NICE Ltd.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Jun 16, 2021

IPR2020-00221 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 16, 2021)

Trials@uspto.gov Paper 37
571-272-7822 Date: June 16, 2021

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD

CALLMINER, INC.,
Petitioner,
v.
NICE LTD.,
Patent Owner.

IPR2020-00221
Patent 7,599,475 B2

Before KEVIN F. TURNER, TERRENCE W. McMILLIN,
and STACY B. MARGOLIES, Administrative Patent Judges.

TURNER, Administrative Patent Judge.
JUDGMENT
Final Written Decision
Determining Some Challenged Claims Unpatentable
35 U.S.C. § 318(a); 37 C.F.R. § 42.14

IPR2020-00221
Patent 7,599,475 B2
2
I. INTRODUCTION
We have jurisdiction to hear this inter partes review under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6. This Final Written Decision is issued pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 318(a).
For the reasons discussed herein, we determine that Petitioner has shown, by
a preponderance of the evidence, that claims 1–10 of U.S. Patent No.
7,599,475 B2 (Ex. 1001, “the ’475 Patent”) are unpatentable, and has not
shown, by a preponderance of the evidence, that claims 11–17 of the ’475
Patent are unpatentable.
A. Procedural Background
CallMiner, Inc. (“Petitioner”) filed a Petition requesting inter partes
review of claims 1–17 (“the challenged claims”) of the ’475 Patent, relying
on the Declaration of Dr. Richard Stern. Paper 2 (“Pet.”); Ex. 1005 (“Stern
Decl.”). NICE Ltd. (“Patent Owner”) filed a Preliminary Response to the
Petition. Paper 7. Pursuant to our authorization (Paper 8), Petitioner filed a
Reply to Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response. Paper 9. Patent Owner
filed a Sur-reply In Support of Preliminary Response. Paper 10.
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 314(a), on June 17, 2020, we instituted inter
partes review on the grounds of:
IPR2020-00221
Patent 7,599,475 B2
3
Claim(s) Challenged 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis
1, 2, 8–12, 14 1031 Bachar,2 APA,3 Freedman4
3–7, 13, 15–17 103 Bachar, APA, Freedman, Conway5
See Pet. 5; Paper 11 (“Inst. Dec.” or “Dec.”).
Patent Owner filed a Patent Owner Response (“PO Resp.”). Paper 20.
Patent Owner filed the Declaration of Dr. Jordan R. Cohen (Ex. 2004) to
support its positions. Petitioner filed a Reply (“Pet. Reply”) to the Patent
Owner Response. Paper 23. Patent Owner filed a Sur-Reply to Petitioner’s
Reply (“PO Sur-Reply”). Paper 27. An oral hearing was held on March 17,
2021. A transcript of the hearing is included in the record. Paper 36 (“Tr.”).
B. Related Matters
The parties identify NICE Ltd. v. CallMiner, Inc., Civil Action No.
1:18-cv-02024 (D. Del.), filed on December 19, 2018, as a related matter.
Pet. 3; Paper 4, 1.

1 The Leahy-Smith America Invents Act (“AIA”), Pub. L. No. 112-29,
125 Stat. 284, 287–88 (2011), amended 35 U.S.C. § 103, effective
March 16, 2013. Because the application from which the ’475 Patent issued
claims a priority date before this date, the pre-AIA version of Section 103
applies.
2 U.S. Patent Publication No. 2005/0108775 A1 (filed November 13, 2003)
(published May 19, 2005) (Ex. 1002, “Bachar”).
3 In its analysis, Petitioner relies on sections of the ’475 Patent (Ex. 1001,
1:16–2:2, 5:23–29) as Admitted Prior Art (“APA”). Pet. 37, 39, 41, 46–47,
51, 54.
4 U.S. Patent Publication No. 2004/0249650 A1 (filed July 14, 2004)
(published December 9, 2004) (Ex. 1003, “Freedman”).
5 U.S. Patent Publication No. 2006/0262920 A1 (filed May 18, 2005)
(published November 23, 2006) (Ex. 1004, “Conway”).
IPR2020-00221
Patent 7,599,475 B2
4
C. The ’475 Patent
The ’475 Patent is titled “Method and Apparatus for Generic
Analytics” and issued on October 6, 2009, from an application filed on May
2, 2007. Ex. 1001, codes (22), (45), (54). The application for the ’475
Patent claims priority to Provisional Application No. 60/894,230, filed on
March 12, 2007. Id. at code (60). The ’475 Patent relates to audio content
analysis, specifically directed to retrieving business insight from auditory
information. Id. at 1:12–14. With respect to the prior methods employed,
the ’475 Patent provides that speech to text engines consume significant time
and computing resources, and that word spotting engines or phonetic search
engines are faster than the speech to text engines but are generally efficient
only for a limited word lists or a set of predefined syllables or word parts.
Id. at 1:56–2:2.
To address the deficiencies of the prior processes, the ’475 Patent
describes a system that initially processes an audio signal to identify an
event. Ex. 1001, 2:11–16. Additional processing is then performed using a
possibly more resource-intensive tool on a section of the audio signal
surrounding the event, and the result is analyzed. Id. at 2:16–22.
An exemplary system is illustrated in Figure 1, reproduced below (id.
at 3:40–42):
IPR2020-00221
Patent 7,599,475 B2
5

