MModal Services Ltd.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Jul 15, 2020

IPR2019-00499 (P.T.A.B. Jul. 15, 2020)

Trials@uspto.gov Paper 36
Tel: 571-272-7822 Date: July 15, 2020

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

NUANCE COMMUNICATIONS, INC.,
Petitioner,

v.

MMODAL SERVICES LTD.,
Patent Owner.
____________

IPR2019-00499
Patent 8,781,829 B2
____________

Before JOHN A. HUDALLA, STACY B. MARGOLIES, and
STEVEN M. AMUNDSON, Administrative Patent Judges.

AMUNDSON, Administrative Patent Judge.

JUDGMENT
Final Written Decision
Determining All Challenged Claims Unpatentable
35 U.S.C. § 318(a)

IPR2019-00499
Patent 8,781,829 B2

2
I. INTRODUCTION
Nuance Communications, Inc., (“Petitioner”) filed a Petition (Paper 2,
“Pet.”) requesting an inter partes review of claims 1, 4, 6, 12, 13, 18, 21, 25,
and 26 of U.S. Patent No. 8,781,829 B2 (Ex. 1001, “the ’829 patent”) under
35 U.S.C. §§ 311–319. MModal Services Ltd. (“Patent Owner”) did not file
a Preliminary Response.
In our Institution Decision (Paper 7, “Inst. Dec.”), we instituted
review based on all challenged claims and all grounds advanced in the
Petition. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6. We issue this Final
Written Decision under 35 U.S.C. § 318(a) and 37 C.F.R. § 42.73. For the
reasons explained below, Petitioner has shown by a preponderance of the
evidence that claims 1, 4, 6, 12, 13, 18, 21, 25, and 26 of the ’829 patent are
unpatentable. See 35 U.S.C. § 316(e) (2012).
II. BACKGROUND
A. Procedural History
After we instituted review, Patent Owner filed a Response (Paper 23,
“Resp.”), Petitioner filed a Reply (Paper 26, “Reply”), and Patent Owner
filed a Sur-reply (Paper 29, “Sur-reply”). On April 20, 2020, we held an
oral hearing, and the record includes a transcript of the hearing. See
Paper 35 (“Tr.”).
B. Real Parties in Interest
Petitioner identifies itself as the real party in interest. Pet. 1. Patent
Owner identifies the following real parties in interest: MModal Services
Ltd., MModal LLC, 3M Health Information Systems, Inc., Multimodal
Technologies, LLC, 3M Innovative Properties Company, and 3M Company.
Paper 34, 1. The parties do not raise any issue about real parties in interest.
IPR2019-00499
Patent 8,781,829 B2

3
C. Related Matters
Petitioner and Patent Owner identify the following civil action where
Patent Owner has asserted the ’829 patent against Petitioner: MModal
Services Ltd. v. Nuance Communications, Inc., No. 1:18-cv-00901-WMR
(N.D. Ga. filed Feb. 28, 2018). Pet. 1; Paper 4, 1.
Patent Owner identifies another petition challenging the patentability
of claims of another patent asserted by Patent Owner against Petitioner in
the above-identified civil action, i.e., IPR2019-00496 (U.S. Patent
No. 8,412,524 B2). Paper 4, 1. Patent Owner also identifies a pending
application related to the ’829 patent. Id.
D. The ’829 Patent (Ex. 1001)
The ’829 patent explains that a “variety of automatic speech
recognition (ASR) systems exist for recognizing speech and for generating
text and/or commands based on such speech.” Ex. 1001, 1:16–18. The
patent identifies two broad system categories: systems with freeform-input
modalities and systems with structured-input modalities. See id. at 1:38–3:4.
Systems with freeform-input modalities “allow users to dictate
freeform text that is entered directly into documents exactly as spoken,
except possibly with spelling corrections or other minor corrections
applied.” Ex. 1001, 1:21–24. Those systems commonly work “in
conjunction with word processors to dictate memos, articles, and other
prose documents.” Id. at 1:24–27.
Systems with structured-input modalities “generate and input data in a
structured format based on the user’s speech.” Ex. 1001, 1:27–29. Those
systems “may be used to enter data into a database form, in which data in
IPR2019-00499
Patent 8,781,829 B2

4
each field is constrained to have only certain values and to be represented in
certain formats.” Id. at 1:29–32.
The ’829 patent discusses various advantages and disadvantages of
systems in each category. See id. at 1:38–3:4, 3:57–4:32. In particular, the
patent explains that systems with structured-input modalities (1) process data
“in the form of discrete data elements that computers can act on easily and
automatically,” (2) “enable data to be input in a form such that” computers
can discern meaning unambiguously “without the need for further
interpretation,” and (3) “reduce the frequency of errors in the form of
omissions of relevant and/or required data.” Id. at 1:49–51, 1:62–65,
4:29–32. To illustrate those advantages, the patent includes the following
example:
[I]f a patient has an allergy to allergen X and currently takes
medication Y, if these two facts are input using structured input
modalities (such as by using dropdown lists for selecting
allergens and medications, respectively), then the resulting data
can be encoded in discrete data elements representing allergen
X and medication Y, respectively, and a computer can
perform[] processing on such information easily and
automatically, such as by comparing the data to
contraindications on a predetermined list to determine whether
allergen X is contraindicated with medication Y.
Id. at 1:51–61. But because systems with structured-input modalities
“constrain[] the input options available to the user, they may fail to capture
information that cannot accurately be represented using the available
options.” Id. at 1:44–48.
Conversely, systems with freeform-input modalities “allow the user to
provide a wide range of input and therefore to capture subtleties in the
information provided.” Ex. 1001, 1:41–44. But in those systems the speech
IPR2019-00499
Patent 8,781,829 B2

5
input “must be parsed and interpreted in an attempt to discern” its meaning
before a computer can process the information. Id. at 1:65–2:3. And that
“parsing and interpretation” may introduce errors that “can impede the
ability to perform the kind of processing that can be performed easily and
automatically using data” supplied through structured-input modalities. Id.
at 2:3–6.
The ’829 patent explains that the invention provides “the advantages
of both freeform and structured input modalities, while reducing or
eliminating the disadvantages of both such input modalities.” Ex. 1001,
4:33–36; see id. at 10:60–64. The patent also explains that the invention
combines the ability of freeform-input modalities “to enable users to provide
unbiased and nuanced input” with the ability of structured-input modalities
“to enforce requirements that certain kinds of data be input.” Id. at
10:64–11:1. By combining those abilities, the invention “reduce[s] the
frequency of errors in the form of omissions of relevant and/or required
data.” Id. at 4:29–32. According to the patent, “[r]educed errors and higher
degrees of completeness can be particularly beneficial in contexts, such as
medical reporting,” where (1) “the accuracy and completeness of reports can
have an impact on human health and safety” and (2) “accurate and complete
reports are necessary to comply with regulations and to obtain
reimbursement for the procedures that resulted in the reports.” Id. at
11:22–28.
The ’829 patent describes a method that includes (1) “applying
automatic speech recognition to an audio signal to produce a structured
document representing contents of the audio signal,” (2) “determining
whether the structured document includes an indication of compliance with
IPR2019-00499
Patent 8,781,829 B2

6
a best practice to produce a conclusion,” and (3) “inserting content into the
structured document, based on the conclusion, to produce a modified
structured document.” Ex. 1001, 3:8–15, 4:38–40, 5:7–9, 7:25–27,
code (57), Fig. 2. The patent also describes a system that accomplishes the
method. Id. at 3:16–27.
Figure 1A of the ’829 patent (reproduced below) is a block diagram of
a system according to one embodiment of the invention. Ex. 1001, 3:39–41.

Figure 1A shows computing device 101 including automatic speech
recognition system 102 with structured document generator 104 and
structured document analyzer 106. Id. at 4:48–51, 5:9–15.
IPR2019-00499
Patent 8,781,829 B2

7
In operation, users “dictate information in freeform, as if they were
dictating a document to be transcribed into a freeform transcript.” Ex. 1001,
4:41–43. Automatic speech recognition system 102 “generate[s] a
transcription 108 of the audio signal and provide[s] the transcription 108” to
structured document generator 104 to generate a structured document. Id.
at 4:52–55.
Figure 1B of the ’829 patent (reproduced below) “is a block diagram
depicting one embodiment of a structured document representing contents of
an audio signal.” Ex. 1001, 3:42–43.

IPR2019-00499
Patent 8,781,829 B2

8
Figure 1B shows structured document 120 with first portion 122 and second
portion 126. Id. at 4:55–63. First portion 122 “contains information 124
(e.g., ‘The doctor ordered blood work for diabetic Patient Smith’).” Id.
Second portion 126 “does not contain any information.” Id.
In a preferred embodiment, a structured document “encodes concepts
from the user’s speech into discrete data elements.” Ex. 1001, 4:44–47. In
addition, a structured document may “include a plurality of portions,” such
as “sub-templates, sub-portions or document components.” Id. at 4:56–58,
8:46–49; see id. at 3:43–44, 3:48–49, Figs. 1B, 1D.
Structured document analyzer 106 analyzes a structured document
“to determine whether [it] includes an indication of compliance with a best
practice and produces a conclusion that represents the outcome of the
determination.” Ex. 1001, 5:9–15. Structured document analyzer 106 may
determine whether the structured document includes “an indication of
compliance with a best practice” based on “the presence of information” or
“the absence of information” in the structured document. Id. at 5:15–22; see
id. at code (57).
Best practices include “rules, guidelines, or preferences” for
information “included in [a] report (such as the patient’s name and date of
the patient’s visit)” and actions “required to be taken before [a] report can be
completed (such as performing a particular procedure, such as a foot exam,
on the patient during the visit described in the report).” Ex. 1001, 6:8–16.
For instance, best practices may “take the form of rules that operate on
discrete data elements in structured reports,” such as “dates, medications,
allergies, and diagnoses” in medical reports. Id. at 6:31–33, 6:60–67.
IPR2019-00499
Patent 8,781,829 B2

9
Further, “[s]uch rules may operate on freeform text in addition to or instead
of discrete data elements.” Id. at 6:39–40.
The system may “provide guidance to the user to provide input, such
as additions to, deletions from, or modifications to” the structured document
to cause it “to conform to the best practices or to reduce the extent to which”
it “fails to conform to the best practices.” Ex. 1001, 7:10–15. For instance,
“structured document analyzer 106 may transmit an instruction” to
“structured document generator 104 to generate a prompt within the
structured document,” and “structured document generator 104 may render
the modified structured document for review by the user.” Id. at 7:34–39.
A “prompt may take the form of a form field, such as a text field, check box,
or dropdown list, into which the user may directly provide input in response
to the prompt.” Id. at 8:36–39; see id. at 8:56–58, Fig. 1D. The system
updates the structured document with the user input. Id. at 7:27–34.
Figure 1D of the ’829 patent (reproduced below) “is a block diagram
depicting one embodiment of a structured document modified to request
additional content.” Ex. 1001, 3:48–49.
IPR2019-00499
Patent 8,781,829 B2

10

Figure 1D shows modified structured document 121 with first portion 122
and second portion 126. Id. at 8:49–53. First portion 122 contains
information 124. Id. Second portion 126 does not contain any information.
Id. But second portion 126 includes prompt 128, i.e., “a text field into which
a user may provide missing information.” Id. at 8:53–58. In addition,
second portion 126 includes label 130 “displayed near the prompt” that
“draws attention to the prompt” and “provides guidance as to a type of
information requested.” Id. at 8:53–60.
IPR2019-00499
Patent 8,781,829 B2

11
E. The Challenged Claims
Petitioner challenges independent claim 1 and eight claims that
depend directly or indirectly from claim 1, i.e., claims 4, 6, 12, 13, 18, 21,
25, and 26. Pet. 7–8, 14–73. Independent claim 1 exemplifies the
challenged claims and reads as follows:
1. A computer-implemented method performed by at
least one computer processor, the method comprising:
(A) applying automatic speech recognition to an audio
signal to produce a structured document representing contents
of the audio signal;
(B) determining whether the structured document
includes an indication of compliance for each of a plurality
of best practices to produce a conclusion;
(C) inserting content into the structured document, based
on the conclusion, to produce a modified structured document;
(D) generating a first indication that a user should
provide additional input of a first type to conform the structured
document to a first best practice in the plurality of best
practices; and
(E) generating a second indication that the user should
provide additional input of a second type to conform the
structured document to a second best practice in the plurality
of best practices.
Ex. 1001, 13:5–23.
F. The Asserted Prior Art
For its challenges, Petitioner relies on the following prior-art
publications:
1. U.S. Patent Application Publication 2005/0228815 A1 to Carus
et al., titled “Categorization of Information Using Natural Language
IPR2019-00499
Patent 8,781,829 B2

12
Processing and Predefined Templates,” and published October 13, 2005
(Ex. 1006, “Carus”).
2. Silvia Panzarasa et al., Technical Solutions for Integrating Clinical
Practice Guidelines with Electronic Patient Records, in KNOWLEDGE
REPRESENTATION FOR HEALTH-CARE: DATA, PROCESSES AND GUIDELINES
141–54 (2010) (Ex. 1007, “Panzarasa”); see Ex. 1022 ¶¶ 23, 25, 27,
Attachments 1A–1B.
3. U.S. Patent Application Publication 2009/0187407 A1 to Soble
et al., titled “System and Methods for Reporting,” and published July 23,
2009 (Ex. 1008, “Soble”).
G. Testimonial Evidence
To support its challenges, Petitioner relies on two declarations of
Andrew Sears, Ph.D. (Ex. 1003, “Sears Decl.”; Ex. 1025, “Sears Reply
Decl.”). Patent Owner relies on the declaration of Jordan Cohen, Ph.D.
(Ex. 2003, “Cohen Decl.”). The record includes transcripts of Dr. Sears’s
depositions (Ex. 2016, “Sears 1st Dep.”; Ex. 2022, “Sears 2nd Dep.”) and
a transcript of Dr. Cohen’s deposition (Ex. 1030, “Cohen Dep.”).
H. The Asserted Grounds of Unpatentability
We instituted an inter partes review of claims 1, 4, 6, 12, 13, 18, 21,
25, and 26 on the following grounds:
Claims Challenged 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis
1, 4, 6, 12, 13,
21, 25, 26 103(a)
1 Carus in view of an ordinarily skilled artisan’s knowledge

1 On September 16, 2012, the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act (“AIA”),
Pub. L. No. 112-29, 125 Stat. 284 (2011), took effect and amended
IPR2019-00499
Patent 8,781,829 B2

