PTAB

IPR2026-00142

Apple Inc v. IngenioSpec LLC

Log In
Key Events
Petition

1. Case Identification

2. Patent Overview

  • Title: Communication Techniques for Electronic Devices
  • Brief Description: The 8,112,104 patent describes communication techniques for electronic devices, such as mobile phones, that have audio and textual output capabilities. The invention facilitates communication between users via short audio or text messages, particularly in a hands-free context using a wireless headset.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Obviousness over Zhang - Claims 1, 5, 8, 9, 16, 17, 22-24, 26, 33, 39, 42, and 47 are obvious over Zhang

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Zhang (Patent 7,027,842)
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that Zhang, which was filed before the ’104 patent’s priority date, discloses every limitation of the challenged claims. Zhang teaches a hands-free system comprising a wireless headset and a hands-free adapter for a mobile device. The system in Zhang receives text messages, converts them to audio signals using voice synthesis, and presents the audio to the user through the headset. Further, Zhang discloses that a user can issue an oral "Reply" command, record a spoken reply message via the headset's microphone, and the system will convert the spoken reply into a text message and transmit it to the original sender. This mapping covers the core functionality of independent claim 1, including receiving, converting, presenting, recording, and transmitting messages.
    • Key Aspects: This ground asserted that a single prior art reference renders a large swath of the challenged claims obvious without requiring any combination or modification.

Ground 2: Obviousness over Zhang in view of Ewer - Claims 2, 6, and 10 are obvious over Zhang in view of Ewer

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Zhang (Patent 7,027,842), Ewer (Application # 2010/0115149)
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: This ground built upon Zhang to address dependent claims that add the limitation of first determining whether a wireless headset is "active" before automatically converting an incoming text message to audio. While Zhang provided the base system for text-to-audio conversion, Petitioner argued Ewer supplied the missing element. Ewer explicitly teaches a method for the "automatic detection and signaling of the connection status of a headset," which applies to both wired and wireless headsets. In Ewer, applications on a host device can be automatically paused, resumed, or executed based on whether the headset is detected as connected and active.
    • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA would combine Ewer's connection-status detection with Zhang's messaging system to solve a known problem identified in Ewer: the need for "manual intervention by the user" if a headset is disconnected while an application is running. Implementing Ewer's automated status check would improve the usability and reliability of Zhang's hands-free system by preventing it from trying to play audio through a disconnected headset.
    • Expectation of Success: Petitioner asserted a high expectation of success because Ewer's techniques were described as broadly applicable to various processor-based hosts, analogous to Zhang's device. The components for monitoring headset connectivity in Ewer were analogous to components already present in Zhang, making the integration straightforward.

Ground 3: Obviousness over Jannard in view of Vuori - Claims 1, 3-5, 9, 16, 17, 22-27, 33, 39, 42, 44, and 47 are obvious over Jannard in view of Vuori

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Jannard (Patent 7,150,526), Vuori (Application # 2002/0146097)

  • Core Argument for this Ground:

    • Prior Art Mapping: This ground presented an alternative invalidity theory using a different primary reference. Petitioner argued that Jannard discloses a wearable audio device (e.g., a headset) that communicates wirelessly with a source device like a cellular phone. Jannard’s system can receive emails and use a text-to-voice engine to read them to the user. For replies, Jannard teaches recording an audio file to be sent as an email attachment. Petitioner contended that Vuori remedied this by teaching the conversion of a spoken message into a text message. Vuori explicitly addresses overcoming the problem of manually entering text by using voice recognition to create a text message for transmission.
    • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA would combine Vuori's speech-to-text conversion with Jannard's system to improve efficiency. Sending a reply as a text message, as taught by Vuori, requires significantly less storage and bandwidth than sending the audio file attachment taught by Jannard. This modification would solve a practical problem of transmission size and allow the user to reply in the same format (text) as the incoming message, which is often desirable.
    • Expectation of Success: Success was expected because Vuori's methods are broadly applicable to telecommunications networks, such as the one used by Jannard's system. Furthermore, the voice recognition software in Vuori was analogous to the speech recognition engine already disclosed in Jannard, facilitating a straightforward modification.

  • Additional Grounds: Petitioner asserted numerous additional obviousness challenges. Several grounds were based on Zhang in view of other references like Vuori (to add message length limitation), Posa (to add user-selectable voice characteristics), and Moore (to add translation of chat abbreviations like "LOL"). A parallel set of grounds was based on Jannard and Vuori in view of Ewer, Koskan, Posa, and Moore to add similar functionalities.

4. Relief Requested

  • Petitioner requests institution of IPR and cancellation of claims 1-47 as unpatentable.