A block diagram of the main components in a typical environment disclosed
in the ’475 Patent.
The ’475 Patent details that capturing/logging component 132
captures interactions from a variety of sources, including telephone calls,
and initial processing component 138 then processes an interaction using a
faster or more efficient form of processing. Ex. 1001, 5:1–36, 59–67. The
initial processing component identifies events (e.g., the word “account”
being spoken) and associated times at which the events occurred (e.g., 30
seconds from the beginning of the interaction). Id. at 6:2–9. Information
about the events and times are then transferred to additional processing
IPR2020-00221
Patent 7,599,475 B2
6
component 142 for the additional processing steps, activated only for these
limited sections of the audio. Id. at 6:2–13, 25–28. The results from the
initial processing and additional processing steps are then transferred to
analysis component 144, which analyzes the results and reveals “significant
business aspects, insights, terms or events in the [audio] segments.” Id. at
6:31–38, 54–61.
Challenged claims 1 and 11 are independent. Claim 1 of the ’475
Patent is reproduced below, with bracketed letters added to the limitations
for reference purposes.
1. [a] A method for revealing an at least one aspect related to
an organization from an audio signal, the method comprising the steps
of:
[b] performing an initial processing on the audio signal for
locating an at least one event within the audio signal, the at least one
event associated with an at least one time indication within the audio
signal;
[c] performing additional processing on a part of the audio
signal, the part extending at least a first predetermined length of time
preceding the least one time indication associated with the event and
at least a second predetermined length of time following the at least
one time indication associated with the event, the additional
processing providing output related to the audio signal; and
[d] analyzing the at least one event and the output of the
additional processing to reveal an at least one aspect related to the
organization,
[e] wherein analyzing the at least one event and the output of
the additional processing comprises at least one of the group
consisting of: link analysis, root cause analysis, finding relations,
finding connections, finding an at least one hidden pattern, and
clustering of at least two audio segments based on the initial
processing.
Ex. 1001, 10:40–62.
IPR2020-00221
Patent 7,599,475 B2
7
II. ANALYSIS
A. Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art
Petitioner asserts that a person of ordinary skill in the art the time of
the invention would have had “at least (i) a Master’s degree in computer
science, electrical engineering, or a related subject and at least three years of
experience implementing systems for performing speech analysis, or (ii) a
Bachelor’s degree in computer science, electrical engineering, or a related
subject and at least five years of experience implementing systems for
performing speech analysis.” Pet. 9 (citing Ex. 1005 ¶ 34).
Patent Owner disagrees with Petitioner’s proposed qualifications,
alleging that the subject matter of the ’475 Patent does not require the level
of experience that Petitioner proposes. PO Resp. 8–9 (citing Ex. 2004
¶¶ 51–52). Patent Owner asserts that a person of ordinary skill in the art
with a Master’s degree need only have one year of experience, or with a
Bachelor’s degree need only have two years of experience, or a Ph.D. degree
with apparently no experience. Id. Petitioner responds that Patent Owner’s
definition, “requir[ing] two years’ less experience than Petitioner’s
definition,” does not affect how the prior art demonstrates the challenged
claims unpatentability.” Pet. Reply 18.
In determining the level of ordinary skill in the art, various factors
may be considered, including the “type of problems encountered in the art;
prior art solutions to those problems; rapidity with which innovations are
made; sophistication of the technology; and educational level of active
workers in the field.” In re GPAC Inc., 57 F.3d 1573, 1579 (Fed. Cir. 1995)
(citation omitted). The level of ordinary skill in the art is also reflected by
the prior art of record. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed.
Cir. 2001).
IPR2020-00221
Patent 7,599,475 B2
8
Considering the subject matter of the ’475 Patent, the background
technical field, and the prior art, we adopt Patent Owner’s submission on the
level of ordinary skill in the art. We agree with Petitioner that the minor
change in the level of ordinary skill in the art does not affect whether the
cited art demonstrates the patentability of the challenged claims. As such, we
determine that a person of ordinary skill in the art the time of the invention
would have had (1) a Ph.D. in electrical engineering, computer science,
linguistics, or a related field; (2) a Master’s degree in the same with one year
of experience implementing systems performing speech analysis; or (3) a
Bachelor’s degree in the same with three years of experience implementing
systems performing speech analysis.” PO Resp. 8. However, even under
Petitioner’s definition of the level of ordinary skill, we reach the same
conclusions below regarding patentability of the challenged claims.
B. Claim Construction
For petitions filed after November 13, 2018, the Board interprets
claim terms in accordance with the standard used in federal district court in a
civil action involving the validity or infringement of a patent. 37 C.F.R.
§ 42.100(b) (2019). Under the principles set forth by our reviewing court,
the “words of a claim ‘are generally given their ordinary and customary
meaning,’” as would be understood by a person of ordinary skill in the art in
question at the time of the invention. Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303,
1312 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc) (quoting Vitronics Corp. v. Conceptronic,
Inc., 90 F.3d 1576, 1582 (Fed. Cir. 1996)). “In determining the meaning of
the disputed claim limitation, we look principally to the intrinsic evidence of
record, examining the claim language itself, the written description, and the
prosecution history, if in evidence.” DePuy Spine, Inc. v. Medtronic
IPR2020-00221
Patent 7,599,475 B2
9
Sofamor Danek, Inc., 469 F.3d 1015, 1014 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (citing Phillips,
415 F.3d at 1312–17).
We group this section by specific aspects of the challenged claims:
(1) claim terms recited in claim 1; (2) claim terms recited in claims 2 and 3;
(3) constructions applicable to claims 11–17.
1. Limitations of Claim 1
Petitioner proposes that the claim terms “link analysis” and “root
cause analysis,” recited in claim 1, should have specific constructions, and
that additional claim terms in claim 1 should be interpreted under “their
plain and ordinary meaning.” Pet. 10–12 (citing Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 42–47). Patent
Owner asserts that multiple limitations of independent claim 1 require
specific constructions: “performing additional processing,” “link analysis”
“root cause analysis” “finding relations” “finding connections” “at least one
hidden pattern,” and “clustering of at least two audio segments.” PO Resp.
9–22. The parties provided further arguments regarding the constructions of
these limitations in later papers. Pet. Reply 4–14; PO Sur-Reply 8–19.
a) “performing additional processing”
Patent Owner asserts that one of ordinary skill in the art would have
understood “performing additional processing on a part of the audio signal,”
as recited in claim 1, to mean “performing a process on a part of the audio
signal other than word spotting, phonetic decoding, emotion detection, call
flow analysis, or talk analysis that identifies additional terms not limited to
the predetermined parameters of the initial processing.” PO Resp. 9–10
(citing Ex. 2004 ¶¶ 53–60). Patent Owner argues that the Specification of
the ’475 Patent “draws a distinction between the techniques employed for
the initial processing and the additional processing,” with the Specification
never disclosing “using processes used in the initial processing for the
IPR2020-00221
Patent 7,599,475 B2
10
additional processing, nor does it disclose using the same process twice.” Id.
at 10 (citing Ex. 2004 ¶ 56).
Petitioner responds that “the claim language itself does not exclude
any type of audio single processing from ‘additional processing,’” and we
should construe the subject limitation according to the words recited in that
claim. Pet. Reply 4–5. Petitioner continues that the Specification does not
contain any statement expressly defining “additional processing” or
disclaiming any of the five audio signal processing techniques identified by
Patent Owner from the scope of “additional processing.” Id. at 5. Rather,
the Specification indicates that the types of processing are not limited to the
examples in the Specification, and only details what may “preferably” be
used in the different types of processing. Id. at 5–6 (emphasis omitted).
Patent Owner responds that Petitioner’s cited examples do not identify
techniques used for both initial and additional processing, thus supporting
Patent Owner’s position that the processes used in each are unique. PO Sur-
Reply 8–9. Patent Owner also cites to Wireless Protocol Innovations, Inc. v.
TCT Mobile, Inc., 771 F. App’x 1012, 1018 (Fed. Cir. 2019), arguing that
the Specification of the ’475 Patent “repeatedly and uniformly describes the
distinction between the initial and additional processing,” and that
“additional processing” has not been shown to have an ordinary and
customary meaning to skilled artisans. Id. at 9–11.
Under Phillips, we begin with the language of the claim itself.
Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1314 (“the claims themselves provide substantial
guidance as to the meaning of particular claim terms”). Here, claim 1 recites
“performing an initial processing on the audio signal for locating an at least
one event within the audio signal,” and “performing additional processing on
a part of the audio signal.” Ex. 1001, 10:43–44, 47–48. It is clear from the
IPR2020-00221
Patent 7,599,475 B2
11
claim that the processing events, i.e., initial and additional processing steps,
are separate processing steps, although the language of claim 1 does not
recite the distinctiveness that Patent Owner asserts, i.e., that there cannot be
any overlap in techniques that fall under the different processing steps. The
initial processing must “locat[e] an at least one event,” and the additional
processing must “provide[e] output related to the audio signal,” per claim 1.
Id. Given the language of the claim, including the “comprising” recitation,
we are not persuaded that the initial processing could not also provide some
output related to the audio signal, of which the location of the event would
generally fall under a type of output related to that signal. In other words,
we are not persuaded that each processing step is fulfilled by a separate and
distinct set of analysis processes.
Phillips also states that “[o]ther claims of the patent in question . . .
can also be valuable sources of enlightenment as to the meaning of a claim
term,” where “[b]ecause claim terms are normally used consistently
throughout the patent, the usage of a term in one claim can often illuminate
the meaning of the same term in other claims.” Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1314.
To that end, claim 8, which depends from claim 1, recites the processes that
may comprise initial processing, specifically listing the types of processing
that Patent Owner now seeks to exclude from its construction of “additional
processing.” Adoption of Patent Owner’s construction could be viewed as
incorporating the subject matter of claim 8 into claim 1 because Patent
Owner seeks to delineate the specific processing techniques that “initial
processing” encompasses and the specific, different processing techniques
that “additional processing” encompasses. But such a construction would
contradict the general claim construction principle that independent claim 1
is broader than dependent claim 8.
IPR2020-00221
Patent 7,599,475 B2
12
With respect to Patent Owner’s arguments regarding the Specification
of the ’475 Patent, we are persuaded by Petitioner’s arguments that the
Specification indicates that the types of processing are not limited to the
examples in the Specification, and only details what may “preferably” be
used in the different types of processing. See Ex. 1001, 3:64–4:5; 4:13–16;
4:22–26; 5:59–62; 5:62–67; 6:25–28; 8:47–54; 9:34–37. Although Patent
Owner is correct that these examples do not identify techniques used for
both initial and additional processing, we are not persuaded that the
Specification clearly specifies any prohibition of using the techniques for
any particular type of processing.
With respect to Patent Owner’s arguments applying Wireless
Protocol, we are not persuaded that the case sheds significant light on the
instant claim limitations. The claim term in Wireless Protocol, namely
“grant pending absent state,” was identified as not having a “plain ordinary
meaning,” such that the Specification had “decisive significance” in
determining the term’s meaning. See Wireless Protocol, 771 F. App’x at
1018 (citing World Class Tech. Corp. v. Ormco Corp., 769 F.3d 1120, 1124
(Fed. Cir. 2014); Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1315–16. This is in contrast to the
terms being “initial processing” and “additional processing,” which use the
non-technical words “initial” and additional.” Although Patent Owner cites
to Dr. Stern’s testimony that “’additional processing’ does not have a
generally understood meaning in his field,” PO Sur-Reply 10 (citing Ex.
2002, 123:4–19), we are not persuaded that simply because a term does not
have a specific meaning in a field, its meaning can only be ascertained
through consultation with another source; a general term like “processing”
can be understood even by a layperson, as opposed to an ordinarily skilled
artisan, and still have meaning in limiting the scope of a claim.
IPR2020-00221
Patent 7,599,475 B2
13
To conclude, we are not persuaded that “additional processing” should
be interpreted as requiring a processing technique different from the
examples of “initial processing” described in the Specification, as Patent
Owner alleges. As such, we determine that “performing additional
processing on a part of the audio signal,” as recited in claim 1, should not be
limited in the manner proposed by Patent Owner—namely, “performing a
process on a part of the audio signal other than word spotting, phonetic
decoding, emotion detection, call flow analysis, or talk analysis that
identifies additional terms not limited to the predetermined parameters of the
initial processing.”
b) “link analysis”
Petitioner asserts that the claim term “link analysis” should be
interpreted to mean “a process that finds relationships.” Pet. 10. Petitioner
asserts that such a construction is consistent with how the term is described
in the Specification and how it is used in other publications assigned to
Patent Owner. Id. at 11 (citing Ex. 1001, 8:16–23; Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 43–44;
Ex. 1010 ¶ 99; Ex. 1012, 17:15–21; Ex. 1011, 11:3–6; Ex. 1013, 5:30–31;
Ex. 1014 (Wikipedia article on link analysis)).
Patent Owner disputes that construction and argues that “wherein
analyzing the at least one event and the output of the additional processing
comprises . . . link analysis” should be construed as “a process that compares
the output of the additional processing to the event to determine at least one
related concept.” PO Resp. 13 (citing Ex. 2004 ¶¶ 61–67). Patent Owner
also argues that Petitioner construction is redundant of “finding relations,”
already recited in claim 1. Id. Patent Owner also argues that Petitioner’s
construction does not consider “the requirement that the analysis be
performed on specific data: ‘the at least one event and the output of the
IPR2020-00221
Patent 7,599,475 B2
14
additional processing to reveal an at least one aspect related to the
organization.’” Id. at 14.
Petitioner responds that Patent Owner’s expert testified that “finding
relations” is what “link analysis” means in the context of the ’475 Patent
claims. Pet. Reply 7 (citing Ex. 1021, 43:10–15, 41:12–42:12). Patent
Owner responds that the intrinsic and extrinsic record establishes that “link
analysis” must do more than find relationships, that it must compare the
output of the additional processing to the event to determine at least one
related concept, and that it must be distinct from the other analysis
techniques of claim 1. PO Sur-Reply 13 (citing Ex. 2004 ¶¶ 63–67).
With respect to Patent Owner’s arguments that the analysis be
performed on specific data, we are not persuaded that such a formulation of
“link analysis” should be adopted. Claim 1 recites, in part, “wherein
analyzing the at least one event and the output of the additional processing
comprises at least one of the group consisting of: link analysis.” Ex. 1001,
10:57–59. As such, what is to be analyzed is already explicitly recited in the
claim, such that it need not be repeated in a construction of the term “link
analysis.” Denuded of the inputs, Patent Owner’s construction becomes “a
process that determines at least one related concept.” It is not evident that
there is a significant difference between “finding relationships” as proposed
by Petitioner and “determining related concepts” as proposed by Patent
Owner and that a meaningful dispute exists as to the construction of this
term. And, as construing “link analysis” is not necessary for our
patentability analysis, we do not provide a construction of this term.
c) “root cause analysis”
Petitioner asserts that the claim term “root cause analysis” should be
interpreted to mean “a process aimed at revealing the reason or cause for the
IPR2020-00221
Patent 7,599,475 B2
15
at least one event.” Pet. 11. Petitioner asserts the Specification does not
