with the ’160 patent, discloses most elements of claim 12. Kennewick’s system uses a “parser” (argued to be the claimed “knowledge-enhanced speech recognition engine”) that receives a transcription of a user's speech, determines intent by matching keywords to identify possible contexts (e.g., “temperature” implies a “weather” context), scores these contexts, selects the one with the highest score, and communicates a request to a corresponding domain agent. Petitioner contended that Kennewick also discloses a “context stack” for storing keywords from past contexts to aid in understanding follow-up questions.

  Petitioner asserted that Ross supplies any teachings for claim limitations not explicitly detailed in Kennewick. Specifically, claim 12 requires comparing transcribed text against (1) “grammar expression entries in the context description grammar” and (2) “one or more expected contexts stored in a context stack.” Petitioner argued that Ross explicitly teaches a system for determining utterance context by testing a transcribed utterance against grammars associated with a list of potential applications (contexts). Ross’s “context list” is described as a priority-ordered list that functions like a stack, where the most recently used application is checked first. Ross provides examples of grammars (e.g., for mail and calendar applications) and explains how text combinations like “print it” are matched against grammar expressions to identify the correct context. The combination of Kennewick’s overall system and context stack with Ross’s detailed grammar-matching and priority-ordered context list allegedly renders all limitations of claim 12 obvious.

  • Motivation to Combine: Petitioner argued a person of ordinary skill in the art (POSITA) would have been motivated to combine the references. Both Kennewick and Ross address the same problem of interpreting a user's spoken command to invoke the correct application. A POSITA seeking to implement the system generally described in Kennewick would have naturally looked to a reference like Ross for specific, conventional techniques for using grammars and a context list to identify user intent. Ross’s detailed disclosure was presented as a straightforward, predictable implementation of the concepts outlined in Kennewick.

  • Expectation of Success: Petitioner asserted a POSITA would have had a reasonable expectation of success in combining the teachings. The combination involved the application of well-known, conventional techniques, such as using Backus Naur Form (BNF) grammars as disclosed by Ross, to improve the functionality of a natural language processing system like Kennewick's. No undue experimentation would have been required to integrate Ross's grammar-based context identification into Kennewick's framework.

4. Arguments Regarding Discretionary Denial

• §314(a) (Fintiv Factors): Petitioner argued against discretionary denial, asserting that the co-pending district court litigation is in a very early stage. At the time of filing, no substantive events such as discovery, claim construction, or the setting of a trial date had occurred, weighing heavily against denial.
• §325(d): Petitioner contended that denial under §325(d) would be improper because the Examiner materially erred during prosecution by not having the benefit of the Ross reference. Although Kennewick was considered in a rejection of other claims, the Examiner stated that the art of record failed to teach comparing text combinations against both grammar expression entries and expected contexts in a context stack. Petitioner argued the combination of Kennewick and Ross explicitly teaches these missing features. Given that the ’160 patent incorporates large portions of Kennewick verbatim, Petitioner asserted that the combination presents a compelling, previously unconsidered ground of unpatentability.

5. Relief Requested

• Petitioner requests institution of an inter partes review and cancellation of claim 12 of the ’160 patent as unpatentable.