13
Claims Challenged 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis
12, 13, 18, 25 103(a) Carus in view of an ordinarily skilled artisan’s knowledge and Panzarasa
1, 4, 6, 12, 13, 18,
21, 25, 26 103(a)
Soble in view of an ordinarily skilled
artisan’s knowledge
Inst. Dec. 8–9, 39–40.
I. Burden
Petitioner bears “the burden of proving . . . unpatentability by
a preponderance of the evidence.” 35 U.S.C. § 316(e); see 37 C.F.R.
§ 42.1(d) (2018).
III. PATENTABILITY ANALYSIS
A. Legal Principles: Obviousness
A patent may not be obtained “if the differences between the subject
matter sought to be patented 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.”
35 U.S.C. § 103(a). An obviousness analysis involves underlying factual
inquiries including (1) the scope and content of the prior art; (2) differences
between the claimed invention and the prior art; (3) the level of ordinary
skill in the art; and (4) where in evidence, objective evidence of
nonobviousness, such as commercial success, long-felt but unsolved needs,
and failure of others. Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 1718, 35–36
(1966); Apple Inc. v. Samsung Elecs. Co., 839 F.3d 1034, 1047–48

35 U.S.C. § 103. Because the ’829 patent’s filing date predates the AIA’s
amendments to § 103, this decision refers to the pre-AIA version of § 103.
IPR2019-00499
Patent 8,781,829 B2

14
(Fed. Cir. 2016) (en banc). When evaluating a combination of references, an
obviousness analysis should address “whether there was an apparent reason
to combine the known elements in the fashion claimed by the patent at
issue.” KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007).
We analyze the obviousness issues according to these principles.
B. Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art
Factors pertinent to determining the level of ordinary skill in the art
include (1) the educational level of the inventor; (2) the type of problems
encountered in the art; (3) prior-art solutions to those problems; (4) the
rapidity with which innovations are made; (5) the sophistication of the
technology; and (6) the educational level of workers active in the field.
Envtl. Designs, Ltd. v. Union Oil Co., 713 F.2d 693, 696–97 (Fed. Cir.
1983). Evidence for these factors may not exist in every case, and one or
more of these or other factors may predominate in a particular case. Id.
Moreover, these factors are not exhaustive, but are merely a guide to
determining the level of ordinary skill in the art. Daiichi Sankyo Co. v.
Apotex, Inc., 501 F.3d 1254, 1256 (Fed. Cir. 2007). Further, the prior art
itself may reflect an appropriate skill level. Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d
1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001).
Dr. Sears described a person of ordinary skill in the art as follows:
someone who has a bachelor’s degree in computer science or a
closely related field with 4–6 years of experience or a master’s
degree and/or PhD in computer science or a closely related field
with 2–3 years of experience, the experience being in the
research, design or implementation of human-centered
computing applications and speech recognition technologies.
Ex. 1003 ¶ 3.
IPR2019-00499
Patent 8,781,829 B2

15
Dr. Cohen assumed that Dr. Sears correctly described a person of
ordinary skill in the art. Ex. 2003 ¶¶ 29–30. Dr. Cohen used that skill level
in his analysis. Id. ¶ 30.
We adopt Dr. Sears’s description of a person of ordinary skill in the
art as consistent with the ’829 patent and the asserted prior art.
C. Claim Construction
1. GENERALLY
Because Petitioner filed the Petition after November 13, 2018, we
construe claim terms “using the same claim construction standard that would
be used to construe the claim in a civil action” under 35 U.S.C. § 282(b).2
See 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b) (2019). Under that standard, “[c]laim terms are
given their ordinary and customary meaning, which is the meaning the term
would have to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the
invention.” Power Integrations, Inc. v. Fairchild Semiconductor Int’l, Inc.,
904 F.3d 965, 971 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (citing Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d
1303, 1312–13 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc)).
“[T]he person of ordinary skill in the art is deemed to read the claim
term not only in the context of the particular claim in which the disputed
term appears, but in the context of the entire patent,” including the other
claims (“both asserted and unasserted”) and the written description.

2 On October 11, 2018, the PTO revised its rules to harmonize the Board’s
standard for claim construction with the standard used in civil actions under
35 U.S.C. § 282(b). Changes to the Claim Construction Standard for
Interpreting Claims in Trial Proceedings Before the Patent Trial and Appeal
Board, 83 Fed. Reg. 51,340 (Oct. 11, 2018) (now codified at 37 C.F.R.
pt. 42 (2019)). This rule change applies to petitions filed on or after
November 13, 2018.
IPR2019-00499
Patent 8,781,829 B2

16
Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1313–14, 1321. Further, “the prosecution history can
often inform the meaning of the claim language by demonstrating how” an
inventor or an examiner understood the claim language. Id. at 1317. Thus,
the meaning of a disputed claim term may be determined by “look[ing]
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 Sofamor Danek, Inc., 469 F.3d 1005, 1014
(Fed. Cir. 2006) (citing Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1312–17).
2. THE ORDER OF STEPS (C), (D), AND (E) IN CLAIM 1
Petitioner asserts that in claim 1 “steps D and E may be performed
before step C so that the information a user is prompted to provide (steps D
and E) is inserted into the structured document to produce a modified
structured document (step C).” Pet. 11. Patent Owner does not dispute that
assertion. See, e.g., Resp. 3–20, 36–39, 62–66.
“Unless the steps of a method [claim] actually recite an order, the
steps are not ordinarily construed to require one.” Interactive Gift Express,
Inc. v. Compuserve Inc., 256 F.3d 1323, 1342 (Fed. Cir. 2001). Based on
the parties’ respective arguments and the record, we see no reason to depart
from that general rule.
3. “STRUCTURED DOCUMENT”
In the Petition, Petitioner did not propose a construction for the claim
term “structured document.” See Pet. 10–13. In its patentability analysis,
Petitioner asserted that “structured document representing contents of the
audio signal” encompasses a template selected based on latent information
in a user’s speech and populated with information from the user’s speech.
Id. at 18–19 (citing Ex. 1006 ¶¶ 16, 39, 47). Petitioner also asserted that
IPR2019-00499
Patent 8,781,829 B2

17
“structured document representing contents of the audio signal”
encompasses a report containing “the user’s dictated speech” that “has been
organized into sections.” Id. at 52–54 (citing Ex. 1008 ¶¶ 4, 26, 65, Fig. 4).
In the Response, Patent Owner proposed the following construction
for “structured document”: “a computer-readable document that is
organized into a structure that encodes concepts from a user’s speech (or
other input stream) as discrete data elements.” Resp. 6; see id. at 5;
Sur-reply 2. According to Patent Owner, “encoding means converting the
concept into a code.” Sur-reply 6 (emphasis by Patent Owner); see
Tr. 54:21–22. As an example, Patent Owner explained that “rubella or
German measles or three-day measles” are “all the same disease” and that
a code or “unique number” would denote that disease “no matter how the
doctor said it.” Tr. 50:15–21, 58:8–59:4. In addition, Patent Owner
contended that a “structured document” is “not meant for direct viewing
by users.” Resp. 53–54.
In the Reply, Petitioner asserted that Patent Owner’s proposed
construction of “structured document” improperly excludes documents
intended for user review. See Reply 4–10. In addition, Petitioner contended
that a textual document “organized into a particular format for user review”
is a “structured document.” Id. at 8; see id. at 5. Petitioner also contended
that a textual document “intended for user review can also encode concepts
into discrete data elements by organizing information from the user’s speech
into a particular format to emphasize or otherwise identify the concepts.” Id.
at 9.
Thus, the parties agree that a “structured document” is organized into
a structure or particular format. But their respective arguments require us to
IPR2019-00499
Patent 8,781,829 B2

18
address the following issues: (1) whether a “structured document” excludes
documents intended for user review; and (2) whether a “structured
document” encodes concepts as discrete data elements in coded form or just
organizes information as discrete data elements. For the reasons explained
below, we conclude that a “structured document” (1) does not exclude
documents intended for user review and (2) organizes information
as discrete data elements.
(a) Documents Intended for User Review
Petitioner contends that the ’829 patent “identifies Figures 1B and 1D
as depicting embodiments ‘of a structured document.’” Reply 4 (citing
Ex. 1001, 3:43–50). Petitioner also contends that Figures 1B and 1D
“plainly illustrate that the structured document is intended to be viewable by
a user.” Id. at 4–5. To support those contentions, Petitioner provides the
versions of Figures 1B and 1D reproduced below (Reply 5):

The preceding versions of Figures 1B and 1D depict the figures side by side.
See Ex. 1001, 3:42–43, 3:48–49, Figs. 1B, 1D; Reply 4–5. Figure 1B shows
IPR2019-00499
Patent 8,781,829 B2

19
structured document 120, and Figure 1D shows modified structured
document 121. Ex. 1001, 4:55–58, 8:49–53; see id. at 3:42–43, 3:48–49.
Further, Petitioner asserts that Figure 1D includes prompt 128 and
label 130 that “draws attention to the prompt.” Reply 5 (citing Ex. 1001,
8:53–60). According to Petitioner, “a label that ‘draws attention’ to a
prompt is one that is viewable by a user.” Id.
Patent Owner contends that “[t]he ’829 patent extracts the underlying
concepts or meaning of the user’s freeform speech (and structured input) to
produce a structured document.” Resp. 2. Patent Owner also contends that
the extracted concepts “are encoded as discrete data elements in the
structured document that are easily manipulable by a computer, facilitating
later processing.” Id. (citing Ex. 1001, 4:37–5:6; Ex. 2003 ¶¶ 31–42).
Patent Owner admits that a structured document is “viewable.” Sur-reply 5
(citing Ex. 2006, Fig. 4C). But Patent Owner asserts that “a rendering . . .
is not the underlying structured document itself.” Id. (citing Ex. 2006,
Fig. 4B).
The ’829 patent indicates that a structured document is “viewable”
and intended for user review. See Ex. 1001, 3:42–43, 3:48–49, 4:56–63,
5:51–58, 6:58–7:6, 8:44–60, Figs. 1B, 1D. The patent’s specification uses
the terms “structured document” and “structured report” synonymously.
See, e.g., id. at 3:42–43, 3:48–49, 4:44–63, 5:3–6:5, 6:29–8:60, 9:9–10:33,
Figs. 1B, 1D; see also Ex. 1025 ¶ 6. The specification explains that a
structured report “may be displayed as a document containing the text of the
report, visually structured into sections” with “discrete data elements (such
as dates, medications, allergies, and diagnoses) emphasized or otherwise
formatted to indicate that they are discrete data elements and/or to indicate
IPR2019-00499
Patent 8,781,829 B2

20
the types of such discrete data elements.” Ex. 1001, 6:60–67. The
specification also explains that a structured report “may be rendered in a
format that generally resembles that of a plain text document rendered by
a conventional word processor, but with the structured elements of the
document (e.g., sections and lower-level concepts) visually emphasized or
otherwise indicated.” Id. at 7:1–6.
In addition, the ’829 patent’s specification discloses supplying a
structured document to “users who are responsible for editing, reformatting,
and proofreading the document.” Ex. 1001, 5:51–58. Users cannot edit,
reformat, or proofread a structured document unless it is “viewable” and
intended for user review.
Further, Figure 1B shows structured document 120, and Figure 1D
shows modified structured document 121. Ex. 1001, 4:55–58, 8:49–53; see
id. at 3:42–43, 3:48–49. In each figure, the structured document is
“viewable” and intended for user review.
For the reasons discussed above, we conclude that a “structured
document” does not exclude documents intended for user review.
(b) Documents that Organize Information as Discrete Data Elements
The claim language supports the conclusion that a “structured
document” organizes information as discrete data elements. See Ex. 1001,
13:29–35 (claims 3 and 4), 14:35–45 (claims 21–24). Specifically, certain
dependent claims require a “structured input element” for receiving user
input. Id. Structured input elements “require data to be stored in the form of
discrete data elements that computers can act on easily and automatically.”
Id. at 1:49–51. Hence, structured input elements help a structured document
organize information as discrete data elements.
IPR2019-00499
Patent 8,781,829 B2

21
The ’829 patent’s specification supports the conclusion that a
“structured document” organizes information as discrete data elements. See,
e.g., Ex. 1001, 1:49–65, 11:46–64. The specification explains that when a
document organizes information as discrete data elements, “the meaning
of the data is available to and unambiguously processable by a computer
without the need for further interpretation.” Id. at 1:62–65. For example,
“if a patient has an allergy to allergen X and currently takes medication Y”
and “if these two facts are input using structured input modalities” that
produce “discrete data elements representing allergen X and medication Y,
respectively,” then “a computer can perform[] processing on such
information easily and automatically, such as by comparing the data to
contraindications on a predetermined list to determine whether allergen X
is contraindicated with medication Y.” Id. at 1:51–61.
According to Patent Owner, discrete data elements “are easily
manipulable by a computer.” Resp. 2; see Ex. 2003 ¶¶ 32–34, 36, 39,
58–59. According to Dr. Cohen, “storing the underlying facts (concepts) in
a standardized format,” i.e., as discrete data elements, “makes it easier to
process” them. Ex. 2003 ¶ 58. For example, a date “in a machine-readable
form enables the date to be stored easily in a database and to be processed
more easily than if the date were stored in a textual form.” Ex. 2005,
7:32–34; see Ex. 2003 ¶ 58.
A claim construction should comport with the purposes of the
invention. See OSRAM GmbH v. Int’l Trade Comm’n, 505 F.3d 1351, 1358
(Fed. Cir. 2007). Here, the ’829 patent explains that the invention exploits
the ability of structured-input modalities “to enforce requirements that
certain kinds of data be input.” Ex. 1001, 10:64–11:1; see id. at 4:33–36,
IPR2019-00499
Patent 8,781,829 B2

22
10:60–64; Ex. 2003 ¶ 35. By organizing information as discrete data
elements, a structured document exploits the ability of structured-input
modalities “to enforce requirements that certain kinds of data be input.”
To support its assertion that a structured document encodes concepts
as discrete data elements in coded form, Patent Owner cites the ’829 patent’s
specification. See Resp. 7–9. In particular, Patent Owner contends that the
specification demonstrates that a structured document encodes concepts
because the specification “explains that the claimed structured document
‘encodes concepts from the user’s speech [i.e., an audio signal] into discrete
data elements.’” Resp. 7 (alteration by Patent Owner) (quoting Ex. 1001,
4:44–47).
As Patent Owner contends, the ’829 patent’s specification states that
“the structured document 120 encodes concepts from the user’s speech into
discrete data elements.” Ex. 1001, 4:44–47; see Resp. 7. But before that
statement, the specification refers to “embodiments of the present invention”
that “may” operate in a particular way. Id. at 4:40–43. And after that
statement, the specification explains that “the foregoing embodiments are
provided as illustrative only, and do not limit or define the scope of the
invention.” Id. at 12:13–16. Hence, the specification’s statement about
encoding concepts into discrete data elements does not define a structured
document.
To support its assertion that a structured document encodes concepts
as discrete data elements in coded form, Patent Owner cites three additional
portions of the ’829 patent’s specification. Resp. 7–8 (citing Ex. 1001,
6:31–39, 6:58–67, 12:1–12). But those additional portions do not indicate
that a structured document encodes concepts as discrete data elements in
IPR2019-00499
Patent 8,781,829 B2