define or provide examples of the claim term, but it has been used in other
publications. Id. at 12 (citing Ex. 1010 ¶ 99; Ex. 1011, 11:1–3; Ex. 1005
¶ 46).
Patent Owner disputes this construction and argues that “wherein
analyzing the at least one event and the output of the additional processing
comprises . . . root cause analysis” should be construed as “a process that
identifies output from the additional processing as the reason or cause for the
at least one event.” PO Resp. 17 (alteration in original). Petitioner points
out that Patent Owner does not dispute what root cause analysis identifies,
but is proposing to improperly add a particular output of the analysis through
its construction. Pet. Reply 8. Patent Owner responds that “Petitioner’s
construction is incomplete and divorced from the language of the claim.”
PO Sur-Reply 14. We disagree with Patent Owner.
To the extent that Patent Owner’s construction involves a larger
portion of the claim than Petitioner’s construction, we understand Patent
Owner’s emphasis on the “inputs” of the analysis, i.e., “root cause analysis”
versus “wherein analyzing . . . root cause analysis.” With respect to the
smaller claim limitation, “root cause analysis,” we agree with Petitioner that
the parties largely agree: “the reason or cause for the at least one event.”
This smaller limitation need not be construed based on its input because
those elements are already explicitly recited in claim 1. As such, we
continue to adopt Petitioner’s construction of “root cause analysis” as “a
process aimed at revealing the reason or cause for the at least one event.”
d) “finding relations”
Patent Owner argues that “wherein analyzing the at least one event
and the output of the additional processing comprises . . . finding relations”
IPR2020-00221
Patent 7,599,475 B2
16
should be construed as “a process that finds relations between the output of
the additional processing and the event.” PO Resp. 18 (alteration in
original). Patent Owner continues that a person of ordinary skill in the art
would have understood that “‘finding relations’ instead identifies
relationships between words from the initial term list used to identify events
and the additional words surrounding the events.” Id. Patent Owner
continues to emphasize what would be analyzed as inputs to the “finding
relations” process, although those inputs are already explicitly recited in
claim 1. Id. at 19.
We are not persuaded that the cited claim limitation needs an explicit
construction. To the extent that Patent Owner is requiring that “find
relations” should be construed as “a process that finds relations,” ignoring
the explicitly recited inputs thereto, we determine this to provide no
additional insight and merely shifts the words in an attempt to construe the
claim limitation. To the extent that Patent Owner is implicitly arguing that
“finding relations” is “determining words or phrases output from the
additional processing having relationships with the event” (PO Resp. 19), we
determine that this seeks to read into the claim the requirements of specific
embodiments from the Specification. It is improper to read limitations from
an embodiment described in the specification into the claims absent a clear
indication in the intrinsic record that the patentee intended the claims to be
so limited. Liebel-Flarsheim Co. v. Medrad, Inc., 358 F.3d 898, 913 (Fed.
Cir. 2004). Therefore, although we can agree that “finding relations” does
mean “a process that finds relations,” we are not persuaded that such a
construction provides any greater clarity. Further, requiring the process to
occur “between the output of the additional processing and the event” is
already explicitly provided for in claim 1.
IPR2020-00221
Patent 7,599,475 B2
17
e) “finding connections”
Patent Owner argues that “wherein analyzing the at least one event
and the output of the additional processing comprises . . . finding
connections” should be construed as “a process that identifies the frequency
of occurrence of output from the additional processing relative to the event.”
PO Resp. 20 (alteration in original). Patent Owner continues that Figure 3 of
the ’475 Patent illustrates lines between terms used to identify events in the
initial processing and additional terms found in the additional processing,
where each line designates connection, i.e., frequent occurrences of the
additional term. Id. (citing Ex. 1001, 8:51–9:13, Fig. 3).
We do not agree with Patent Owner’s construction. The claim term
“finding connections” is broader that identifying the frequency of
occurrence, and seeks to import a specific embodiment of the Specification
into claim 1. But, it is not necessary for our patentability analysis to provide
an explicit construction of this term, and thus, we do not.
f) “finding an at least one hidden pattern”
Patent Owner argues that “wherein analyzing the at least one event
and the output of the additional processing comprises . . . finding an at least
one hidden pattern” should be construed as “a process that finds an at least
one hidden pattern between the output of the additional processing and the
event.” PO Resp. 21 (alteration in original). Once again disregarding the
inputs to the analysis process already explicitly recited in claim 1, Patent
Owner seeks to construe the limitation “finding an at least one hidden
pattern” as a process that finds an at least one hidden pattern. We determine
such a construction to provide no additional insight and merely shift the
words in an attempt to construe the claim limitation. We are not persuaded
that such a construction provides any greater clarity. But, it is not necessary
IPR2020-00221
Patent 7,599,475 B2
18
for our patentability analysis to provide an explicit construction of this term,
and thus, we do not.
g) “clustering of at least two audio segments”
Patent Owner argues that “wherein analyzing the at least one event
and the output of the additional processing comprises . . . clustering of at
least two audio segments based on the initial processing” should be
construed as “a process that clusters similar audio segments by associating
their events based on the output of the additional processing.” PO Resp. 22
(alteration in original). Patent Owner continues that “‘clustering’ must
therefore utilize both claimed outputs (e.g., the events and the additional
terms from the additional processing) to cluster similar audio interactions.
Id. (citing Ex. 2004 ¶¶ 81, 117). As discussed above, given the explicit
recitation of the event and the output of the additional processing, we need
not require that such inputs be included in the construction of “clustering.”
We are not persuaded that Patent Owner’s construction provides any greater
clarity and we do not adopt the proffered construction in the analysis below.
But, it is not necessary for our patentability analysis to provide an explicit
construction of this term, and thus, we do not.
2. Limitations of Claims 2 and 3
Petitioner asserts that aspects of claims 2 and 3 are written in “step-
plus-function” formulations, implicating 35 U.S.C. § 112 ¶ 6, and provides
the recited acts disclosed in the Specification that Petitioner contends satisfy
those functions. Pet. 12–15 (citing Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 50–58).
With respect to the “preprocessing step” recited in claim 2, Petitioner
asserts that its function is “enhancing the audio signal,” and that the
Specification discloses that optionally audio “segments undergo some
preprocessing, such as speaker separation, noise reduction, or the like.” Id.
IPR2020-00221
Patent 7,599,475 B2
19
at 13 (citing Ex. 1001, 9:24–28). Petitioner asserts that the claim term is
limited to the specific acts of separating the audio signal of one speaker from
the audio signal of another speaker, reducing the noise of an audio signal,
and their equivalents. Id. at 13–14 (citing Ex. 1001, 9:26–28; Ex. 1005
¶ 52). With respect to the “presentation step” recited in claim 3, Petitioner
asserts that its function is “presenting a presentation of the at least one aspect
related to the organization.” Id. at 14. Petitioner asserts that the act
corresponding to the function is “presenting the at least one aspect related to
the organization in the form of one of a” graphic representation, textual
representation, table representation, tabloid representation, or text file
representation. Id. at 14–15 (citing Ex. 1001, 2:22–24, 2:39–48, 6:39–43,
8:29–9:8, 9:67–10:1, Fig. 3; Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 56, 57). Upon review of the
Specification of the ’475 Patent and the subject claims, we preliminarily
determined that Petitioner’s identification of the function and the specifically
recited acts was sufficient, and adopted that formulation for purposes of
institution. Dec. 10–11.
Patent Owner argues that Petitioner’s proposed acts are incomplete
and overly broad with respect to claim 3, and that the ’475 Patent does not
disclose the generic display of data, as Petitioner’s construction
contemplates, but instead requires presenting the results of the analysis
performed on “at least one event and the output of the additional
processing.” PO Resp. 23–24. Patent Owner also argues that Petitioner’s
proposed corresponding acts merely limit the presentation format, and that
those acts also identify redundant formats without explanation. Id. at 24.
Petitioner responds that Patent Owner is seeking to improperly add
limitations such as “the results of the analysis” and “a comparison of an
event identified from the initial processing with the additional words
IPR2020-00221
Patent 7,599,475 B2
20
identified from the additional processing.” Pet. Reply 14. Patent Owner
argues that Petitioner’s construction would only confine the term to a
presentation format, which is inconsistent with Petitioner’s own citations to
the Specification. PO Sur-Reply 20.
Claim 3 recites, in part, “a presentation step for presenting a
presentation of the at least one aspect related to the organization.” Ex. 1001,
10:65-67. Patent Owner seeks to include the analysis performed on “at least
one event and the output of the additional processing,” but independent
claim 1, from which claim 3 depends, recites that the same analysis
“reveal[s] an at least one aspect related to the organization.” Id. at 10:55–
56. Claim 3 requires the presentation of the aspect, which is a result of the
analysis, but not presentation of the analysis itself, per se. Petitioner’s
identified act does specify that the aspect is presented and details forms of
that presentation. We do not agree with Patent Owner that Petitioner’s
construction details only the generic display of data because the identified
act explicitly includes the aspect. We also disagree with Patent Owner that
Petitioner’s characterization identification of redundant formats is improper,
because Petitioner is merely quantifying the ways that the Specification
details the presentation step.
With respect to claims 2 and 3, we continue to determine that
Petitioner’s identification of the function and the specifically recited acts is
sufficient, and adopt that construction for purposes of this decision.
3. Limitations of Claims 11–17
Petitioner provides “[a]lternative [c]onstructions” for terms in claims
11–17 that, according to Petitioner, “do not recite the word ‘means’ but
otherwise define the claim elements functionally.” Pet. 15. Petitioner notes
that “[t]here is a rebuttal presumption against invoking 35 U.S.C. § 112, 6th
IPR2020-00221
Patent 7,599,475 B2
21
paragraph, and that, “[a]ccordingly, Petitioner applies the prior art to these
terms under their plain and ordinary meaning.” Id. at 15–16.
In the Institution Decision, we determined that we did not need to
determine whether or not any of the terms in the claims of the ’475 Patent
were explicitly mean-plus-function terms in order to make a decision on
institution. Dec. 9. We did, however, indicate that if either party contends
that any claim term is a means-plus-function term, it should provide a proper
and complete supporting analysis, including a description of the
corresponding structure disclosed in the Specification. Id. We further
indicated that Petitioner’s analysis provided “citations to the Specification
provided [that] are wide-ranging and are not sufficiently specific or
explained to identify the portions of the Specification that describe the
corresponding structure. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(3).” Id. at 9 n.6.
In Patent Owner’s Response, Patent Owner asserts that “[c]laim 11
recites several ‘components’ that are means-plus-function terms requiring
construction.” PO Resp. 24 (citing Ex. 2004 ¶ 86). Patent Owner further
asserts that “Petitioner provides a wide-ranging list of citations instead of
identifying corresponding structure for these terms, but fails to explain how
its citations correspond to any function.” Id. at 26 (citing Pet. 15–20).
Based on this, Patent Owner argues that Petitioner has failed to meets its
obligation to explain how the challenged claims are to be construed under 35
U.S.C. § 112 ¶ 6, and that Petitioner’s obviousness grounds with respect to
claims 11–17 fail because they lack this necessary analysis. Id. Patent
Owner continues by identifying the function of each element asserted to be a
means-plus-function limitation, along with assertions of the disclosed
structure. Id. at 27–33 (citing Ex. 2004 ¶¶ 87–96; Ex. 2002).
IPR2020-00221
Patent 7,599,475 B2
22
Petitioner responds that Patent Owner’s analysis overlooks certain
functions recited in claim 11, and asserts that “the alleged structure
identified by Patent Owner is insufficient under [Williamson v. Citrix
Online, LLC, 792 F.3d 1339 (Fed. Cir. 2015)] and §112.” Pet. Reply 15–18,
16 n.3. Patent Owner responds that Petitioner has found fault with Patent
Owner’s analysis of the means-plus-function elements but has not identified
specific structures as required by 35 U.S.C. § 112 ¶ 6. PO Sur-Reply 22, 24.
We concur with Patent Owner’s assertions that elements of claims 11–
17 should be properly construed under 35 U.S.C. § 112 ¶ 6. We find Dr.
Cohen’s testimony to be helpful in that he testifies that the “component”
language of claims 11 and 13 are “functional terms,” and although those
claims do not use the word “means,” he testifies that “a skilled artisan would
need to review the specification to understand the scope and meaning of
these terms.” Ex. 2004 ¶ 86. Dr. Stern’s testimony provides citations to the
Specification, and attempts to provide the corresponding structure in
Petitioner’s “alternative constructions.” See Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 60–61. As such,
both parties acknowledge the functional natures of claims 11–17 and suggest
the possibility that the claims need to be evaluated under § 112 ¶ 6.
Weighing the testimony of both declarants and reviewing the language of
independent claim 11 and claims dependent thereon, we are persuaded that
those claims recite structures in functional terms such that they recite means-
plus-function limitations.
We agree that Petitioner’s analysis provides citations to the
Specification that are not sufficiently specific or explained to identify the
portions of the Specification that describe the corresponding structure. For
example, claim 11 recites “initial processing component for,” which
Petitioner states has the function of “activating an at least one initial
IPR2020-00221
Patent 7,599,475 B2
23
processing engine,” and Petitioner cites to the Abstract, three figures and
eleven sections of the ’475 Patent. Pet. 17–18. The citations are wide-
ranging but not specific, so that no particular element from the Specification
of the ’475 Patent is asserted by Petitioner to be structure invoked. For the
next limitation of claim 11, “initial processing engine for,” nearly the same
citations are provided with the same lack of specificity. Petitioner cannot be
said to have provided specific structures to the functional limitations of
claims 11–17 through the descriptions provided in the Petition. See Pet. 17–
22.
As such, we determine by a preponderance of evidence that the
Petition fails, under 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(3), to challenge claims 11–17
with sufficient specificity. Thus, Petitioner has failed to establish based on a
preponderance of evidence that claims 11–17 are unpatentable as obvious
under 35 U.S.C. § 103. Given this, we limit our obviousness analysis to
consideration of claims 1–10 below.
4. Other Claim Terms
We determine that it is not necessary to provide an express
interpretation of any other claim terms. See Nidec Motor Corp. v.
Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017);
Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir.
1999) (“[O]nly those terms need be construed that are in controversy, and
only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.”).
IPR2020-00221
Patent 7,599,475 B2
24
C. Alleged Obviousness of Claims 1, 2, and 8–10 Over Bachar,
APA, and Freedman
Petitioner contends that claims 1, 2, and 8–106 would have been
obvious over Bachar, APA, and Freedman. Pet. 22–54. To support its
contentions, Petitioner provides explanations as to how Bachar, APA, and
Freedman teach each claim limitation and its contention that there is a
motivation to combine the references. Id. Patent Owner argues that the
proffered prior art does not teach all the claim limitations. PO Resp. 43–61.
Petitioner responds in its Reply and Patent Owner counters in its Sur-Reply.
Pet. Reply 21–23; PO Sur-Reply 2–8.
We begin our discussion with brief summaries of Bachar, APA, and
Freedman, and then address the evidence and arguments presented.
1. Bachar (Ex. 1002)
Bachar is directed to an “apparatus and method for the event-driven
analysis of media contents derived from customer interactions.” Ex. 1002,
Abstract. Bachar recognizes that processing interactions are computing-
resource intensive and discloses a system in which process steps of the
analysis that are less demanding on resources are performed prior to more
demanding types of analysis. Id. at Abstract, ¶¶ 8, 16. An exemplary
diagram of the apparatus of Bachar is illustrated in Figure 1, reproduced
below (id. ¶ 12):

6 We acknowledge that claims 11, 12, and 14 were also asserted under this
ground of unpatentability but have been omitted from consideration per
Section II.B.3 supra.
IPR2020-00221
Patent 7,599,475 B2
25

Figure 1 of the Bachar illustrates the apparatus of the proposed embodiment.
Bachar discloses that the media content being analyzed could be a
telephone conversation and that the apparatus is capable of performing a
number of different types of analyses on the telephone conversation.
Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 17, 19. In one example, an audio analyzer component is
capable of performing word spotting, emotion analysis, and talk analysis,
and a Computer Telephony Interface (CTI) analysis component is capable of
analyzing CTI events. Id. Bachar discloses that “[w]henever possible,” less
resource expensive tests are used to optimize selected regions of the
IPR2020-00221
Patent 7,599,475 B2
26
conversation so that resource expensive tests can be used “on the more
‘interesting’ segments selected for analysis.” Id. ¶ 16.
Bachar describes one example where a “hold event” is identified in
the telephone conversation, and the apparatus creates a pivot spot based on
the hold event, and generates a Region of Interest period around the pivot
spot. Ex. 1002 ¶ 20. This aspect is illustrated in Figure 2, reproduced below
(id. ¶ 13):

Figure 2 of Bachar illustrates an exemplary region of interest in an
interaction during a telephone conversation.
The Region of Interest is defined by start point 50 and end point 52,
where The Region of Interest can then be further analyzed using more
resource-intensive processing. Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 20–21. Although the above
example relates to identifying a CTI event, such as a “hold” event, as the
IPR2020-00221
Patent 7,599,475 B2
27
pivot spot, Bachar discloses that pivot spots can also be identified using
audio analysis, such as emotion analysis or word spotting analysis. Id. ¶ 23.
Bachar discloses that the apparatus can be used by an organization to
identify problems in interactions, such as identifying interactions that have
high emotional levels on the customer side, so that the business can create
improved processes and coach agents to improve upon specific problems
that occur in their interactions. Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 36–37.
2. APA (portions of Ex. 1001)
Petitioner cites to certain discussions provided in the Specification of
the ’475 Patent for what Petitioner contends was admitted to be prior art
therein. See Pet. 37, 39, 41, 46–47, 51, 54.
According to Petitioner, the ’475 Patent “admits it was known at the
time the patent was filed” that processing audio using a transcription engine
was more time and processing intensive than processing audio with a word
spotting engine. Pet. 37 (citing Ex. 1001, 1:52–2:2); see id. at 39 (citing
same). Petitioner also asserts that certain analysis techniques are admitted
prior art, including those to determine “hidden link analysis between
segments,” “what are the main contributions to call volume,” and whether
any “patterns” are present in the audio. Id. at 41, 46–47 (citing Ex. 1001,
1:28–47). Petitioner also asserts that the ’475 Patent admits that “phonetic
search engines,” which were used to spot “word parts or syllables in audio
interactions,” were known at the time the ’475 Patent was filed. Id. at 51
(citing Ex. 1001, 1:62–2:2). Lastly, according to Petitioner, the ’475 Patent
admits that it was known to extract information from audio segments
received from a variety of sources, such as a “TV broadcast,” “transmitted
radio,” an “audio segment[] downloaded from the internet,” an “audio
file[],” an “audio … stream[],” “the audio part of [a] video file[],” or “the
IPR2020-00221
Patent 7,599,475 B2
28
audio part of [a] video stream[].” Pet. 54 (citing Ex. 1001, 1:16–28)
(alterations in original).
We note that Patent Owner has asserted that “[n]one of [APA] admits
the arrangement of these tools was known, or their use to reveal aspects
related to an organization in the manner claimed.” PO Resp. 39. Patent
Owner also argues that “[t]he Board should decline to consider this
information as part of the asserted grounds of unpatentability because it is
not ‘prior art’ that may be applied in this proceeding.” Id. (citing Treatment
of Statements of the Applicant in the Challenged Patent in inter partes
Reviews under § 311, USPTO Memorandum, August 18, 2020; “Memo.”).
We determine that no particular aspect of the challenged claims is
considered solely in view of APA; as discussed below, APA is considered in
the alternative to the disclosures of the other cited references. Patent Owner
acknowledges that the cited portions are “nothing more than disclosed
background information” (id.), so that Patent Owner is not contesting status
of the APA, only its application in the grounds of unpatentability. We take
APA as statements that may be used as evidence of the general knowledge
possessed by someone of ordinary skill in the art and apply them
accordingly, in the context of the grounds of unpatentability below. Memo,
4.
3. Freedman (Ex. 1003)
Freedman is directed to a method and apparatus for capturing and
analyzing customer interactions having a rule-based analysis engine. Ex.
1003, Abstract. Freedman discloses that the rule-based analysis engine is a
software device operative to perform rule checks on various content data
items, where the rules are predetermined by the user or are adaptive in
accordance with the system’s performance and demands. Id. ¶ 39. The
IPR2020-00221
Patent 7,599,475 B2
29
results of the analysis performed by the rule-based engine are used to alert to
the management or supervisors. Id.
In different examples, call centers directed to specific industries, such
as insurance or stock trading, can provide analysis based on recognized
words in those industries or of interest to supervisors, so that the system can
alert management “when an indication of irregularity or bad practice is
identified.” Ex. 1003 ¶ 40. The system can also recognize behavioral
patterns, speaker identification and verification, call flow analysis,
excitement or emotion analysis, and association of events. Id. ¶¶ 41, 57.
Additionally, the system can analyze specific parts of a call based on
information from CTI events or preprocessing functions and provides
software that can reduce noise in speech. Id. ¶¶ 47, 49. Freedman also
provides that rules can be defined to identify multiple occurrences of events
in a certain time frame, sequenced or concurrent occurrences of events,
logical relations between events, or information from a variety of sources,
such as “spotted words, simultaneous talking, silence periods, excitement
type, [and] excitement level.” Id. ¶ 59.
4. Analysis
A patent claim is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103 if the
differences between the claimed subject matter and the prior art are such that
the subject matter, as a whole, would have been obvious at the time the
invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said
subject matter pertains. KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 406
(2007). The question of obviousness is resolved on the basis of underlying
factual determinations including: (1) the scope and content of the prior art;
(2) any differences between the claimed subject matter and the prior art;
IPR2020-00221
Patent 7,599,475 B2
30
(3) the level of ordinary skill in the art; and (4) objective evidence of
nonobviousness.7 Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 17–18 (1966).
Patent Owner argues that Dr. Stern’s declaration is nothing more than
a duplication of the Petition with the occasional insertion of “in my
opinion,” and should be given “little to no weight.” PO Resp. 40–41. Patent
Owner also argues that Dr. Stern’s testimony on redirect during his
deposition, given the circumstances, should be given no weight because it is
untrustworthy and unreliable. Id. at 41–42. Petitioner disputes Patent
Owner’s contentions, and argues that Dr. Stern’s testimony, in his
declaration and in his deposition, should be judged by their substance. Pet.
Reply 20–21. Below, where applicable, we consider Dr. Stern’s testimony
in conjunction with the prior art references and the alleged admitted art
discussed in the Specification of the ’475 Patent, and apply the weight that
we consider appropriate. We decline to give his testimony “no weight,” as
argued by Patent Owner, but we do consider the context of his testimony.
a) Independent claim 1
Petitioner asserts that the combination of Bachar, APA, and Freedman
teaches all the limitations of claim 1, and that one of ordinary skill in the art
would have been motivated to combine the prior art references. See Pet. 28–
49.
i. Limitation 1[a]
With respect to the preamble of claim 1, Petitioner asserts that Bachar
discloses the preamble. Pet. 28–29. Petitioner cites to Bachar as disclosing
that an organization may use its method to “clarify the reason for the