23
coded form. Those additional portions do not discuss encoding concepts and
instead indicate that a structured document may contain freeform text as well
as discrete data elements. See Ex. 1001, 6:31–40, 6:58–67, 12:1–12. For
example, the specification explains that best practices for a structured
document “may operate on freeform text in addition to or instead of discrete
data elements.” Id. at 6:31–40; see id. at 8:4–9 (explaining that “[t]he user
may provide the input in freeform or in a structured form”).
Claim scope “is properly limited to the preferred embodiment if the
patentee uses words that manifest a clear intention to restrict the scope of the
claims to that embodiment.” Info-Hold, Inc. v. Applied Media Techs. Corp.,
783 F.3d 1262, 1267 (Fed. Cir. 2015). Here, Patent Owner identifies no
such words in the ’829 patent’s specification. See Resp. 2–3, 6–13. Further,
Federal Circuit case law “counsels against incorporating a feature of a
preferred embodiment into the claims.” Arthrex, Inc. v. Smith & Nephew,
Inc., 935 F.3d 1319, 1330 (Fed. Cir. 2019).
To support its assertion that a structured document encodes concepts
as discrete data elements in coded form, Patent Owner also relies on two
patents identified in the ’829 patent’s specification. See Resp. 9–13. In
particular, Patent Owner contends that the specification identifies the
following commonly owned patents as disclosing techniques for “producing
structured documents by extracting concepts from the received audio stream
and encoding them as discrete data elements”: (1) U.S. Patent No.
7,584,103 B2, titled “Automated Extraction of Semantic Content and
Generation of a Structured Document from Speech” (Ex. 2005, “the ’103
patent”); and (2) U.S. Patent No. 7,716,040 B2, titled “Verification of
IPR2019-00499
Patent 8,781,829 B2

24
Extracted Data” (Ex. 2006, “the ’040 patent”). Resp. 9 (citing Ex. 1001,
4:48–5:6); see Sur-reply 2–3.
Patent Owner urges that the ’103 patent’s purpose “is to ‘produce a
structured textual document 310 which includes content from the spoken
audio stream 302, in which the content is organized into a particular
structure, and where concepts are identified and interpreted in a machine-
readable form.’” Resp. 9–10 (emphases by Patent Owner) (quoting
Ex. 2005, 7:1–6). Patent Owner argues that the ’103 patent “extracts
concepts from free-form speech and encodes them in an exemplary
structured document implemented in” extensible markup language (XML).
Id. at 10 (citing Ex. 2005, 7:11–32). Further, Patent Owner asserts that the
’040 patent “explains that structured documents encode concepts as discrete
data elements, such as the concept of allergy and the more specific concept
that the patient is allergic to penicillin.” Id. at 11–12 (citing Ex. 2006,
Fig. 4C).
Patent Owner’s reliance on the ’103 and ’040 patents is misplaced.
The ’829 patent describes the ’103 and ’040 patents as disclosing
“[e]xamples of techniques that may be used to create” a structured
document. Ex. 1001, 4:63–5:3. The ’829 patent makes clear that those
techniques “are merely examples of techniques that may be used to generate
a structured document” and “do not constitute limitations of the present
invention.” Id. at 5:3–6. Further, the ’829 patent does not expressly
incorporate the ’103 and ’040 patents by reference. See, e.g., id. at 4:63–5:6;
see also id. at 1:8–12 (expressly incorporating a provisional application by
reference and no other documents). So the ’103 and ’040 patents are not
part of the ’829 patent’s specification for claim-construction purposes.
IPR2019-00499
Patent 8,781,829 B2

25
For the reasons discussed above, we conclude that the term
“structured document” encompasses a document that organizes information
as discrete data elements but does not require a document that encodes
concepts as discrete data elements, as proposed by Patent Owner. Thus, we
do not fully adopt Patent Owner’s proposed construction, i.e., “a computer-
readable document that is organized into a structure that encodes concepts
from a user’s speech (or other input stream) as discrete data elements.” See
Resp. 6. We construe the term to mean “a document organized into a
structure or particular format that organizes information as discrete data
elements.”
4. OTHER TERMS
We determine that no other claim terms require explicit constructions
to decide the patentability issues. “[O]nly those terms need be construed
that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the
controversy.” Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795,
803 (Fed. Cir. 1999); see Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean
Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017).
D. Obviousness over Carus in View of an
Ordinarily Skilled Artisan’s Knowledge:
Claims 1, 4, 6, 12, 13, 21, 25, and 26
Petitioner challenges claims 1, 4, 6, 12, 13, 21, 25, and 26 under
§ 103(a) as obvious over Carus in view of an ordinarily skilled artisan’s
knowledge. See Pet. 7, 14–38. Below, we provide an overview of Carus,
and then we consider the obviousness issues raised by the parties.
1. OVERVIEW OF CARUS (EX. 1006)
Carus explains that “[d]ue to the number of potential uses of medical
reports and the corresponding medical information fields that may need to
IPR2019-00499
Patent 8,781,829 B2

26
be filled, it may be difficult for a physician to remember to include” all
information required for medical reports under different categorization
schemes with different informational structures. Ex. 1006 ¶¶ 6, 12. To
illustrate scheme diversity, Carus discusses the following “exemplary
systems for identifying and coding medical problems, procedures, and
medications”: (1) Joint Commission on the Accreditation of Healthcare
Organizations (JCAHO); (2) International Classification of Diseases 9th
Revision Clinical Modification (ICD-9-CM); (3) Current Procedural
Terminology 4th Edition (CPT-4); and (4) Medicare Evaluation and
Management (E&M) codes. Id. ¶¶ 6–12. Carus also discusses the
Systematized Nomenclature of Medicine Clinical Terms (SNOMED CT)
for coding medical concepts. Id. ¶¶ 54, 59.
Carus discloses generating medical reports containing all information
required under different categorization schemes because missing information
“reduce[s] efficiency” and “increase[s] expenses and time-on-task.”
Ex. 1006 ¶ 13. Carus facilitates report preparation by providing users with
“prompts or reminders to collect certain predetermined information and
assistance in collecting and classifying” the information required to
complete a report. Id. ¶¶ 14, 39; see id. ¶¶ 7–13, 15, 48, 52.
Carus’s Figure 1 (reproduced below) “shows a system architecture.”
Ex. 1006 ¶¶ 24, 31.
IPR2019-00499
Patent 8,781,829 B2

27

Figure 1 depicts a system with first input 110 and second input 111 coupled
to processing device 120 and processing device 120 coupled to output 130.
Id. ¶ 31. Processing device 120 “include[s] a processor 125 and a
memory 126” that “store[s] a number of templates 127.” Id.
First input 110 may comprise “a microphone for receiving voice
signals and converting these signals into a data stream associated with
recorded speech.” Ex. 1006 ¶ 31. Second input 111 may comprise “a stylus
and a touch screen, a button, a computer mouse, a keyboard, or other input
device.” Id.
In operation, a user, e.g., a physician, “dictates information into” first
input 110 for conversion “into an analog or digital input data stream”
provided to processing device 120. Ex. 1006 ¶ 32. The input audio data
includes “generic data,” i.e., “all data that is recorded via dictation or other
information recordation means.” Id. ¶¶ 32, 37. The generic data may
IPR2019-00499
Patent 8,781,829 B2

28
include “latent information,” i.e., information “associated with a
predetermined classification of information,” such as information related
to an allergy, treatment, medication, or particular medical problem. Id.
¶¶ 33, 37; see id. ¶¶ 18–19.
Processing device 120 employs natural-language processing to
process the input audio data. Ex. 1006 ¶¶ 34, 37. Based on latent
information in the input audio data, the processing device retrieves a
template and presents the template to the user. Id. ¶¶ 16, 35; see id. ¶¶ 18,
20–21, 38–39. “The template may be presented to the user via any
acceptable user-cognizable means,” e.g., “computer display, hard copy, or
any other suitable output that is perceptible to a user.” Id. ¶ 38.
Using the template, the user “input[s] additional data, i.e., template-
specific data into the processing device 120.” Ex. 1006 ¶ 35; see id. ¶ 39.
Further, the “user may continue to input data into the system,” and it
“review[s] additional portions of generic data contemporaneously to
determine if there are any more templates that need to be presented” to
the user. Id. ¶ 40.
“After a determination has been made that the user has addressed all
of the templates, and all of the template-specific data has been received,” the
template-specific data and the generic data are “further processed.”
Ex. 1006 ¶ 43; see id. ¶ 36, code (57). Further processing may include
generating “a specific report or a number of different reports” or “other
structured or machine-readable outputs” based on “the generic data and the
template-specific data.” Id. ¶¶ 36, 41, 44; see id. ¶¶ 16, 40, code (57). For
instance, structured reports may include (1) accreditation reports containing
core measures concerning particular medical conditions, (2) billing reports
IPR2019-00499
Patent 8,781,829 B2

29
containing billing codes, e.g., Medicare E&M codes, and (3) patient records.
Id. ¶¶ 7–12, 17, 19, 22, 36, 40–41, 43–44.
2. INDEPENDENT CLAIM 1
(a) Preamble
Claim 1’s preamble recites “[a] computer-implemented method
performed by at least one computer processor.” Ex. 1001, 13:5–6.
Petitioner contends that Carus teaches this feature because “Carus
discloses that ‘the present invention may include a method including
receiving an input stream of data and processing the input stream of data.’”
Pet. 16–17 (quoting Ex. 1006 ¶ 16); see Ex. 1003, A1. Further, Petitioner
asserts that Carus “describes that the input ‘can be coupled to a processing
device 120’ which ‘can include a processor 125 and a memory 126.’”
Pet. 17 (quoting Ex. 1006 ¶ 31); see Ex. 1003, A1.
Patent Owner does not make any arguments specific to claim 1’s
preamble. See, e.g., Resp. 24–39.
Generally, a preamble does not limit a claim. Allen Eng’g Corp. v.
Bartell Indus., Inc., 299 F.3d 1336, 1346 (Fed. Cir. 2002). Here, we need
not decide whether claim 1’s preamble limits the claim because we agree
with Petitioner that Carus teaches “[a] computer-implemented method
performed by at least one computer processor.” Specifically, Carus
discloses processing device 120 with processor 125 and memory 126.
Ex. 1006 ¶ 31; see Ex. 1003 ¶ 47, A1. Carus also discloses a method for
“receiving an input stream of data,” e.g., dictation, and “processing the input
stream of data” by providing the input stream of data to processor 125.
Ex. 1006 ¶¶ 16, 32, 34; see Ex. 1003 ¶ 47, A1.
IPR2019-00499
Patent 8,781,829 B2

30
(b) Step (A)
Claim 1 recites “(A) applying automatic speech recognition to an
audio signal to produce a structured document representing contents of the
audio signal.” Ex. 1001, 13:7–9.
Petitioner contends that Carus teaches step (A) because Carus “states
that the invention ‘relates generally to . . . categorizing input data in speech
recognition systems[.]’” Pet. 17 (alteration and emphasis by Petitioner)
(quoting Ex. 1006 ¶ 3); see Ex. 1003, A2. Petitioner also contends that
Carus “discloses that ‘data . . . is recorded via dictation or other information
recordation means,’ and may be ‘processed using, for example, natural
language processing.’” Pet. 17 (alteration by Petitioner) (quoting Ex. 1006
¶ 37); see Ex. 1003, A2–A3. Further, Petitioner asserts that an ordinarily
skilled artisan would have understood that automatic speech recognition
(ASR) precedes natural-language processing (NLP). Pet. 17.
To support Petitioner, Dr. Sears stated that Carus’s disclosure “that a
user ‘dictates information’ and that ‘the speech may be converted into an
analog or digital input data stream’” refers to “applying automatic speech
recognition to convert the user’s audio input to a text output.” Ex. 1003, A2
(emphasis by Dr. Sears) (quoting Ex. 1006 ¶ 32). Dr. Sears also stated that
“selecting a specific template based on the contents of the audio signal,” as
Carus discloses, “means that the structured document represents the contents
of the audio signal because the template was chosen based on the contents of
the audio signal.” Id. at A4 (emphasis by Dr. Sears).
In addition, Dr. Sears noted Carus’s disclosure about “prompting the
user to provide additional information, i.e., information that was not already
extracted and inserted into the template.” Ex. 1003, A4–A5 (emphasis by
IPR2019-00499
Patent 8,781,829 B2

31
Dr. Sears) (citing Ex. 1006 ¶ 39). Dr. Sears explained that “[t]his template
with the user’s generic data is a structured document that represents the
contents of the audio signal that is produced by applying automatic speech
recognition to the user’s audio signal.” Id. at A5.
Patent Owner disputes that Carus teaches step (A). See Resp. 24–32;
Sur-reply 9–17. In particular, Patent Owner contends that Petitioner “failed
to consistently point to a ‘structured document’ in each claim step.”
Resp. 24; see Sur-reply 10. According to Patent Owner, Petitioner identified
a “template” as the “structured document” required by steps (A) and (B) but
identified a “document” as the “structured document” required by step (C).
Resp. 24–25; see Sur-reply 10. Further, Patent Owner asserts that
Petitioner’s position conflicts with Dr. Sears’s position because Dr. Sears
identified a “report” as the “structured document” required by step (B). See
Resp. 34, 42–43; Sur-reply 10.
In addition, Patent Owner contends that Carus “does not produce
templates by applying ASR to an audio signal” because “Carus predefines
its templates to tell the user what types of information to provide.” Resp.
26–27 (emphasis by Patent Owner) (citing Ex. 1006 ¶¶ 15, 34–35, 45, 61,
code (54); Ex. 2003 ¶¶ 106–119); see Sur-reply 10. Patent Owner also
contends that because “Carus’s templates are predefined and static,” the
templates (1) “are not produced by applying ASR to an audio signal,”
(2) “do not represent the contents of the audio signal,” and (3) “are not
structured documents.” Resp. 32 (emphasis by Patent Owner); see
Sur-reply 16. Further, Patent Owner asserts that “Carus does not populate
its templates at all.” Sur-reply 16–17 (emphasis by Patent Owner); see id.
at 12.
IPR2019-00499
Patent 8,781,829 B2

32
In response, Petitioner asserts that an ordinarily skilled artisan would
have understood Carus “to disclose that the template becomes the report, i.e.,
that the template and the report refer to” the same structured document.
Reply 15 (citing Ex. 1006 ¶ 36; Ex. 1025 ¶ 17); see id. at 16. Petitioner also
asserts that (1) a template prompts a user to provide additional information
and (2) “it would make no sense for [a] template to prompt a user to provide
additional information but never include this information in the report that is
created from the template.” Id. at 16.
In addition, Petitioner contends that Carus selects a template
“specifically because it encodes elements of the user’s speech, e.g. that
a patient has a particular disease or had a certain procedure performed.”
Reply 11 (emphasis by Petitioner) (citing Ex. 1006 ¶ 35; Ex. 1025
¶¶ 20–24). Petitioner also contends that a template selected based on
elements of the user’s speech “contains data elements that are specific to the
user’s audio stream – i.e., that it encodes a concept from the user’s speech
into a discrete data element.” Id. at 11–12 (emphasis by Petitioner).
We agree with Petitioner that Carus teaches step (A). Carus discloses
that a user, e.g., a physician, “dictates information” for conversion “into an
analog or digital input data stream” provided to a processing device.
Ex. 1006 ¶ 32. The input audio data includes “generic data,” i.e., “all data
that is recorded via dictation or other information recordation means.” Id.
¶¶ 32, 37. The generic data may include “latent information,” i.e.,
information “associated with a predetermined classification of information,”
such as information related to an allergy, treatment, medication, or particular
medical problem. Id. ¶¶ 33, 37; see id. ¶¶ 18–19. Based on latent
information in the input audio data, the processing device retrieves a
IPR2019-00499
Patent 8,781,829 B2

33
template and presents the template to the user. Id. ¶¶ 16, 35; see id. ¶¶ 18,
20–21, 38–39; Ex. 1003, A3–A4; Ex. 1025 ¶ 18.
The template presented to the user contains information from the input
audio data required by the template. See Ex. 1006 ¶ 39; Ex. 1003, A4–A5;
Ex. 1025 ¶¶ 18, 22. Carus demonstrates this by discussing an example
involving a surgical procedure and JCAHO-required performance measures
for surgical infection prevention. Ex. 1006 ¶ 39; see id. ¶¶ 6–7. In
particular, JCAHO requires eight performance measures for surgical
infection prevention, i.e., “[1] admission date, [2] date of birth, [3] ICD-9-
CM principal procedure code, [4] ICD-9-CM other procedure code,
[5] ICD-9-CM principal diagnosis code, [6] admission diagnosis, [7] surgery
performed during stay, and [8] infection prior to anesthesia.” Ex. 1006 ¶ 39;
see id. ¶ 7.
In Carus’s example involving a surgical procedure, the input audio
data includes “the fact that a particular patient is over eighteen years old and
that they are going to have a particular surgical procedure performed.”
Ex. 1006 ¶ 39. The latent information in this example includes the
“identification of the surgical procedure.” Id. Based on the input audio data
and using natural-language processing, the processor accesses “the
appropriate JCAHO-based template to remind the physician that additional
data (i.e., ICD-9-CM other procedure code, ICD-9-CM principal diagnosis
code, admission diagnosis, surgery performed during stay, and infection
prior to anesthesia) may be required.” Id.; see Ex. 1003, A7. “By prompting
the physician to record this additional information, the record associated
with that patient’s visit may be kept more accurately and more completely.”
Ex. 1006 ¶ 39.
IPR2019-00499
Patent 8,781,829 B2

34
Although JCAHO requires eight performance measures for surgical
infection prevention, the retrieved template in this example prompts the
physician for only five of the eight performance measures, i.e., “[1] ICD-9-
CM other procedure code, [2] ICD-9-CM principal diagnosis code,
[3] admission diagnosis, [4] surgery performed during stay, and [5] infection
prior to anesthesia.” Ex. 1006 ¶ 39. Thus, as Dr. Sears stated, the retrieved
template contains information “from the input stream of data that was
extracted into the template,” and “the user is prompted to provide template-
specific information that could not be extracted from the user’s original
speech input.” Ex. 1025 ¶ 18; see Ex. 1003, A4–A5.
After the user provides the remaining template-specific data, the
processing device may use “the generic data and the template-specific data”
to generate “a specific report or a number of different reports” or “other
structured or machine-readable outputs.” Ex. 1006 ¶¶ 36, 41, 44; see id.
¶¶ 16, 40, code (57); Ex. 1025 ¶ 18. For instance, “latent information may
be placed into predetermined locations within a document, such as, for
example, a natural language patient record (NLPR).” Ex. 1006 ¶ 43; see id.
¶ 40. Accordingly, as Petitioner asserts, a completed template becomes a
report. See Ex. 1006 ¶¶ 39–41, 43–44; Ex. 1025 ¶¶ 17–19; Reply 15–16.
A template retrieved based on latent information in the input audio
data and partially populated with information from the input audio data is
a “structured document,” i.e., a document organized into a structure or
particular format that organizes information as discrete data elements. See
Ex. 1003, A4–A5; Ex. 1025 ¶¶ 18, 24; supra § III.C.3. First, a template is
organized into a structure or particular format. One dictionary defines
“template” as “a predesigned document that contains formatting and, in
IPR2019-00499
Patent 8,781,829 B2

35
many cases, generic text.” Ex. 1028, 514–15 (Microsoft Computer
Dictionary (5th ed. 2002)3); see Ex. 1025 ¶ 10. Another dictionary defines
“template” as “a preset format for a document or file, used so that the format
does not have to be recreated each time it is used.” Ex. 3 (Concise Oxford
American Dictionary (2006)) to Ex. 2022 (Sears 2nd Dep.); see Ex. 2022,
24:2–15, 26:11–18. Dr. Sears explained that both definitions “basically deal
with the idea that you’ve got some predefined structure or format for a
document that can serve as a guide when . . . that document is being
created.” Ex. 2022, 27:17–28:13; see id. at 28:14–29:2.
Second, a retrieved and partially populated template organizes
information as discrete data elements, e.g., dates and ICD-9 codes extracted
from a user’s speech. See Ex. 1006 ¶ 39; see also id. ¶¶ 16, 19, 36, 43,
code (57); Ex. 1025 ¶ 22. As discussed above, the ’829 patent describes the
’040 patent as disclosing “[e]xamples of techniques that may be used to
create” a structured document. Ex. 1001, 4:63–5:3; see supra § III.C.3. The
’040 patent explains that “[v]arious standards exist for encoding structured
documents” and that “existing techniques for encoding medical documents
include” SNOMED CT, CPT, and ICD-9. Ex. 2006, 5:32–38; see Ex. 2003
¶¶ 65–66. For instance, ICD-9 contains “a numerical list of the disease code
numbers in tabular form.” Ex. 1003, A7.
In Carus’s example involving a surgical procedure, the retrieved
template prompts the physician for only five of the eight JCAHO-required
performance measures, i.e., “[1] ICD-9-CM other procedure code, [2] ICD-

3 For this publication and other publications, a page number in the citation
references a page number in the publication itself rather than a page number
added by Petitioner to the exhibit, e.g., 1028.001, 1028.002, 1028.003, etc.
IPR2019-00499
Patent 8,781,829 B2

36
9-CM principal diagnosis code, [3] admission diagnosis, [4] surgery
performed during stay, and [5] infection prior to anesthesia.” Ex. 1006 ¶ 39;
see Ex. 1025 ¶¶ 18, 22. Thus, the retrieved template included three of the
eight JCAHO-required performance measures, i.e., “[1] admission date,
[2] date of birth, [3] ICD-9-CM principal procedure code,” as discrete data
elements extracted from the user’s speech. See Ex. 1006 ¶ 39.
In addition, a template retrieved based on latent information in the
input audio data and partially populated with information from the input
audio data “represent[s] contents of the audio signal” as required by
step (A). Because latent information in the input audio data determines what
template to retrieve, the retrieved template “represent[s] contents of the
audio signal.” Ex. 1003, A4; Ex. 1025 ¶ 23; see Ex. 1006 ¶¶ 16, 35. As
Dr. Sears stated, “the template would not have been selected but for some
specific content in the user’s audio.” Ex. 1003, A4 (emphasis by Dr. Sears).
Further, any discrete data elements from the input audio data that partially
populate the retrieved template also “represent[] contents of the audio
signal.”
Patent Owner argues that Carus does not disclose producing or
modifying the template to represent the specific contents of the audio signal.
Resp. 27. In particular, Patent Owner contends that “Carus gives the user
the entire predefined template, including reminders to provide ‘additional
information’ that has already been provided.” Id. at 28–29 (citing Ex. 1006
¶ 39).
We disagree. Carus discloses generating medical reports containing
all information required under different categorization schemes because
missing information “reduce[s] efficiency” and “increase[s] expenses and
IPR2019-00499
Patent 8,781,829 B2

37
time-on-task.” Ex. 1006 ¶ 13; see also Ex. 1003 ¶ 46. Requiring a user to
provide template-specific data “that has already been provided” conflicts
with “Carus’s objective to combat ‘reduced efficiency, increased expenses
and time-on-task.’” See Ex. 1025 ¶ 22 (quoting Ex. 1006 ¶ 13); see also id.
¶¶ 18, 21.
Patent Owner asserts that “the user enters the template-specifi[c] data
into the system, not the templates.” Resp. 30–31 (emphasis by Patent
Owner) (citing Ex. 1006 ¶¶ 38–40, 45); see Sur-reply 10–11. As explained
below for claims 3 and 21, however, Carus discloses that the user employs
the template to enter the template-specific data. See infra § III.D.3(b).
Then, Carus’s system associates the template-specific data with the template
because the system uses the template-specific data and the generic data to
generate “a specific report or a number of different reports” based on the
template. See Ex. 1006 ¶¶ 36, 41, 44, 50; see also id. ¶¶ 16, 39–40, code
(57); Ex. 1025 ¶ 18; Tr. 39:5–13. For example, the system may generate
“a JCAHO-specific report associated with” a JCAHO-based template.
Ex. 1006 ¶ 44; see id. ¶¶ 39, 41, 50. Thus, Patent Owner’s assertion that
“the user enters the template-specifi[c] data into the system, not the
templates,” overlooks system operation and the relationship between the
template-specific data and the template. See Resp. 30–31.
(c) Step (B)
Claim 1 recites “(B) determining whether the structured document
includes an indication of compliance for each of a plurality of best practices
to produce a conclusion.” Ex. 1001, 13:10–12.
Petitioner contends that Carus teaches step (B) because “Carus
discloses that after a template has been selected ‘based on the input generic
IPR2019-00499
Patent 8,781,829 B2

38
data,’ the user may then input ‘template-specific data’ which ‘may include,
for example, data associated with’” JCAHO core measures. Pet. 20 (quoting
Ex. 1006 ¶ 39); see Ex. 1003, A6. Petitioner also contends that JCAHO core
measures comprise “reporting guidelines relating to specific diagnoses,”
such as “acute myocardial infarction, hear[t] failure, pneumonia, pregnancy
and related conditions, as well as surgical infection prevention.” Pet. 20; see
Ex. 1003, A6–A7; Ex. 1006 ¶¶ 7–9; Ex. 1010, 1; Ex. 1011, i–ii. Petitioner
asserts that each JCAHO core measure requires reporting multiple
performance measures. Pet. 20–21, 23 (citing Ex. 1006 ¶ 39); see Ex. 1003,
A6–A7. Petitioner also asserts that an ordinarily skilled artisan would have
understood “that the JCAHO reporting requirements for a core measure
represent a plurality of best practices.” Pet. 21; see Ex. 1003, A6–A7.
In addition, Petitioner contends that “Carus discloses determining
whether the structured document complies with the plurality of best
practices to produce a conclusion” because “Carus discloses that ‘using, for
example, natural language processing, the processor can access the
appropriate JCAHO-based template to remind the physician that additional
data . . . may be required.’” Pet. 23 (emphasis by Petitioner) (quoting
Ex. 1006 ¶ 39); see Ex. 1003, A7. According to Petitioner, “the processor
will remind the physician to enter additional data in order to comply with
the best practices,” e.g., JCAHO-required performance measures, if the
processor determines that the retrieved template lacks template-specific data.
Pet. 23.
To support Petitioner, Dr. Sears stated that it would have been
obvious to an ordinarily skilled artisan “to remind the physician, the
processor must first produce a conclusion that the report was not in
IPR2019-00499
Patent 8,781,829 B2

39
compliance with the plurality of best practices, such as the JCAHO
performance measures associated with a core measure.” Ex. 1003, A7.
Patent Owner disputes that Carus teaches step (B). See Resp. 32–36;
Sur-reply 17–18. In particular, Patent Owner contends that Carus “never
checks” a template or anything else “for compliance with best practices.”
Resp. 32; see Sur-reply 18. Patent Owner asserts that Carus “simply gives
the user an appropriate predefined template.” Resp. 33; see Sur-reply 18.
Patent Owner also asserts that Carus “can remind the physician to provide
the desired information by simply providing a predefined template.”
Resp. 35; see Sur-reply 18.
We agree with Petitioner that Carus teaches step (B). The ’829 patent
explains that best practices include “rules, guidelines, or preferences” for
information “included in [a] report (such as the patient’s name and date of
the patient’s visit)” and actions “required to be taken before [a] report can be
completed (such as performing a particular procedure, such as a foot exam,
on the patient during the visit described in the report).” Ex. 1001, 6:8–16.
For instance, best practices may “take the form of rules that operate on
discrete data elements in structured reports,” such as “dates, medications,
allergies, and diagnoses” in medical reports. Id. at 6:31–33, 6:60–67.
Carus discloses “a plurality of best practices” according to step (B).
For instance, Carus discusses JCAHO core measures for evaluating hospital
performance for the following conditions: (1) acute myocardial infarction
(AMI); (2) heart failure (HF); (3) community acquired pneumonia (CAP);
(4) pregnancy-related conditions; and (5) surgical infection prevention (SIP).
Ex. 1006 ¶ 7; see id. ¶¶ 8–9; Ex. 1003 ¶ 48, A6–A7; Ex. 1010, 1; Ex. 1011,
i–ii; Ex. 1018, 1–3. Each JCAHO core measure requires reporting multiple
IPR2019-00499
Patent 8,781,829 B2