7 No objective evidence of nonobviousness is presented in the Patent Owner
Response or Sur-Reply. See generally PO Resp.; PO Sur-Reply.
IPR2020-00221
Patent 7,599,475 B2
31
agent[]” putting a customer on hold, to find interactions with indications of
churn, such as high emotional levels of the customer, churn-specific words,
or low-satisfaction indications, to identify when an agent ignores rules about
placing a customer on hold, or to gauge the effectiveness of offering a
promotion to an upset customer. Id. at 28 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 30, 37, 39–40)
(alteration in original). Petitioner also asserts that Bachar discloses that once
these issues are identified, the business can create improved processes and
coach agents to improve customer satisfaction and decrease customer
attrition. Id. (citing Ex. 1002 ¶ 37).
Patent Owner does not contest Petitioner’s assertions with respect to
limitation 1[a]. See generally PO Resp.; PO Sur-Reply. We are persuaded
that Petitioner has shown by a preponderance of the evidence that the
combination of Bachar discloses limitation 1[a] of independent claim 1.
ii. Limitation 1[b]
With respect to the step of performing an initial processing on the
audio signal, Petitioner asserts that Bachar discloses this limitation. Pet. 29.
Petitioner cites to Bachar as disclosing that an event can be identified in the
call, creating a pivot spot occurring at a specific time, and that pivot point
can be determined based on CTI events, screen events or audio events. Id. at
29–31 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 9, 20, 23, 28, Figs. 2, 3; Ex. 1005 ¶ 74).
Patent Owner does not contest Petitioner’s assertions with respect to
limitation 1[b]. See generally PO Resp.; PO Sur-Reply. We are persuaded
that Petitioner has shown by a preponderance of the evidence that the
combination of Bachar discloses limitation 1[b] of independent claim 1.
iii. Limitation 1[c]
With respect to the step of performing additional processing on a part
of the audio signal, Petitioner asserts that Bachar teaches this limitation,
IPR2020-00221
Patent 7,599,475 B2
32
alone or in combination with APA and/or Freedman. Pet. 32. Petitioner
cites to Bachar as disclosing that, once an event has been identified and a
pivot spot has been placed at the time of the event, a Region of Interest is
established around the pivot spot, where predetermined static periods or
dynamically calculated time periods before and after the location of the pivot
spot make up that Region of Interest. Id. at 32–33 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 20,
24–25, 31, 33, Fig. 2; Ex. 1005 ¶ 77). Petitioner further cites to Bachar as
disclosing that after the Region of Interest is established, an additional, more
processor-intensive type of processing, such as word spotting, is performed
on the audio in the Region of Interest. Id. at 34–35 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 19,
21, 23, 25, 30, 34, 37–40, Fig. 3; Ex. 1005 ¶ 77). In addition, Petitioner cites
to Bachar’s use of emotion analysis to establish the Region of Interest and
the subsequent use of word spotting, asserting that the processing using
emotion analysis corresponds to the “initial processing” recited in limitation
1[b] and the processing using word spotting corresponds to the “additional
processing” recited in limitation 1[c]. Id. at 36–37 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 21,
23–25, 29, 38; Ex. 1005 ¶ 81).
Additionally, Petitioner asserts that APA shows that it was known at
the time the ’475 Patent was filed that processing audio using a transcription
engine was more processing intensive than processing audio with a word
spotting engine and that Freedman confirms that transcription engines were
well-known at the time the ’475 Patent was filed. Pet. 37–38 (citing Ex.
1001, 1:52–2:2; Ex. 1003 ¶ 51). Petitioner asserts that it would have been
obvious to an ordinarily skilled artisan to modify the system of Bachar to
first process audio using word spotting to identify a pivot spot in audio, and
then perform transcription in a Region of Interest around that pivot spot,
because this would allow for the extraction of additional meaningful
IPR2020-00221
Patent 7,599,475 B2
33
information and would have led to a predictable result. Id. at 38 (citing
Ex. 1002 ¶ 8; Ex. 1005 ¶ 84).
Patent Owner argues that Petitioner asserts a series of processes in
Bachar that do not fit the claims. PO Resp. 43. Patent Owner argues that
properly construed, “the additional processing of claim 1 requires a process
other than word spotting, phonetic decoding, emotion detection, call flow
analysis, or talk analysis.” Id. at 44. We do not agree. As Petitioner points
out, this argument rests on Patent Owner’s claim construction, which we
have not adopted. Pet. Reply 21. See Section II.B.1.a.
Patent Owner also argues that Bachar does not disclose applying
transcription, which is described in the ’475 Patent or Freedman, within its
Region of Interest, and the motivation supplied by Petitioner is insufficient.
PO Resp. 44–45. Patent Owner also argues that a person of ordinary skill in
the art would not have found it obvious to apply a blanket speech-to-text
transcription process to simply generate more data because doing so would
run counter to Bachar’s primary goal of overall efficiency. Id. at 46 (citing
Ex. 2004 ¶¶ 110–112; Ex. 2002, 110:19–111:1). We do not agree.
Bachar makes clear that certain types of analysis are substantially less
demanding on computer resources than certain other types, wherein less
demanding analysis steps precede the more demanding analysis steps. Ex.
1002 ¶ 16. Bachar also discloses that “[w]henever possible,” less resource
expensive tests are used to optimize selected regions of the conversation so
that resource expensive tests can be used “on the more ‘interesting’
segments selected for analysis.” Id. As such, Bachar implies that certain
areas, like the Region of Interest, could be the subject of the more resource
expensive tests. See id. ¶ 34. Thus, Bachar alone discloses this limitation of
independent claim 1, through its “last analysis” step, or through its emotion
IPR2020-00221
Patent 7,599,475 B2
34
analysis process, discussed above. Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 19, 21, 23–25, 29, 30, 34,
37–40, Fig. 3. Additionally, APA and Freedman both detail different types
of analyses that have different rates of consumption of time and computing
resources. See Ex. 1001, 1:56–2:2; Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 47, 49. Given the overall
disclosure in Bachar, we agree with Petitioner that one of ordinary skill in
the art would have been motivated to incorporate the transcription process
described in the APA and/or the transcription process disclosed in Freedman
into Bachar’s system. See Pet. 36–40.
With respect to Patent Owner’s argument that applying a blanket
speech-to-text transcription process in Bachar would run counter to its goal
of overall efficiency, we are not persuaded that Petitioner is suggesting a
“blanket” application of speech-to-text transcription, but a more targeted
process. See Pet. 39–40. Although we agree that merely the generation of
more data should not be seen as a general motivation, but a targeted
transcription would allow for application of additional analyses.
We are persuaded that Petitioner has shown by a preponderance of the
evidence that Bachar alone discloses limitation 1[c], and that the
combination of Bachar and/or APA and/or Freedman teaches limitation 1[c]
of independent claim 1.
iv. Limitation 1[d]
With respect to the step of analyzing the at least one event and the
output of the additional processing, Petitioner asserts that Bachar teaches
this limitation, alone or in combination with Freedman. Pet. 40. Petitioner
cites to Bachar as disclosing that businesses had long considered their
interactions with customers to be a major source of information about, and
insight into, their customers and business operations, and as defining the
“concept of [a] Region of Interest” was “as specific segments of interaction
IPR2020-00221
Patent 7,599,475 B2
35
media . . . that can be analyzed in order to extract meaningful and useful
interaction data to an organization.” Id. at 40 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 7, 16; Ex.
1005 ¶ 88) (alterations in original). Petitioner acknowledges that “[w]hile
Bachar does not identify the precise type of analysis used to make this
determination, it would have been obvious to a [person of ordinary skill in
the art (“POSITA”)] to perform some additional analysis, such as one of the
analysis techniques that the ’475 patent admits as prior art (see EX1001,
1:28–47), in order to accomplish these objectives.” Id. at 41.
As such, Petitioner also discusses that Freedman allows a user to set
rules for analyzing the output of the multiple processing steps, and for the
system to then use those rules to analyze the output of the multiple
processing steps to provide information about an organization. Pet. 41–43
(citing Ex. 1003, Abstract, ¶¶ 14, 36, 37, 39–41, 47, 57–59). Petitioner
asserts that one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to
incorporate the rules of Freedman, to analyze information output from
multiple processing steps, into the analysis system of Bachar “to better
reveal information that provides insight to an organization,” and that making
such a modification “would have been well within the abilities of a POSITA
and could be easily accomplished with a high chance of success.” Id. at 43–
44 (citing Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 93, 94).
Patent Owner disputes that Bachar, APA, and/or Freedman teach or
suggest this limitation of claim 1. PO Resp. 49–60. Patent Owner argues
that none of the cited references discloses “analyzing the at least one event”
and “the output of the additional processing.” Id. at 50, 53–54; PO Sur-
Reply 2–5. We do not agree. As Petitioner points out, Bachar explicitly
discloses various scenarios where an organization may process an audio
interaction to identify events, and further process the audio interaction
IPR2020-00221
Patent 7,599,475 B2
36
around the events to identify or analyze certain problems associated with the
organization. Pet. 43 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 36–40). We agree with
Petitioner’s assertions that it would have been obvious to use the multiple
sets of rules from Freedman for the combined system to analyze the output
of the multiple processing steps to provide information about an
organization. Id. We are also persuaded that, given such a structure, the at
least one event and output of additional processing would have been
analyzed to reveal at least one aspect related to the organization.
Patent Owner also argues that the Petition fails to demonstrate that the
asserted prior art discloses or renders obvious the claimed “analyzing,” with
Bachar, at most, identifying a pivot spot and applying a “last analysis”
within a region of interest around the pivot spot. PO Resp. 52–53; PO Sur-
Reply 5. Patent Owner also argues that the Petition does not explain why it
would have been obvious to modify Bachar to perform the analyzing
required by the claims. PO Resp. 54; PO Sur-Reply 5. Patent Owner also
argues that Freedman and APA do not cure the deficiencies of Bachar and
their teachings diverge from each other and from claim 1. PO Resp. 54–56;
PO Sur-Reply 6–7. We disagree. Petitioner has provided a basis to combine
elements of Freedman into the system of Bachar to provide the types of
analysis to provide information about an organization. See Pet. 40–44. We
concur with Petitioner that “[m]odifying the system of Bachar to use rules
for analyzing information output from multiple processing steps to reveal
information about an organization would have been well within the abilities
of a POSITA and could be easily accomplished with a high chance of
success.” Id. at 44.
IPR2020-00221
Patent 7,599,475 B2
37
As such, we are persuaded that Petitioner has shown by a
preponderance of the evidence that the combination of Bachar and Freedman
teaches limitation 1[d] of independent claim 1.
v. Limitation 1[e]
Limitation 1[e] recites, in part, that the analysis comprises “at least
one of the group consisting of: link analysis, root cause analysis, finding
relations, finding connections, finding an at least one hidden pattern, and
clustering of at least two audio segments based on the initial processing.”
Petitioner asserts that Bachar, alone or in combination with APA and/or
Freedman, teaches this limitation. Pet. 45.
Petitioner cites to Bachar as disclosing that the apparatus therein can
analyze audio in a Region of Interest to clarify the reasons the agent put a
customer on hold, or reasons for customer attrition. Pet. 45 (citing Ex. 1002
¶¶ 21, 38). Based on Bachar’s disclosure, Petitioner asserts that Bachar
discloses analyzing audio for events and reasons for events, thereby finding
both relationships between the events and as well as reasons for an event.
Id. Petitioner asserts that in identifying events and information in audio
around events, the system of Bachar also performs link analysis and root