40
performance measures, i.e., “data elements that must be collected.”
Ex. 1006 ¶¶ 8–9, 39; Ex. 1011, vi; see Ex. 1003, A6–A7. For example, as
discussed above for step (A), JCAHO requires eight performance measures
for surgical infection prevention. Ex. 1006 ¶ 39; see supra § III.D.2(b).
Each JCAHO-required performance measure corresponds to a best
practice, e.g., a “rule[], guideline[], or preference[]” for information
“included in [a] report.” See Ex. 1003, A6–A7; see also Ex. 1001, 6:8–16.
As Dr. Sears stated, “[e]ach of the[] performance measures is a best practice
because they represent a guideline for what information a health professional
should include in a medical report related to a particular diagnosis.
Collectively, the[] performance measures disclosed by Carus are a plurality
of best practices.” Ex. 1003, A7.
In addition, Carus discloses determining whether a retrieved template
includes “an indication of compliance for each of a plurality of best practices
to produce a conclusion” according to step (B). The ’829 patent explains
that a conclusion concerning an “indication of compliance” with a best
practice may rest on “the presence of information” or “the absence of
information” in the structured document. Ex. 1001, 5:7–22; see id. at
code (57). The patent discloses an example where determining whether a
structured document includes an “indication of compliance” with a best
practice involves determining whether a structured document includes a
“piece of information.” Id. at 5:23–27.
As discussed above for step (A), in Carus’s example involving a
surgical procedure, the processor accesses “the appropriate JCAHO-based
template to remind the physician that additional data (i.e., ICD-9-CM other
procedure code, ICD-9-CM principal diagnosis code, admission diagnosis,
IPR2019-00499
Patent 8,781,829 B2

41
surgery performed during stay, and infection prior to anesthesia) may be
required.” Ex. 1006 ¶ 39; see Ex. 1003, A7; supra § III.D.2(b). In this
example, the processor determined that the retrieved template included three
of the eight JCAHO-required performance measures and reminded the
physician to provide the other five JCAHO-required performance measures.
See Ex. 1006 ¶ 39. To remind the physician to provide those particular
discrete data elements, the processor produced a conclusion based on “the
absence of information” in the retrieved and partially populated template.
See Ex. 1001, 5:7–22, code (57). As Dr. Sears stated, “[T]o remind the
physician, the processor must first produce a conclusion that the report was
not in compliance with the plurality of best practices, such as the JCAHO
performance measures associated with a core measure.” Ex. 1003, A7.
In Carus’s example involving a surgical procedure, the processor
determined that the retrieved template included three of the eight JCAHO-
required performance measures and reminded the physician to provide the
other five JCAHO-required performance measures. See Ex. 1006 ¶ 39.
Because the processor reminded the physician to provide only some of the
template-specific data, we disagree with Patent Owner’s contentions that
Carus “never checks” a template or anything else “for compliance with best
practices” and that Carus “simply gives the user an appropriate predefined
template.” See Resp. 32–33; Sur-reply 18.
(d) Step (C)
Claim 1 also recites “(C) inserting content into the structured
document, based on the conclusion, to produce a modified structured
document.” Ex. 1001, 13:13–15.
IPR2019-00499
Patent 8,781,829 B2

42
Petitioner contends that Carus teaches step (C) because Carus
“describes that the user may ‘input additional template-specific information’
that is associated with a multitude of templates relating to” best practices.
Pet. 28 (quoting Ex. 1006 ¶ 40); see Ex. 1003, A14. Further, Petitioner
asserts that Carus “explains that in response to providing the template-
specific information, processing may include ‘converting dictated speech
into text, and then placing relevant text into specific portions of a
document.’” Pet. 28 (quoting Ex. 1006 ¶ 43); see Ex. 1003, A14–A15.
Petitioner also asserts that an ordinarily skilled artisan would have
understood “that once this additional information has been input into the
structured document, the structured document would be considered a
‘modified structured document’ because it would be a newer document (i.e.,
modified) based on the inputted information.” Pet. 28; see Ex. 1003, A15.
To support Petitioner, Dr. Sears stated that Carus “discloses that a
user may be prompted to ‘record th[e] additional information’ that is
required by the best practices.” Ex. 1003, A14 (alteration by Dr. Sears)
(quoting Ex. 1006 ¶ 39). He also stated that Carus “explains that ‘[b]y
prompting the physician to record this additional information, the record
associated with that patient’s visit may be kept more accurately and more
completely,’ further indicating that the structured document is modified by
the user’s input.” Id. (alteration by Dr. Sears) (quoting Ex. 1006 ¶ 39).
Patent Owner disputes that Carus teaches step (C). See Resp. 38–39;
Sur-reply 19–20. In particular, Patent Owner contends that Carus “never
inserts content into its templates.” Resp. 38–39. Patent Owner also
contends that Carus “presents all of the templates relevant to the input
stream (or requested by the user), and then generates a report or document
IPR2019-00499
Patent 8,781,829 B2

43
using the received information” without determining whether “a template
(or the report/document) complies with best practices.” Id. at 39 (citing
Ex. 1006 ¶¶ 40, 43); see Sur-reply 20.
We agree with Petitioner that Carus teaches step (C). As discussed
above for steps (A) and (B), in Carus’s example involving a surgical
procedure, the processor accesses “the appropriate JCAHO-based template
to remind the physician that additional data . . . may be required.” Ex. 1006
¶ 39; see Ex. 1003, A7; supra § III.D.2(b)–(c). When the physician provides
the missing template-specific data, the physician inserts content to produce a
modified template based on “the absence of information” in the retrieved
and partially populated template. Ex. 1003, A7, A14–A15. As discussed
above for step (A), a completed template becomes a report. See Ex. 1006
¶¶ 39–41, 43–44, 50; Ex. 1025 ¶¶ 17–19; supra § III.D.2(b).
Patent Owner’s contention that Carus “never inserts content into its
templates” overlooks system operation and the relationship between the
template-specific data and the template. See Resp. 38–39. As discussed
above for step (A), Carus’s system associates the template-specific data with
the template because the system uses the template-specific data and the
generic data to generate “a specific report or a number of different reports”
based on the template. See Ex. 1006 ¶¶ 36, 41, 44, 50; see also id. ¶¶ 16,
39–40, code (57); Ex. 1025 ¶ 18; Tr. 39:5–13; supra § III.D.2(b).
(e) Steps (D) and (E)
Claim 1 further recites “(D) generating a first indication that a user
should provide additional input of a first type to conform the structured
document to a first best practice in the plurality of best practices” and
“(E) generating a second indication that the user should provide additional
IPR2019-00499
Patent 8,781,829 B2

44
input of a second type to conform the structured document to a second best
practice in the plurality of best practices.” Ex. 1001, 13:16–23.
Petitioner contends that Carus teaches steps (D) and (E) because
“Carus discloses ‘prompting the physician to record [] additional
information’ that is required by the JCAHO reporting standard.” Pet. 24
(alteration by Petitioner) (quoting Ex. 1006 ¶ 39); see Ex. 1003, A9.
Petitioner asserts that “Carus lists multiple different types of information
that may be required to confirm [sic] to JCAHO core measures.” Pet. 25;
see Ex. 1003, A10–A13. Petitioner also asserts that “Carus notes that the
physician may be prompted to provide ‘additional data (i.e., ICD-9-CM
other procedure code, ICD-9-CM principal diagnosis code, admission
diagnosis, surgery performed during stay, and infection prior to
anesthesia).’” Pet. 25 (quoting Ex. 1006 ¶ 39); see Ex. 1003, A10.
Further, Petitioner asserts that an ordinarily skilled artisan would have
understood “that the use of the plural ‘data’ indicates that more than one best
practice may be missing and required.” Pet. 25 (quoting Ex. 1006 ¶ 39); see
Ex. 1003, A10. Petitioner adds that “if information indicating whether there
was an infection prior to anesthesia is additional input of a first type relating
to a first best practice, an ICD-9-CM code correlated to the specific infection
would be additional input of a second type relating to a second best
practice.” Pet. 25–26; see Ex. 1003, A10–A11.
Patent Owner disputes that Carus teaches steps (D) and (E). See
Resp. 36–38; Sur-reply 19. In particular, Patent Owner contends that
Petitioner cites nothing in Carus that “teaches prompting a user to enter
information other than presenting the template in the first place.” Resp. 37
(citing Ex. 1006 ¶¶ 48, 52; Ex. 2003 ¶¶ 139–144). Patent Owner also
IPR2019-00499
Patent 8,781,829 B2

45
contends that Carus does not “provide additional input to ‘conform’ the
template from steps (A) and (B)” to first and second best practices. Id. at
37–38 (emphasis by Patent Owner).
We agree with Petitioner that Carus teaches steps (D) and (E). As
discussed above for steps (A), (B), and (C), in Carus’s example involving a
surgical procedure, the processor accesses “the appropriate JCAHO-based
template to remind the physician that additional data (i.e., ICD-9-CM other
procedure code, ICD-9-CM principal diagnosis code, admission diagnosis,
surgery performed during stay, and infection prior to anesthesia) may be
required.” Ex. 1006 ¶ 39; see Ex. 1003, A7; supra § III.D.2(b)–(d). “By
prompting the physician to record this additional information, the record
associated with that patient’s visit may be kept more accurately and more
completely.” Ex. 1006 ¶ 39.
Each part of the JCAHO-based template that “prompt[s] the physician
to record this additional information” corresponds to an “indication that a
user should provide additional input” of a particular type to conform the
retrieved and partially populated template to a best practice in a plurality of
best practices. See Ex. 1003, A9–A11; see also Ex. 1006 ¶¶ 39, 48, 52. As
an example, a requirement for an ICD-9-CM other procedure code
corresponds to “a first best practice.” See Ex. 1003, A6–A7. The template
portion that prompts the physician to record the ICD-9-CM other procedure
code corresponds to “a first indication that a user should provide additional
input of a first type to conform” the retrieved and partially populated
template to “a first best practice in the plurality of best practices.” See id. at
A9–A11. As another example, a requirement for an ICD-9-CM principal
diagnosis code corresponds to “a second best practice.” See id. at A6–A7.
IPR2019-00499
Patent 8,781,829 B2

46
The template portion that prompts the physician to record the ICD-9-CM
principal diagnosis code corresponds to “a second indication that the user
should provide additional input of a second type to conform” the retrieved
and partially populated template to “a second best practice in the plurality of
best practices.” See id. at A9–A11. By recording the ICD-9-CM other
procedure code and the ICD-9-CM principal diagnosis code, the physician
conforms the retrieved and partially populated template to first and second
best practices. See id. at A9–A11, A14–A15.
Because the physician provides input to conform the retrieved and
partially populated template to first and second best practices, we disagree
with Patent Owner’s contention that Carus does not “provide additional
input to ‘conform’ the template from steps (A) and (B)” to first and second
best practices. See Resp. 37–38.
(f) Conclusion for Claim 1
For the reasons discussed above, Petitioner has shown by a
preponderance of the evidence that claim 1 is unpatentable under § 103(a)
as obvious over Carus in view of an ordinarily skilled artisan’s knowledge.
3. DEPENDENT CLAIMS 2, 3, AND 21
Claims 3 and 21 each depend from claim 2 and recite the same steps.
Ex. 1001, 13:29–33, 14:35–39. Claims 2 and 21 read as follows:
2. The method of claim 1, wherein (C) comprises:
(C)(1) prompting a human user to provide the content;
(C)(2) receiving input from the human user representing
the content; and
(C)(3) inserting the content into the structured document.
IPR2019-00499
Patent 8,781,829 B2

47
21. The method of claim 2:
wherein (C)(1) comprises displaying a structured
input element;
wherein (C)(2) comprises receiving input from
the human user in the structured input element.
Id. at 13:24–28, 14:35–39.
(a) Claim 2
Petitioner contends that Carus teaches claim 2 step (C)(1) because
Carus “discloses ‘prompting the physician to record [] additional
information’ that is required by the JCAHO reporting standard, such as
performance measures.” Pet. 29 (alteration by Petitioner) (quoting Ex. 1006
¶ 39); see Ex. 1003, A16. Petitioner contends that Carus teaches claim 2
step (C)(2) because Carus “describes that the physician may ‘record this
additional information’ required by a specific reporting standard.”
Pet. 29–30 (quoting Ex. 1006 ¶ 39); see Ex. 1003, A17. Petitioner contends
that Carus teaches claim 2 step (C)(3) because Carus “explains that in
response to providing the template-specific information, processing may
include ‘converting dictated speech into text, and then placing relevant text
into specific portions of a document.’” Pet. 30 (quoting Ex. 1006 ¶ 43); see
Ex. 1003, A18.
Patent Owner does not make any arguments specific to claim 2. See,
e.g., Resp. 43–45.
We agree with Petitioner that Carus teaches claim 2’s subject matter.
As discussed above for claim 1, in Carus’s example involving a surgical
procedure, a JCAHO-based template “prompt[s] the physician to record”
missing template-specific data, thus teaching step (C)(1). See Ex. 1003,
A9–A11, A16; supra § III.D.2(e); see also Ex. 1006 ¶¶ 39, 48, 52. As also
IPR2019-00499
Patent 8,781,829 B2

48
discussed above for claim 1, when the physician provides the missing
template-specific data, content is received and inserted to produce a
modified template, thus teaching steps (C)(2) and (C)(3). See Ex. 1003,
A14–A15, A17–A18.
(b) Claims 3 and 21
Petitioner asserts that Carus teaches “displaying a structured input
element” according to step (C)(1) in claims 3 and 21 because “Carus
discloses that the templates ‘may be presented to the user via any acceptable
user-cognizable means, such as, for example, via audio, computer display,
hard copy, or any other suitable output that is perceptible to the user.’”
Pet. 30, 35 (quoting Ex. 1006 ¶ 38); see Ex. 1003, A19. According to
Petitioner, an ordinarily skilled artisan would have understood “that the
displayed template comprises a structured input element because the
template has a predetermined format with predetermined data elements that
are required.” Pet. 31; see Ex. 1003, A19–A20.
Petitioner asserts that Carus teaches “displaying a structured input
element” according to step (C)(1) in claims 3 and 21 because “Carus
discloses that ‘input methods may include . . . those used in database
applications involving fielded input forms consisting of input fields, check
boxes, radio buttons, text boxes, and other graphical input objects.’” Pet. 31
(alteration by Petitioner) (quoting Ex. 1006 ¶ 15); see Ex. 1003, A21.
According to Petitioner, an ordinarily skilled artisan would have understood
an input field or a text box “to be a structured input element because it
would be contained in the template provided to the user.” Pet. 31; see
Ex. 1003, A21.
IPR2019-00499
Patent 8,781,829 B2

49
Petitioner asserts that Carus teaches “receiving input from the human
user in the structured input element” according to step (C)(2) in claims 3
and 21 because “Carus discloses receiving input from a surgeon to conform
a document to a plurality of best practices” as explained for claim 1 step (C).
Pet. 31; see Ex. 1003, A21.
Patent Owner disputes that Carus teaches the subject matter of
claims 3 and 21. See Resp. 43–44. Patent Owner concedes that “Carus
displays structured input elements.” Id. at 43–44. But Patent Owner
contends that “Carus makes clear that these elements are not part of its
templates” and that Carus “uses traditional input methods including check
boxes and radio buttons and separately provides templates to its users.” Id.
at 44 (emphasis by Patent Owner) (citing Ex. 1006 ¶ 15; Ex. 2003 ¶ 161).
We agree with Petitioner that Carus teaches the subject matter of
claims 3 and 21. Carus discloses a computer display for presenting a
template to a user. Ex. 1006 ¶ 38. As Dr. Sears stated, “Displaying a
template to the human user (such as a JCAHO core measure template, or a
template related to Medicare reimbursement) through a computer display
means that a structured input element is displayed to the human user”
because “the template would contain structured input elements that would,
for example, indicate where additional information would be required.”
Ex. 1003, A19. Hence, Carus teaches “displaying a structured input
element” according to step (C)(1).
In addition, Carus discloses “combining traditional data input
methods” with “providing templates to users to provide additional data.”
Ex. 1006 ¶ 3; see id. ¶ 15, code (57); Ex. 1003, A19–A21. Carus states that
traditional data input methods include “those used in database applications
IPR2019-00499
Patent 8,781,829 B2

50
involving fielded input forms consisting of input fields, check boxes, radio
buttons, text boxes, and other graphical input objects.” Ex. 1006 ¶ 15. As
Dr. Sears stated, “Each of these exemplary input methods represent a
structured input element because they provide some form of constraint or
guidance on the user’s input.” Ex. 1003, A21. For this reason too, Carus
teaches “displaying a structured input element” according to step (C)(1).
When a computer display includes a template, e.g., a JCAHO-based
template, combined with Carus’s “input fields, check boxes, radio buttons,
text boxes, and other graphical input objects,” those graphical input objects
prompt a user to provide content. See Ex. 1003, A21; Ex. 1006 ¶¶ 3, 14–15,
39, 48, 52. Moreover, by manipulating those graphical input objects, the
user employs the template to enter the template-specific data. See Ex. 1003,
A21. Thus, the system receives input from a user in a structured input
element. Id. Hence, Carus teaches “receiving input from the human user in
the structured input element” according to step (C)(2).
Because Carus discloses “combining traditional data input methods”
with “providing templates to users to provide additional data,” we disagree
with Patent Owner’s contention that Carus “uses traditional input methods
including check boxes and radio buttons and separately provides templates
to its users.” See Ex. 1006 ¶¶ 3, 15, code (57); Resp. 44. But even if
provided separately from a template, Carus’s “input fields, check boxes,
radio buttons, text boxes, and other graphical input objects” still prompt a
user to provide content according to claim 2. In addition, claims 3 and 21
depend from claim 2 and do not specify a location for “displaying a
structured input element” according to step (C)(1). Ex. 1001, 13:29–33,
14:35–39. So Patent Owner’s argument that Carus “separately provides
IPR2019-00499
Patent 8,781,829 B2

51
templates to its users” does not distinguish claims 3 and 21 from Carus. See
Ex. 1003, A19–A21; Ex. 1006 ¶¶ 15, 38; Resp. 44.
For the reasons discussed above, Petitioner has shown by a
preponderance of the evidence that claim 21 is unpatentable under § 103(a)
as obvious over Carus in view of an ordinarily skilled artisan’s knowledge.4
4. DEPENDENT CLAIM 4
Claim 4 depends from claim 3 and specifies that “the structured input
element comprises a form field.” Ex. 1001, 13:34–35.
Petitioner contends that Carus teaches claim 4’s subject matter
because Carus discloses “fielded input forms consisting of input fields,
check boxes, radio buttons, text boxes, and other graphical input objects.”
Pet. 32 (quoting Ex. 1006 ¶ 15); see Ex. 1003, A22.
Patent Owner disputes that Carus teaches claim 4’s subject matter for
the same reasons that Patent Owner disputes that Carus teaches the subject
matter of claims 3 and 21. See Resp. 43–44.
We agree with Petitioner that Carus teaches claim 4’s subject matter
because Carus discloses “fielded input forms consisting of input fields,
check boxes, radio buttons, text boxes, and other graphical input objects.”
Ex. 1006 ¶ 15; see Ex. 1003, A22. The ’829 patent identifies the following
graphical input objects as examples of form fields: text fields, check boxes,
and dropdown lists. Ex. 1001, 8:36–39, 13:34–35, 14:40–45. Carus’s
graphical input objects correspond to form fields according to the
’829 patent. See Ex. 1003, A21–A22.

4 As noted above, Petitioner does not challenge claims 2 and 3. See
Pet. 7–8; supra § II.E.
IPR2019-00499
Patent 8,781,829 B2

52
For the reasons discussed above, Petitioner has shown by a
preponderance of the evidence that claim 4 is unpatentable under § 103(a)
as obvious over Carus in view of an ordinarily skilled artisan’s knowledge.
5. DEPENDENT CLAIM 6
Claim 6 depends from claim 1 and specifies that step (B) comprises
the following steps: (1) “identifying a type of the structured document”;
(2) “identifying a best practice associated with the identified type”; and
(3) “determining whether the structured document includes an indication
of compliance with the identified best practice to produce the conclusion.”
Ex. 1001, 13:40–46.
Petitioner asserts that Carus teaches “identifying a type of the
structured document” according to claim 6 because Carus discloses (1) “a set
of JCAHO core measures (i.e., a plurality of best practices) may relate to
surgical infection prevention” and (2) “another plurality of best practices
may relate to ‘ICD-9-CM classification . . . [which is] intended to facilitate
the coding and identifying [of] the relative incidence of diseases.’” Pet. 32
(alterations by Petitioner) (quoting Ex. 1006 ¶ 10); see Ex. 1003, A23.
Petitioner contends that “after applying automatic speech recognition to
create a structured document relating to a patient’s surgery, the system might
identify the ‘type’ as relating to a staph infection in order to then determine
if the correct ICD-9-CM code was used.” Pet. 32–33; see Ex. 1003,
A23–A24.
Petitioner asserts that Carus teaches “identifying a best practice
associated with the identified type” according to claim 6 because in the
disclosed example “where the type of document relates to a staph infection,
the best practice associated with the type would be the associated ICD-9-CM
IPR2019-00499
Patent 8,781,829 B2

53
classification code for identifying a staph infection.” Pet. 33; see Ex. 1003,
A25.
Petitioner asserts that Carus teaches “determining whether the
structured document includes an indication of compliance with the identified
best practice to produce the conclusion” according to claim 6 because
“Carus discloses that the physician can be reminded ‘that additional data . . .
may be required’ and that the additional data may relate to an ‘ICD-9-CM
principal diagnosis code.’” Pet. 33 (alteration by Petitioner) (quoting
Ex. 1006 ¶ 39); see Ex. 1003, A26. Petitioner then contends that “to remind
the physician to provide the correct ICD-9-CM diagnosis code for the
infection,” the “system would need to first determine whether this
information was present (i.e., whether there was an indication of
compliance).” Pet. 33; see Ex. 1003, A26.
Patent Owner disputes that Carus teaches claim 6’s subject matter.
See Resp. 40–43; Sur-reply 21–22. In particular, Patent Owner contends
that Carus’s system “already knows what type of template it retrieved”
because “it selected a predefined template based on the input stream.”
Resp. 41; see Sur-reply 21. Patent Owner also contends that claim 6
concerns claim 1 step (B) and that Petitioner impermissibly relies on the
same acts in Carus for claim 6 as for claim 1 step (A). Resp. 41–42.
Further, Patent Owner asserts that Petitioner fails to identify any teaching in
Carus about “analyzing generic data to determine a type of the current
template” or “analyzing template-specific data to determine the type of
template.” Sur-reply 22 (emphases by Patent Owner).
To support Patent Owner, Dr. Cohen stated that “it makes no sense to
identify the type of template (that was already done when the template was
IPR2019-00499
Patent 8,781,829 B2

54
retrieved based on the generic data) or identify a best practice associated
with the template and whether it complies (that should have been done when
the template was predefined).” Ex. 2003 ¶ 156. He also stated that “if the
generic input data warrants a template regarding staph infections, then Carus
will fetch an appropriate predefined staph-infection template.” Id. (citing
Ex. 1006 ¶ 39).
In response, Petitioner argues that Carus “renders obvious creating
‘a structured document relating to a patient’s surgery,’ i.e., selecting a
template based on the fact that the patient had a surgery,” and “separately
determining the ‘type’ after the template is selected in order to remind the
user to input information that conforms with a best practice associated with
that type.” Reply 18 (emphasis by Petitioner) (quoting Pet. 33). As a
specific example, Petitioner asserts that Carus renders obvious separately
determining the “type” after template selection “by analyzing the generic
data to determine if the patient is male or female and then determining if the
structured document complies with a best practice that is gender-specific
(e.g., if female, noting if the patient is pregnant).” Id. (citing Ex. 1025 ¶ 25).
To support Petitioner, Dr. Sears explained that selecting a template
based on “the fact that a surgical procedure was performed” does not mean
“that all ‘types’ would necessarily have been determined when the template
was selected.” Ex. 1025 ¶ 25. He explained that “some surgical procedures
might require additional information that is gender-specific, while others
may not,” and that “[i]n the former case, it would be necessary to separately
analyze the generic data to determine if the patient is male or female to
determine whether the structured document complies with best practices for
the patient’s gender.” Id. According to Dr. Sears, gender determination
IPR2019-00499
Patent 8,781,829 B2

55
“would not necessarily occur before the template is selected since it would
not be relevant for all possible scenarios” and instead “would only occur
after it was determined that there were best practices associated with the
patient’s gender, which may not be known until after the template was
selected and additional information was entered.” Id.
We agree with Petitioner that Carus teaches claim 6’s subject matter.
Carus discloses retrieving multiple templates in succession based on the
input audio data. Ex. 1006 ¶¶ 40, 43; see Ex. 1003, A12–A13; Ex. 1025
¶ 25. Patent Owner admits that Carus “further analyzes generic data to fetch
other templates as appropriate.” Sur-reply 22.
In particular, after discussing the example where the system retrieves
a JCAHO-based template for surgical infection prevention, Carus explains
that a “user may continue to input data into the system.” Ex. 1006 ¶¶ 39–40.
If the user does so, the system “review[s] additional portions of generic data
contemporaneously to determine if there are any more templates that need to
be presented” to the user. Id. ¶ 40. The additional template may be a
Medicare form. See id. ¶¶ 10, 40; Ex. 1003, A12–A13.
Determining an additional template after initially retrieving another
template, e.g., a JCAHO-based template, corresponds to “identifying a type
of the structured document” according to claim 6. Dr. Sears discussed an
example of determining an additional gender template after initially
retrieving another template, i.e., a surgical-procedure template. Ex. 1025
¶ 25. In essence, the later-determined template tailors the initially retrieved
template and produces a specific report “type” from a generic report “type.”
See Ex. 1006 ¶¶ 10–12, 17, 36, 44, code (57). Thus, Carus teaches
“identifying a type of the structured document” according to claim 6.
IPR2019-00499
Patent 8,781,829 B2

56
Further, Carus teaches “identifying a best practice associated with the
identified type” according to claim 6 because Carus discloses determining
particular codes, e.g., particular CPT-4 or ICD-9-CM codes, for a billing
template. Ex. 1006 ¶¶ 10–12, 36, 41, 44, 61, code (57).
In addition, Carus teaches “determining whether the structured
document includes an indication of compliance with the identified best
practice to produce the conclusion” according to claim 6 for the same
reasons that Carus teaches “determining” according to claim 1 step (B). See
Ex. 1003, A6–A8, A26; Ex. 1025 ¶ 26; supra § III.D.2(c). Also, Carus
explains that “[a]fter a determination has been made that the user has
addressed all of the templates, and all of the template-specific data has been
received,” the template-specific data and the generic data are “further
processed.” Ex. 1006 ¶ 43; see id. ¶ 36, code (57); see Sur-reply 14 (quoting
Ex. 1006 ¶ 43). Thus, Carus discloses determining data completeness to
permit further processing. See Ex. 1006 ¶ 43. Determining data
completeness to permit further processing produces a conclusion based
on “the presence of information” or “the absence of information” in the
structured document. See Ex. 1001, 5:15–27.
In the Sur-reply, Patent Owner asserts that the Reply includes the
following untimely new argument: “Carus ‘renders obvious’ separately
determining the type of the template ‘by analyzing the generic data’ to, for
example, determine if the template complies with gender-specific best
practices.” Sur-reply 21–22 (quoting Reply 17–18).
We disagree that Petitioner’s argument is new or untimely. In the
Petition and the Reply, Petitioner relies on the same disclosure from the
same reference to support the same legal argument. Compare Pet. 32–33
IPR2019-00499
Patent 8,781,829 B2