cause analysis, and also finds “relations” or “connections” between the
information and the events. Id. (citing Ex. 1005 ¶ 97). In addition,
Petitioner asserts that the system of Bachar can perform analysis to identify
the reason agents put customers on hold, and can also “identif[y] specific
patterns from the ordinary speech patterns” in an interaction. Id. at 46
(citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 19, 30, 39). Petitioner also asserts that Bachar discloses
that its systems locates associated Regions of Interest and can infer and act
upon the association. Id. (citing Ex. 1002 ¶ 19). Based on those findings,
Petitioner asserts that Bachar discloses identifying a hidden pattern and acts
IPR2020-00221
Patent 7,599,475 B2
38
to cluster audio segments. Id. (citing Ex. 1005 ¶ 98). We agree with
Petitioner’s analysis that Bachar alone discloses link analysis, root cause
analysis, finding relations, finding connections, finding an at least one
hidden pattern, and clustering of at least two audio segments and thus
discloses limitation 1[e].
Additionally, Petitioner asserts that the ’475 Patent acknowledges it
was known (i) to analyze structured information related to audio segments to
analyze issues such as “hidden link analysis between segments” and to
determine “what are the main contributions to call volume,” (ii) to identify
“hidden link[s]” between audio segments, and (iii) to detect “patterns” in
audio. Pet. 46–47 (citing Ex. 1001, 1:34–39). Based on these findings,
Petitioner determines that the APA discloses it was known to find
“relations,” “connections,” and “hidden patterns” between audio segments,
as well as “clustering of at least two audio segments” into categories. Id. at
47 (citing Ex. 1005 ¶ 99).
As well, Petitioner asserts that Freedman discloses analyzing audio to
identify, for example, where “negative excitement on the agent side [is]
followed by a negative excitement on the customer side” in order to detect
“unprofessional behavior of an agent,” asserting that Freedman discloses
link analysis and root cause analysis. Pet. 47 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 57).
Additionally, according to Petitioner, Freedman discloses detecting relations
or connections between audio segments, thus identifying hidden patterns, as
well as analyzing audio to identify events, and then associating the events, or
identifying “multiple occurrences of events in a certain time frame,” thus
disclosing clustering of at least two audio segments. Id. at 47–48 (citing Ex.
1003 ¶¶ 37, 41, 57, 59).
IPR2020-00221
Patent 7,599,475 B2
39
Petitioner asserts that link analysis, root cause analysis, finding
relations, finding connections, finding an at least one hidden pattern, and
clustering of at least two audio segments based on the initial processing were
well-known at the time the ’475 Patent was filed as illustrated by APA and
Freedman. Pet. 48. Petitioner further asserts that one of ordinary skill in the
art would have been motivated to modify the system of Bachar to perform
any of listed types of analyses to better uncover information and insight
about customers and business operations. Id. Petitioner further asserts that
such modifications would have been well within the abilities of an ordinarily
skilled artisan and could be easily accomplished with a high chance of
success. Id. at 48–49 (citing Ex. 1005 ¶ 101). We agree with Petitioner’s
analysis regarding the disclosures of APA and Freedman, and we also agree
with Petitioner’s analysis that one of ordinary skill in the art would have
been motivated to combine aspects of APA and Freedman with the system
of Bachar, as Petitioner has asserted to apply all of the analysis methods
listed in limitation 1[e].
Patent Owner does not contest Petitioner’s assertions with respect to
limitation 1[e], other than espousing different or additional claim
constructions for the terms recited in this limitation. See PO Resp. 57–60.
As discussed in Sections II.B.1.b–g, we have not adopted Patent Owner’s
constructions.
Given the Markush group construction in limitation 1[e], we
determine that Petitioner has demonstrated at least one of the analysis
processes listed therein and this is sufficient to show the obviousness of that
limitation. See Fresenius USA, Inc. v. Baxter Int’l, Inc., 582 F.3d 1288,
1297–98 (Fed. Cir. 2009). Additionally, as discussed above, Petitioner has
demonstrated that all of the elements of the Markush group have been
IPR2020-00221
Patent 7,599,475 B2
40
disclosed by Bachar and/or APA and/or Freedman. Accordingly, we
determine that Petitioner has shown by a preponderance of evidence that
Bachar alone discloses limitation 1[e], and that the combination of Bachar
and/or APA and/or Freedman teaches limitation 1[e] of independent claim 1.
iii. Summary
Accordingly, we determine that Petitioner has shown by a
preponderance of evidence that independent claim 1 of the ’475 Patent
would have been obvious over the combination of Bachar, APA, and
Freedman.
b) Dependent claim 2
With respect to dependent claim 2, that claim recites a preprocessing
step for enhancing the audio signal. Petitioner asserts that Bachar, alone or
in combination with Freedman, teaches this limitation. Pet. 49–50.
Petitioner asserts that Bachar discloses that regions of interest can be
optimized to accomplish a reduction in size thereof, with one example of
speaker separation being performed, that would better enhance the
performance of the apparatus and to preserve system resources. Id. at 49
(citing Ex. 1002 ¶ 31; Ex. 1005 ¶ 104). Petitioner also asserts that Freedman
discloses use of a “pre-processing and content extraction stage” that includes
an “audio classification module” for “speaker segmentation” and a “noise
reduction software module” for “noise reduction.” Id. (citing Ex. 1003
¶¶ 45–51, 55, Fig. 4; Ex. 1005 ¶ 105). Petitioner asserts that one of ordinary
skill in the art would have been motivated to modify the system of Bachar to
segment audio based on speaker and/or reduce audio noise before analyzing
the audio, as taught by Freedman, to reduce resources required to analyze
the audio. Id. at 50 (citing Ex. 1005 ¶ 106).
IPR2020-00221
Patent 7,599,475 B2
41
Patent Owner does not present arguments contesting Petitioner’s
additional allegations for this claim. See generally PO Resp.; PO Sur-Reply.
We agree with Petitioner that one of ordinary skill in the art would have
been motivated to combine the teachings of Bachar and Freedman to render
claim 2 obvious for the reasons provided by Petitioner. Accordingly, we
determine that Petitioner has shown by a preponderance of evidence that
claim 2 of the ’475 Patent would have been obvious over the combination of
Bachar and Freedman.
c) Dependent claim 8
Dependent claim 8 provides specific processes from which the initial
processing comprises in the form of a Markush group. Specifically, claim 8
depends from claim 1 and adds “wherein the initial processing comprises
activating at least one of the group consisting of: a word spotting process, a
phonetic decoding process, an emotion detection process, and a call flow
analysis process.” Petitioner asserts that Bachar discloses at least one of the
recited processes. Pet. 50. Petitioner asserts that Bachar discloses
processing an audio signal to identify an event, and then creating a pivot
spot at the location in time at which the event occurred, such that it discloses
that the event can be identified using word spotting, emotion detection, or
detection of Computer Telephony Interface (CTI) events (i.e., a call flow
analysis). Id. at 51 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 19, 23). Petitioner asserts that one of
ordinary skill in the art would have motivated to modify the system of
Bachar to include a phonetic search engine as an analysis option for initially
processing an audio signal to identify a pivot spot to improve extraction of
information meaningful to an organization. Id. at 51–52 (citing Ex. 1005
¶ 113).
IPR2020-00221
Patent 7,599,475 B2
42
Patent Owner does not present arguments contesting Petitioner’s
additional allegations for this claim. See generally PO Resp.; PO Sur-Reply.
We agree with Petitioner that Bachar discloses or suggests all of the
processes, i.e., a word spotting process, a phonetic decoding process, an
emotion detection process, and a call flow analysis process, as recited in
claim 8, and that one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated
to combine the teachings of Bachar and APA to render claim 8 obvious for
the reasons provided by Petitioner. Accordingly, we determine that
Petitioner has shown by a preponderance of evidence that claim 8 of the
’475 Patent would have been obvious over the combination of Bachar, APA,
and Freedman.
d) Dependent claim 9
Dependent claim 9 provides that the additional processing comprises
activating a speech-to-text process. Petitioner asserts that Bachar discloses
that the region of interest in the audio signal can be processed using word
spotting, including the use of transcription to translate speech elements
within the audio to text. Pet. 52–53 (citing Ex. 1002, ¶¶ 19, 21, 24, 25, 30,
33, 38). Petitioner asserts that one of ordinary skill in the art would have
motivated to modify the system of Bachar to include transcription as a type
of processing that could be conducted on a region of interest in the audio.
Id. at 53 (citing Ex. 1005 ¶ 117).
Patent Owner does not present arguments contesting Petitioner’s
additional allegations for this claim. See generally PO Resp.; PO Sur-Reply.
We agree with Petitioner that Bachar discloses the subject matter of claim 9,
and that one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to
combine the teachings of Bachar and/or APA and/or Freedman to render
claim 9 obvious for the reasons provided by Petitioner. Accordingly, we
IPR2020-00221
Patent 7,599,475 B2
43
determine that Petitioner has shown by a preponderance of evidence that
claim 9 of the ’475 Patent would have been obvious over the combination of
Bachar, APA, and Freedman.
e) Dependent claim 10
Dependent claim 10 recites a Markush group of sources for the audio
signal to be processed. Petitioner asserts that Bachar alone or in
combination with the APA discloses at least one of the recited sources. Pet.
53. Petitioner asserts that Bachar discloses that the processed media could
be an “audio recording of a telephone conversation” and a Voice Over
Internet Protocol (VoIP) interaction. Id. at 53–54 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 15, 17,
20, 27, 39; Ex. 1005 ¶ 121). Petitioner also asserts that (i) the ’475 Patent
admits that it was known to extract information from audio segments
receives from a variety of sources, such as a TV broadcast, a radio
broadcast, and other sources recited in claim 10, (ii) one of ordinary skill in
the art would have motivated to have substituted any of these audio sources
for the telephone audio source of Bachar, and (iii) any such substitution
would have led to predictable results at the time the ’475 Patent was filed.
Id. at 54 (citing Ex. 1001, 1:16–28; Ex. 1005 ¶ 123).
Patent Owner does not present arguments contesting Petitioner’s
additional allegations for this claim. See generally PO Resp.; PO Sur-Reply.
We agree with Petitioner that Bachar alone discloses the subject matter of
claim 10 and that Bachar in combination with APA teaches the subject
matter of claim 10, and that one of ordinary skill in the art would have been
motivated to combine the teachings of Bachar and APA to render claim 10
obvious for the reasons provided by Petitioner. Accordingly, we determine
that Petitioner has shown by a preponderance of evidence that claim 10 of
IPR2020-00221
Patent 7,599,475 B2
44
the ’475 Patent would have been obvious over the combination of Bachar,
APA, and Freedman.
D. Alleged Obviousness of Claims 3–7 Over Bachar, APA,
Freedman, and Conway
Petitioner contends that claims 3–78 would have been obvious over
Bachar, APA, Freedman, and Conway. Pet. 62–69. To support its
contentions, Petitioner provides explanations as to how the combination of
Bachar, APA, Freedman, and Conway teach each claim limitation and that
there is a rationale to combine the references. Id. Patent Owner argues that
the combination does not render obvious the “presentation step” of claim 3.
PO Resp. 61–62.
We begin our discussion with a brief summary of Conway, and then
address the evidence and arguments presented.
1. Conway (Ex. 1004)
Conway is directed to a method of analyzing a telephonic
communication between a customer and a contact center, where the
telephonic communication is separated and mined through application of a
predetermined linguistic-based psychological behavioral model, and
behavioral assessment data are generated which correspond to the analyzed
voice data. Ex. 1004, Abstract. Conway discloses that a monitoring system
can perform a stress analysis to determine a stress parameter, from which it
can be determined whether the customer experience of the caller was
satisfactory or unsatisfactory. Id. ¶ 7. Conway discloses that its system has
a unique graphical user interface (“GUI”) that enables the user to navigate