57
(citing Ex. 1006 ¶¶ 10, 39), and Ex. 1003, A23–A24 (citing Ex. 1006 ¶¶ 7,
10, 39, 50), with Reply 17–18 (citing Ex. 1003, A23–A24). In the Reply,
Petitioner provides a further explanation why that evidence demonstrates
unpatentability. Petitioner’s explanation does not amount to a new theory of
unpatentability. See Apple Inc. v. Andrea Elecs. Corp., 949 F.3d 697, 706
(Fed. Cir. 2020).
In addition, “the petitioner in an inter partes review proceeding may
introduce new evidence after the petition stage if the evidence is a legitimate
reply to evidence introduced by the patent owner.” Anacor Pharm., Inc. v.
Iancu, 889 F.3d 1372, 1380–81 (Fed. Cir. 2018). Here, Dr. Sears’s
explanation about determining an appropriate gender template replies to
Dr. Cohen’s allegations about deficiencies in Carus’s disclosure. Compare
Ex. 2003 ¶¶ 151–156 (citing Ex. 1006 ¶¶ 35, 38–39), with Ex. 1025 ¶ 25,
and Ex. 1003, A23–A26 (citing Ex. 1006 ¶¶ 7, 10, 39, 50).
For the reasons discussed above, Petitioner has shown by a
preponderance of the evidence that claim 6 is unpatentable under § 103(a)
as obvious over Carus in view of an ordinarily skilled artisan’s knowledge.
6. DEPENDENT CLAIM 12
Claim 12 depends from claim 1 and recites “generating a prompt for
additional input, based on the conclusion, the prompt rendered separately
from a rendering of the structured document.” Ex. 1001, 13:64–67.
Petitioner contends that claim 12’s subject matter would have been
obvious over Carus in view of an ordinarily skilled artisan’s knowledge.
Pet. 34; see Ex. 1003, A27–A29. Specifically, Petitioner asserts that Carus
teaches “generating a prompt for additional input” according to claim 12 for
IPR2019-00499
Patent 8,781,829 B2

58
the same reasons that Carus teaches claim 1 steps (D) and (E). Pet. 34; see
Ex. 1003, A9–A13, A27.
Petitioner admits that Carus “does not explicitly disclose that the
generated prompt is rendered separately from the rendering of the structured
document.” Pet. 34; see Ex. 1003, A27. But Petitioner asserts that an
ordinarily skilled artisan would have understood “that there were only two
possible options for rendering the prompt,” i.e., “within the document itself,
or separately from the document.” Pet. 34; see Ex. 1003, A28. Petitioner
argues that the “idea of generating the prompt separately from the document
itself would have been well known to” an ordinarily skilled artisan because
“[r]endering a prompt for information is a generic concept that is ubiquitous
in human user interfaces.” Pet. 34 (emphasis by Petitioner); see Ex. 1003,
A27–A28; see also Ex. 1013, 129–30 (describing “ubiquitous dialog boxes
containing radio buttons, check boxes, text-entry fields, and scrollable lists
of choices”); Ex. 1014, 130–31 (discussing dialog boxes).
To support Petitioner, Dr. Sears stated that an ordinarily skilled artisan
would have understood two “advantages of rendering the prompt separately”
from a rendering of the structured document. Ex. 1003, A28. First,
rendering a prompt separately “increase[s] the likelihood of the user noticing
and addressing the prompt, which in turn assists the user in preparing a
complete and accurate report.” Id. at A28–A29. Second, rendering a
prompt separately “reduce[s] clutter within the document, making it easier
for the user to view and address the prompt without disrupting the content
within the structured document.” Id. at A29; see id. at A31.
In response, Patent Owner asserts that Petitioner “recognizes that the
only prompts that Carus displays are its templates.” Resp. 44–45 (citing
IPR2019-00499
Patent 8,781,829 B2

59
Pet. 34); see Sur-reply 21 (citing Reply 16); Ex. 2003 ¶ 163. Patent Owner
contends that Petitioner “never explained why it would be advantageous to
display two prompts—the template and a separate prompt.” Resp. 45
(emphasis by Patent Owner).
We agree with Petitioner that claim 12’s subject matter would have
been obvious over Carus in view of an ordinarily skilled artisan’s
knowledge. See Ex. 1003, A27–A29, A31. Carus teaches “generating a
prompt for additional input” according to claim 12 for the same reasons that
Carus teaches claim 1 steps (D) and (E). See Ex. 1003, A9–A13, A27;
Ex. 1006 ¶¶ 14, 39, 48, 52; supra § III.D.2(e).
Further, for the reasons stated by Dr. Sears, an ordinarily skilled
artisan would have been motivated to modify Carus to render a prompt
separately from a rendering of the structured document. See Ex. 1003,
A27–A29, A31. Carus discloses pop-up windows for obtaining user input,
such as user-selected billing codes. See Ex. 1006 ¶¶ 57–59. Dr. Sears stated
that an ordinarily skilled artisan would have “known to use a dialog box to
render a prompt separately from the document.” Ex. 1003, A31; see id. at
A27–A28 (citing Ex. 1013, 129–30; Ex. 1014, 130–31). The ’829 patent
identifies windows and dialog boxes as examples of prompts. Ex. 1001,
7:62–66; see id. at 9:32–37; Ex. 1003, A27 (quoting Ex. 1001, 7:62–64).
Specifically, the ’829 patent explains that “a prompt (such as a window or
a dialog box) that is distinct from the rendering of the report itself may
be displayed to the user to prompt the user to provide input.” Ex. 1001,
7:62–66.
In addition, an ordinarily skilled artisan would have understood “that
only two options existed for prompting the user,” i.e., provide a prompt
IPR2019-00499
Patent 8,781,829 B2

60
“within the document itself, or separately from the document.” Ex. 1003,
A28. The existence of “two known, finite, predictable solutions for solving”
the problem of soliciting user input supports a conclusion of obviousness.
See Uber Techs., Inc. v. X One, Inc., 957 F.3d 1334, 1341 (Fed. Cir. 2020).
For the reasons discussed above, Petitioner has shown by a
preponderance of the evidence that claim 12 is unpatentable under § 103(a)
as obvious over Carus in view of an ordinarily skilled artisan’s knowledge.
7. DEPENDENT CLAIM 13
Claim 13 depends from claim 12 and recites the following steps:
“receiving input representing the content” and “removing the rendered
prompt.” Ex. 1001, 14:1–3.
Petitioner contends that claim 13’s subject matter would have been
obvious over Carus in view of an ordinarily skilled artisan’s knowledge.
Pet. 35; see Ex. 1003, A30–A31. Specifically, Petitioner asserts that Carus
teaches “receiving input representing the content” according to claim 13 for
the same reasons that Carus teaches “inserting” content according to claim 1
step (C). Pet. 35; see Ex. 1003, A14–A15, A30. Petitioner admits that
Carus “does not explicitly disclose removing the rendered prompt.” Pet. 35.
But Petitioner asserts that an ordinarily skilled artisan would have
understood “that the disclosed prompts would be removed after the
requested information was provided by the user.” Id.; see Ex. 1003, A31.
To support Petitioner, Dr. Sears stated that an ordinarily skilled artisan
would have understood “that any prompts presented to the user in Carus
would be removed after they had been addressed by the user.” Ex. 1003,
A31. As a reason for removing a prompt, he stated that retaining a prompt
IPR2019-00499
Patent 8,781,829 B2

61
“after it has been addressed increases the risk of confusing the user and
unnecessarily prompting the user to provide duplicative information.” Id.
Patent Owner makes the same patentability arguments for claim 13
as for claim 12. See Resp. 44–45; Sur-reply 22.
We agree with Petitioner that claim 13’s subject matter would have
been obvious over Carus in view of an ordinarily skilled artisan’s
knowledge. See Ex. 1003, A14–A15, A30–A31. Carus teaches “receiving”
content according to claim 13 for the same reasons that Carus teaches
“inserting” content according to claim 1 step (C). See Ex. 1003, A14–A15,
A30; Ex. 1006 ¶¶ 16, 39–40; supra § III.D.2(d). Further, for the reasons
stated by Dr. Sears, an ordinarily skilled artisan would have been motivated
to modify Carus to remove a prompt after a user provides input. See
Ex. 1003, A31.
For the reasons discussed above, Petitioner has shown by a
preponderance of the evidence that claim 13 is unpatentable under § 103(a)
as obvious over Carus in view of an ordinarily skilled artisan’s knowledge.
8. DEPENDENT CLAIM 25
Claim 25 depends from claim 4 and recites “displaying a label with
the form field to guide the user in providing input.” Ex. 1001, 14:46–47.
Petitioner contends that claim 25’s subject matter would have been
obvious over Carus in view of an ordinarily skilled artisan’s knowledge.
Pet. 36; see Ex. 1003, A33. Specifically, Petitioner asserts that Carus
“discloses that ‘[t]raditional input methods may include . . . those used in
database applications involving fielded input forms consisting of input
fields, check boxes, radio buttons, text boxes, and other graphical input
objects.’” Pet. 36 (alteration by Petitioner) (quoting Ex. 1006 ¶ 15); see
IPR2019-00499
Patent 8,781,829 B2

62
Ex. 1003, A33. Petitioner also asserts that an ordinarily skilled artisan
would have understood “this disclosure to include a label that is displayed
with the form field to guide user input” because “simply provid[ing] an input
field or a text box on its own, without any indication of what information to
supply within the field,” would be unhelpful. Pet. 36; see Ex. 1003, A33.
To support Petitioner, Dr. Sears stated that an ordinarily skilled artisan
would have understood that Carus’s graphical input objects employed
“labels to guide the user in providing the desired input.” Ex. 1003, A33. He
explained that “a text box or radio button on its own, without any label,
would fail to indicate any meaning to the user regarding what data to input.”
Id. (citing Ex. 1013, 103).
Patent Owner makes the same patentability arguments for claim 25
as for claims 3, 4, and 21. See Resp. 43–44.
We agree with Petitioner that claim 25’s subject matter would have
been obvious over Carus in view of an ordinarily skilled artisan’s
knowledge. See Ex. 1003, A33; see also Ex. 1013, 103 (depicting example
radio buttons and a label for each button). An ordinarily skilled artisan
would have understood that Carus’s graphical input objects employed
“labels to guide the user in providing the desired input” because unlabeled
objects would fail to indicate what data to input. Ex. 1003, A33.
For the reasons discussed above, Petitioner has shown by a
preponderance of the evidence that claim 25 is unpatentable under § 103(a)
as obvious over Carus in view of an ordinarily skilled artisan’s knowledge.
9. DEPENDENT CLAIM 26
Claim 26 depends from claim 1 and specifies that step (A) comprises
“applying automatic speech recognition to a first portion of the audio signal
IPR2019-00499
Patent 8,781,829 B2

63
to produce a structured document representing contents of the first portion of
the audio signal, during generation of a second portion of the audio signal.”
Ex. 1001, 14:48–52.
Petitioner contends that Carus teaches claim 26’s subject matter
because Carus teaches claim 1 step (A) and because Carus discloses
applying ASR “contemporaneously” to additional input audio data, i.e.,
“a second portion of the audio signal.” Pet. 36–37; see Ex. 1003, A34–A35.
To support that contention, Petitioner quotes Carus’s explanation that a “user
may continue to input data into the system,” and it “review[s] additional
portions of generic data contemporaneously to determine if there are any
more templates that need to be presented” to the user. Pet. 37 (quoting
Ex. 1006 ¶ 40); see Ex. 1003, A34. Petitioner asserts that an ordinarily
skilled artisan would have understood “this to mean that while the system
is applying ASR to portions of the user’s speech to extract relevant data,
the user may continue to input speech for processing (i.e., generation of
a second portion of the audio signal).” Pet. 37; see Ex. 1003, A34.
To support Petitioner, Dr. Sears stated that claim 26 “represents
a basic and long-existing functionality of automatic speech recognition
software” to “analyze an input stream while a user continues to input
additional speech data.” Ex. 1003, A34; see id. ¶ 18.
Patent Owner does not make any arguments specific to claim 26. See,
e.g., Resp. 39–45; Sur-reply 21–22.
We agree with Petitioner that Carus teaches claim 26’s subject matter.
Carus teaches “applying automatic speech recognition to a first portion of
the audio signal to produce a structured document representing contents of
the first portion of the audio signal” according to claim 26 for the same
IPR2019-00499
Patent 8,781,829 B2

64
reasons that Carus teaches “applying” ASR according to claim 1 step (A).
See Ex. 1003, A2–A5; supra § III.D.2(b). In addition, as Petitioner notes,
Carus explains that a “user may continue to input data into the system,” and
it “review[s] additional portions of generic data contemporaneously to
determine if there are any more templates that need to be presented” to the
user. Ex. 1006 ¶ 40; see Pet. 37. The “additional portions of generic data
contemporaneously” reviewed by the system correspond to “a second
portion of the audio signal” generated while processing “a first portion of the
audio signal” according to claim 26. See Ex. 1003, A34.
For the reasons discussed above, Petitioner has shown by a
preponderance of the evidence that claim 26 is unpatentable under § 103(a)
as obvious over Carus in view of an ordinarily skilled artisan’s knowledge.
E. Obviousness over Carus in View of an Ordinarily
Skilled Artisan’s Knowledge and Panzarasa:
Claims 12, 13, 18, and 25
Petitioner challenges claims 12, 13, 18, and 25 under § 103(a) as
obvious over Carus in view of an ordinarily skilled artisan’s knowledge and
Panzarasa. See Pet. 7, 38–50. Above, we provided an overview of Carus.
See supra § III.D.1. Below, we provide an overview of Panzarasa, and then
we consider the obviousness issues raised by the parties.
1. OVERVIEW OF PANZARASA (EX. 1007)
Panzarasa describes efforts to integrate decision-support
functionalities for doctors into information systems for stroke patients.
Ex. 1007, 141; see Ex. 1003 ¶ 50. The decision-support functionalities
incorporated clinical-practice guidelines, i.e., “best practices in stroke
management.” Ex. 1007, 141–43; see Ex. 1003 ¶ 50. The integration efforts
IPR2019-00499
Patent 8,781,829 B2

65
included modifying a graphical user interface for doctors. Ex. 1007, 141,
143 (Fig. 1), 150 (Fig. 8); see Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 50–51.
Panzarasa’s Figure 1 (reproduced below) shows the graphical user
interface before integrating decision support for doctors. Ex. 1007, 143; see
Ex. 1003 ¶ 50.