8 We acknowledge that claims 13 and 15–17 were also asserted under this
ground of unpatentability but have been omitted from consideration per
Section II.B.3 supra.
IPR2020-00221
Patent 7,599,475 B2
45
through the system to obtain reports and information regarding caller
interaction events stored in memory. Id. ¶ 121. The interface enables the
user to search for calls based on user-defined criteria, where results from a
search may be visually depicted as a list of calls, where a time-based
representation of the characteristics of the call may be presented. Id.
¶¶ 130–132, Fig. 17. Visual call statistics, including call duration, average
duration for call type, caller talk time, number of holds over predetermined
time periods, number of silences, and a customer satisfaction score, can also
be displayed. Id. ¶ 134.
2. Analysis
In addition to the aspects of Conway discussed above, Petitioner
asserts that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious
to incorporate those aspects of Conway into the combination of Bachar,
APA, and Freedman. Pet. 62–69.
a) Dependent claim 3
Claim 3 depends from claim 1 and adds “further comprising a
presentation step for presenting a presentation of the at least one aspect
related to the organization.” Petitioner asserts that one of ordinary skill in
the art would have been motivated to combine the disclosures of Bachar and
Conway to suggest the limitation added by claim 3. Pet. 63. More
specifically, Petitioner asserts that one of ordinary skill in the art would have
modified the apparatus of Bachar to display customer information about an
organization in a GUI, such as a customer satisfaction score revealed in
analyzing an audio signal, as taught by Conway, in order to provide
feedback to an organization that could be useful in improving customer
relations. Id. (citing Ex. 1004 ¶¶ 6, 136–137, 141, 138–142; Ex. 1005
¶ 151).
IPR2020-00221
Patent 7,599,475 B2
46
Patent Owner argues that Bachar merely discloses displaying events
but does not discloses or suggest what those reports and queries include. PO
Resp. 61 (citing Ex. 2004 ¶¶ 136–137, 141). Patent Owner also argues that
Conway is similarly deficient and Petitioner does not explain how a
“customer satisfaction score” has any relevance to the claims. Id. Patent
Owner continues that neither reference teaches or suggests that its score is a
function of an analysis of an event and the additional words around the
event, let alone any comparison between the two involving a specific
analysis technique. Id. at 61–62 (citing Ex. 2004 ¶¶ 138–142).
We do not agree with Patent Owner’s arguments. As discussed above
in Section II.B.2, claim 3 recites, in part, “a presentation step for presenting
a presentation of the at least one aspect related to the organization.” We
continue to determine that claim 3 requires the presentation of the aspect,
which is a result of the analysis, but not presentation of the analysis itself,
per se. As discussed with respect to independent claim 1, we are persuaded
that Bachar and/or the combination of Bachar, APA, and Freedman teaches
the determination of the at least one aspect related to the organization. The
addition of Conway provides additional options for how that aspect may be
presented, and we are persuaded that Petitioner has demonstrated that one of
ordinary skill in the art would have modified the apparatus of Bachar as
taught by Conway. Pet. 62-64 (citing Ex. 1004 ¶¶ 6–8, 112–115, 121, 130–
134, 128–140).
Accordingly, we determine that Petitioner has shown by a
preponderance of evidence that claim 3 of the ’475 Patent would have been
obvious over the combination of Bachar, APA, Freedman, and Conway.
IPR2020-00221
Patent 7,599,475 B2
47
b) Dependent claim 4
Claim 4 recites “[t]he method of claim 3 wherein the presentation is a
graphic presentation.” Petitioner asserts that one of ordinary skill in the art
would have been motivated to combine the disclosures of Bachar and
Conway to suggest the limitation added by claim 4. Pet. 64. Petitioner
asserts that one of ordinary skill in the art would have modified the
apparatus of Bachar to display information revealed in analyzing an audio
signal, such as information indicative of customer satisfaction or
dissatisfaction, in a GUI, as taught by Conway. Id. (citing Ex. 1004 ¶¶ 6,
136–137, 141, 138–142; Ex. 1005 ¶ 155). Patent Owner does not present
arguments contesting Petitioner’s additional allegations for this claim. See
generally PO Resp.; PO Sur-Reply. We agree with Petitioner that one of
ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine the teachings
of Bachar and Conway to render claim 4 obvious for the reasons provided by
Petitioner. Accordingly, we determine that Petitioner has shown by a
preponderance of evidence that claim 4 of the ’475 Patent would have been
obvious over the combination of Bachar, APA, Freedman, and Conway.
c) Dependent claim 5
Claim 5 recites “[t]he method of claim 3 wherein the at least one
event is marked on the presentation wherein the marking is indicative to a
characteristic of the event.” Petitioner asserts that one of ordinary skill in
the art would have been motivated to combine the disclosures of Bachar and
Conway to suggest the limitation added by claim 5. Pet. 64–67. Petitioner
asserts that one of ordinary skill in the art would have modified the
apparatus of Bachar to display information revealed in analyzing an audio
signal in a GUI, as taught by Conway, and that it would have been obvious
to indicate the events within the audio signal in the GUI by displaying a
IPR2020-00221
Patent 7,599,475 B2
48
progress bar with the events marked with colored points and colored line
segments, and with a key identifying which colors correspond to which
types of events, as taught by Conway. Id. at 65–67 (citing Ex. 1004 ¶¶ 6,
136–137, 141, 138–142; Ex. 1005 ¶ 160). Patent Owner does not present
arguments contesting Petitioner’s additional allegations for this claim. See
generally PO Resp.; PO Sur-Reply. We agree with Petitioner that one of
ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine the teachings
of Bachar and Conway to render claim 5 obvious for the reasons provided by
Petitioner. Accordingly, we determine that Petitioner has shown by a
preponderance of evidence that claim 5 of the ’475 Patent would have been
obvious over the combination of Bachar, APA, Freedman, and Conway.
d) Dependent claim 6
Claim 6 recites “[t]he method of claim 3 wherein a connection
between the at least one event and the at least one aspect is marked.”
Petitioner asserts that one of ordinary skill in the art would have been
motivated to combine the disclosures of Bachar and Conway to suggest the
limitation added by claim 6. Pet. 67–68. Petitioner asserts that one of
ordinary skill in the art would have modified the apparatus of Bachar to
display information revealed in analyzing an audio signal in a GUI and to
indicate the events within the audio signal in the GUI by displaying a
progress bar with the events marked with colored points and colored line
segments, as taught by Conway. Id. at 68 (citing Ex. 1004 ¶¶ 6, 136–137,
141, 138–142; Ex. 1005 ¶ 164). Patent Owner does not present arguments
contesting Petitioner’s additional allegations for this claim. See generally
PO Resp.; PO Sur-Reply. We agree with Petitioner that one of ordinary skill
in the art would have been motivated to combine the teachings of Bachar
and Conway to render claim 6 obvious for the reasons provided by
IPR2020-00221
Patent 7,599,475 B2
49
Petitioner. Accordingly, we determine that Petitioner has shown by a
preponderance of evidence that claim 6 of the ’475 Patent would have been
obvious over the combination of Bachar, APA, Freedman, and Conway.
e) Dependent claim 7
Claim 7 recites “[t]he method of claim 6 wherein the connection is
marked in a manner indicative to a characteristic of the connection.”
Petitioner asserts that one of ordinary skill in the art would have been
motivated to combine the disclosures of Bachar and Conway to suggest the
limitation added by claim 7. Pet. 68–69. Petitioner asserts that one of
ordinary skill in the art would have modified the apparatus of Bachar to
display information revealed in analyzing an audio signal in a GUI and to
indicate the events within the audio signal in the GUI by displaying a
progress bar with the events marked with colored points and colored line
segments and with a key identifying which colors correspond to which types
of events, as taught by Conway. Id. at 69 (citing Ex. 1005 ¶ 168). Patent
Owner does not present arguments contesting Petitioner’s additional
allegations for this claim. See generally PO Resp.; PO Sur-Reply. We agree
with Petitioner that one of ordinary skill in the art would have been
motivated to combine the teachings of Bachar and Conway to render claim 7
obvious for the reasons provided by Petitioner. Accordingly, we determine
that Petitioner has shown by a preponderance of evidence that claim 7 of the
’475 Patent would have been obvious over the combination of Bachar, APA,
Freedman, and Conway.
3. Summary
We determine that Petitioner has shown by a preponderance of
evidence that claims 3–7 would have been obvious over Bachar, APA,
Freedman, and Conway.
IPR2020-00221
Patent 7,599,475 B2
50

IV. CONCLUSION9
In summary:

V. ORDER
For the reasons given, it is:
ORDERED that Petitioner has established based on a preponderance
of evidence that claims 1–10 of U.S. Patent 7,599,475 B2 are unpatentable
as obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103;
FURTHER ORDERED that Petitioner has failed to establish based on
a preponderance of evidence that claims 11–17 of U.S. Patent 7,599,475 B2
are unpatentable as obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103; and

9 Should Patent Owner wish to pursue amendment of the challenged claims
in a reissue or reexamination proceeding subsequent to the issuance of this
decision, we draw Patent Owner’s attention to the April 2019 Notice
Regarding Options for Amendments by Patent Owner Through Reissue or
Reexamination During a Pending AIA Trial Proceeding. See 84 Fed. Reg.
16,654 (Apr. 22, 2019). If Patent Owner chooses to file a reissue application
or a request for reexamination of the challenged patent, we remind Patent
Owner of its continuing obligation to notify the Board of any such related
matters in updated mandatory notices. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(a)(3), (b)(2).
Claims
35
U.S.C.
§
Reference(s)/Basis
Claims
Shown
Unpatentable
Claims
Not shown
Unpatentable
1, 2, 8–12,
14
103 Bachar, APA,
Freedman
1, 2, 8–10 11, 12, 14
3–7, 13,
15–17
103 Bachar, APA,
Freedman, Conway
3–7 13, 15–17
Overall
Outcome
1–10 11–17
IPR2020-00221
Patent 7,599,475 B2
51
FURTHER ORDERED because this is a final written decision, the
parties to this proceeding seeking judicial review of our Decision must
comply with the notice and service requirements of 37 C.F.R. § 90.2.

IPR2020-00221
Patent 7,599,475 B2
52
FOR PETITIONER:
James M. Heintz
Michael Van Handel
Michael G. Strapp
Safraz W. Ishmael
DLA Piper LLP (US)
jim.heintz@dlapiper.com
michael.vanhandel@dlapiper.com
michael.strapp@dlapiper.com
safraz.ishmael@dlapiper.com

FOR PATENT OWNER:
Jeffrey A. Berkowitz
Gerson S. Panitch
Michael V. Young
Christopher C. Johns
Guang-Yu Zhu
Alexander M. Boyer
Jency J. Mathew
Kelly S. Horn
Joseph M. Schaffner
FINNEGAN, HENDERSON, FARABOW,
GARRETT & DUNNER, LLP
jeffrey.berkowitz@finnegan.com
gerson.panitch@finnegan.com
michael.young@finnegan.com
christopher.johns@finnegan.com
guang-yu.zhu@finnegan.com
alexander.boyer@finnegan.com
jency.mathew@finnegan.com
kelly.horn@finnegan.com
joseph.schaffner@finnegan.com