Figure 1 illustrates a “list of forms (bottom left) . . . ordered by name (as in
the figure), or by date,” with “no intelligent tailoring to the specific patient.”
Ex. 1007, 143 (emphasis in original). Figure 1 also illustrates “a series of
selection boxes from which a user could input data.” Ex. 1003 ¶ 50.
Panzarasa’s Figure 8 (reproduced below) shows the graphical user
interface after integrating decision support for doctors. Ex. 1007, 150; see
Ex. 1003 ¶ 51.
IPR2019-00499
Patent 8,781,829 B2

66

Figure 8 illustrates a “smart form” with patient details in (A), messages “for
the actual patient” in (B), messages “for all the active inpatients” in (C), a
to-do list in (D), lists of recommendations and non-compliances in (E), and
a prompt to accept or deny a particular recommendation in (F). Ex. 1007,
147, 150–51; see Ex. 1003 ¶ 51, A36–A37.
Panzarasa explains that a system called RoMA (Reasoning on
Medical Actions) runs at discharge, identifies “missing data,” and supplies
lists of recommendations and non-compliances. Ex. 1007, 147, 150.
Panzarasa also explains that a RoMA report “prompt[s] the users for
providing motivations . . . choosing them from a predefined taxonomy.” Id.
at 150; see Ex. 1003 ¶ 52.
IPR2019-00499
Patent 8,781,829 B2

67
2. COMBINING THE TEACHINGS OF CARUS AND PANZARASA
Petitioner argues that an ordinarily skilled artisan “reviewing Carus
would have been motivated to review Panzarasa and incorporate its
teachings relating to a smart user interface for completing medical records.”
Pet. 40; see Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 61–63. In particular, Petitioner contends that Carus
“stresses the importance of creating accurate and complete medical records”
by prompting a user for information but fails to “provide specific details
regarding the ways to prompt the user.” Pet. 40–41; see Ex. 1003 ¶ 61, A37;
Ex. 1006 ¶¶ 14, 39, 48, 52. Consistent with that contention, Carus provides
users with “prompts or reminders to collect certain predetermined
information and assistance in collecting and classifying” the information
required to complete a report. Ex. 1006 ¶¶ 14, 39; see id. ¶¶ 7–13, 15,
48, 52.
Petitioner asserts that both Carus and Panzarasa teach “techniques for
prompting a user for information based on the contents of a structured
document and certain pre-defined best practices.” Pet. 41; see Ex. 1003
¶ 62, A37. Petitioner also asserts that both references seek “to increase the
accuracy and efficiency with which health care professionals are able to
identify and incorporate these best practices.” Pet. 41; see Ex. 1003 ¶ 62.
In addition, Petitioner contends that Panzarasa “provides additional useful
disclosure on how to prompt the user.” Pet. 41 (emphasis by Petitioner); see
Ex. 1003 ¶ 62.
Further, Petitioner asserts that an ordinarily skilled artisan “employing
the teachings of Carus would have been motivated to review Panzarasa to
learn how to prompt a user and to further incorporate Panzarasa’s prompts
into Carus’ teachings.” Pet. 42. In addition, Dr. Sears identified
IPR2019-00499
Patent 8,781,829 B2

68
“Panzarasa’s explicit disclosure of a simple end-user interface for reminding
a user to provide more information” as a reason to combine the teachings of
Carus and Panzarasa. Ex. 1003 ¶ 62.
Patent Owner does not dispute that an ordinarily skilled artisan would
have had a reason to combine the teachings of Carus and Panzarasa. See,
e.g., Resp. 45–49; Sur-reply 23.
We agree with Petitioner that an ordinarily skilled artisan would have
had a reason to combine the teachings of Carus and Panzarasa because
Panzarasa provides additional useful disclosure on how to prompt a user for
information. See Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 62–63. Among other things, Panzarasa
discloses:
(1) “prompting a user in order to remind the user to insert
additional information, such as a motivation for why the user
declined to adopt a recommended clinical practice guideline”;
(2) “rendering a prompt to provide additional information,
where the prompt is rendered separately from the document
itself”;
(3) “labeling the prompt to provide the user with helpful
information regarding the information sought”;
(4) “removing the rendered prompt once the user has input
the requested information”; and
(5) “inserting a prompt into the document itself to remind
the user to provide the missing information.”
Ex. 1003 ¶ 62; Ex. 1007, 150 (Fig. 8); see Ex. 1003 ¶ 51. As Dr. Sears
stated, “[e]ach of these disclosures would have been relevant and useful to”
an ordinarily skilled artisan “interested in learning how to remind a user
to provide additional required information.” Ex. 1003 ¶ 62.
IPR2019-00499
Patent 8,781,829 B2

69
3. DEPENDENT CLAIM 12
Claim 12 depends from claim 1 and recites “generating a prompt for
additional input, based on the conclusion, the prompt rendered separately
from a rendering of the structured document.” Ex. 1001, 13:64–67.
Petitioner contends that claim 12’s subject matter would have been
obvious based on the combined teachings of Carus and Panzarasa.
Pet. 42–44; see Ex. 1003, A36–A37. Specifically, Petitioner asserts that
“Panzarasa discloses generating a prompt that is separately rendered from a
structured document.” Pet. 42; see Ex. 1003, A36–A37. Petitioner supports
that assertion with the highlighted version of Panzarasa’s Figure 8
reproduced below (Pet. 43):

Figure 8 shows a graphical user interface. Ex. 1007, 150. According to
Petitioner, this version of Figure 8’s graphical user interface highlights with
yellow a prompt in part (F) to accept or deny a particular recommendation,
IPR2019-00499
Patent 8,781,829 B2

70
i.e., recommendation R 10.7 for anticoagulant therapy with intravenous
heparin “because the patient suffers from venous sinus thrombosis.” See
Ex. 1003, A36–A37; Ex. 1007, 150–51.
To support Petitioner, Dr. Sears explained that Panzarasa’s Figure 8
depicts “a prompt requesting the user to accept or deny a recommendation
pertaining to a best practice [that] is rendered separately from the structured
document containing information about the best practices.” Ex. 1003, A37.
In addition, Dr. Sears explained that an ordinarily skilled artisan
would have been motivated to combine Panzarasa’s teachings to render a
prompt separately from a rendering of the structured document with Carus’s
teachings for two reasons. First, rendering a prompt separately “increase[s]
the likelihood of the user noticing and addressing the prompt” because “the
prompt stands out in relation to the structured document,” which “assists the
user in preparing a complete and accurate report.” Ex. 1003, A28–A29,
A37. Second, rendering a prompt separately “reduce[s] clutter within the
document, making it easier for the user to view and address the prompt
without disrupting the content within the structured document.” Id. at A29;
see id. at A31, A37.
Patent Owner disputes that claim 12’s subject matter would have been
obvious based on the combined teachings of Carus and Panzarasa. See
Resp. 45–48; Sur-reply 23. In particular, Patent Owner contends that
Petitioner “incorrectly alleges without any support or reasoning that
Panzarasa uses and displays the claimed structured documents.” Resp. 47.
Further, Patent Owner asserts that Dr. Sears “simply states Panzarasa uses
structured documents without pointing to anything in particular.” Id. at 48
(citing Ex. 1003, A36–A37, A41–A43). According to Patent Owner,
IPR2019-00499
Patent 8,781,829 B2

71
Petitioner’s “conclusory attorney argument and expert testimony are due no
weight.” Id.
In response, Petitioner explains that “[e]ven if Panzarasa does not
disclose a structured document,” Petitioner “does not offer Panzarasa for this
purpose.” Reply 20. Petitioner contends that “Carus already discloses a
structured document.” Id. at 20–21. Further, Petitioner asserts that an
ordinarily skilled artisan would have “turned to Panzarasa for its disclosure
of generating and removing a prompt (claims 12 and 13), providing an
indication that content is missing (claim 18), and displaying a label to guide
a user in providing input (claim 25).” Id. at 20.
We agree with Petitioner that claim 12’s subject matter would have
been obvious based on the combined teachings of Carus and Panzarasa.
Carus discloses a structured document, i.e., a template with template-specific
data that becomes a report, e.g., a medical report. See Ex. 1003, A3–A5;
Ex. 1006 ¶¶ 6–12, 16–18, 36, 39–41, 43–44, 50; Ex. 1025 ¶¶ 17–19; supra
§ III.D.2(b). And Panzarasa discloses “generating a prompt for additional
input” with “the prompt rendered separately from a rendering of” a medical
report. Ex. 1007, 150 (Fig. 8); see Ex. 1003, A36–A37. Further, for the
reasons explained by Dr. Sears, an ordinarily skilled artisan would have been
motivated to modify Carus according to Panzarasa’s teachings to render a
prompt separately from a rendering of the structured document. See
Ex. 1003, A28–A29, A37. Also, as discussed above for the ground based on
Carus without Panzarasa, the existence of “two known, finite, predictable
solutions for solving” the problem of soliciting user input supports a
conclusion of obviousness. See Uber, 957 F.3d at 1341; supra § III.D.6.
IPR2019-00499
Patent 8,781,829 B2

72
For the reasons discussed above, Petitioner has shown by a
preponderance of the evidence that claim 12 is unpatentable under § 103(a)
as obvious over Carus in view of an ordinarily skilled artisan’s knowledge
and Panzarasa.
4. DEPENDENT CLAIM 13
Claim 13 depends from claim 12 and recites the following steps:
“receiving input representing the content” and “removing the rendered
prompt.” Ex. 1001, 14:1–3.
Petitioner contends that claim 13’s subject matter would have been
obvious based on the combined teachings of Carus and Panzarasa.
Pet. 44–46; see Ex. 1003, A38–A40. In particular, Petitioner argues that
Carus teaches “receiving input representing the content” according to
claim 13 for the same reasons that Carus teaches “inserting” content
according to claim 1 step (C). Pet. 44; see Ex. 1003, A14–A15, A38.
Further, Petitioner asserts that Panzarasa teaches that (1) a user may deny a
recommendation and (2) a prompt associated with a denied recommendation
no longer appears because it was “removed after a user made a selection.”
Pet. 44–45; see Ex. 1003, A39–A40. Petitioner supports that assertion with
the highlighted version of Panzarasa’s Figure 8 reproduced below (Pet. 45):
IPR2019-00499
Patent 8,781,829 B2

73

Figure 8 shows a graphical user interface. Ex. 1007, 150. According to
Petitioner, this version of Figure 8’s graphical user interface highlights with
blue and yellow the rows in part (E) for non-compliances, i.e.,
recommendations that a user has denied. See Ex. 1003, A39–A40; Ex. 1007,
150–51. In particular, according to Petitioner, blue highlighting denotes the
rows for denied recommendations R 10.5 and R 9.6 that include a user-
inserted reason or motivation for the denial, and yellow highlighting denotes
the rows for denied recommendations R 5.11 and R 5.15 that include the
words “Insert a Motivation.” See Ex. 1003, A39.
To support Petitioner, Dr. Sears stated that Panzarasa’s Figure 8
“reveals that four compliance recommendations have been made to the user
(R 10.5, R 5.11, R 5.15, and R 9.6).” Ex. 1003, A40. He also stated that
“none of their associated prompts are visible to the user” because “only the
current prompt related to [recommendation] R 10.7 and venous sinus
IPR2019-00499
Patent 8,781,829 B2

74
thrombosis is rendered for the user.” Id. According to Dr. Sears, “[t]his
indicates that the other prompts were removed after the user made
the required selection to input the requested information.” Id.
In addition, Dr. Sears explained that an ordinarily skilled artisan
would have been motivated to combine Panzarasa’s teachings to remove
a prompt after a user provides input with Carus’s teachings for two reasons.
First, if prompts were not removed, “the graphical user interface could
become cluttered and the user could become confused about whether he or
she had already provided the requested information.” Ex. 1003, A40; see id.
at A31. Second, “there is no reason to keep prompting the user for the same
information” after “the requested information has been supplied.” Id.
at A40; see id. at A31.
Patent Owner makes the same patentability arguments for claim 13
as for claim 12. See Resp. 45–48; Sur-reply 23.
We agree with Petitioner that claim 13’s subject matter would have
been obvious based on the combined teachings of Carus and Panzarasa.
Carus teaches “receiving” content according to claim 13 for the same
reasons that Carus teaches “inserting” content according to claim 1 step (C).
See Ex. 1003, A14–A15, A30, A38; supra § III.D.2(d). And Panzarasa
teaches removing a prompt after a user provides input. See Ex. 1003,
A39–A40; Ex. 1007, 150 (Fig. 8). As Dr. Sears stated, Figure 8 “reveals
that four compliance recommendations have been made to the user” but
“none of their associated prompts are visible to the user” because “only the
current prompt related to [recommendation] R 10.7 . . . is rendered for the
user.” Ex. 1003, A40.
IPR2019-00499
Patent 8,781,829 B2

75
Further, for the reasons explained by Dr. Sears, an ordinarily skilled
artisan would have been motivated to modify Carus according to
Panzarasa’s teachings to remove a prompt after a user provides input. See
Ex. 1003, A31, A40.
For the reasons discussed above, Petitioner has shown by a
preponderance of the evidence that claim 13 is unpatentable under § 103(a)
as obvious over Carus in view of an ordinarily skilled artisan’s knowledge
and Panzarasa.
5. DEPENDENT CLAIM 18
Claim 18 depends from claim 1 and specifies that step (C) comprises
“inserting, into the structured document, an indication that the content is
missing.” Ex. 1001, 14:22–24.
Petitioner contends that claim 18’s subject matter would have been
obvious based on the combined teachings of Carus and Panzarasa.
Pet. 46–48; see Ex. 1003, A41–A43. Specifically, Petitioner asserts that
“Panzarasa discloses inserting an indication notifying a user to supply a
motivation for the user’s decision to deny a recommended best practice.”
Pet. 46–47; see Ex. 1003, A41. Petitioner supports that assertion with the
highlighted version of Panzarasa’s Figure 8 reproduced below (Pet. 47):
IPR2019-00499
Patent 8,781,829 B2

76

Figure 8 shows a graphical user interface. Ex. 1007, 150. According to
Petitioner, this version of Figure 8’s graphical user interface highlights with
yellow the rows in part (E) for non-compliances, i.e., recommendations that
a user has denied, that include the words “Insert a Motivation.” See
Ex. 1003, A42–A43; Ex. 1007, 150–51.
To support Petitioner, Dr. Sears described the words “Insert a
Motivation” as a prompt that is inserted “when a user chooses to deny a
recommended best practice that is suggested to the user.” Ex. 1003, A42.
He stated that an ordinarily skilled artisan “reviewing Panzarasa would have
understood that a similar prompt could be utilized in connection with Carus’
disclosure of prompting a user for missing information.” Id. In addition,
Dr. Sears noted that “Carus discloses the use of numerous form fields for
inputting data, including text boxes.” Id. at A42–A43; see id. at A22 (citing
Ex. 1006 ¶ 15). He stated that an ordinarily skilled artisan “reviewing Carus
IPR2019-00499
Patent 8,781,829 B2

77
would have understood that this form field [text box] could be used in
connection with Panzarasa’s disclosure relating to inserting a prompt for
missing information directly within the structured document.” Id. at A43;
see id. at A19–A22.
Also, Dr. Sears explained that an ordinarily skilled artisan would have
been motivated to combine Panzarasa’s teachings to insert a prompt for
missing content with Carus’s teachings “to ensure that patient records are
both complete and accurate.” Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 61–62; see id. at A28–A29.
Patent Owner disputes that claim 18’s subject matter would have been
obvious based on the combined teachings of Carus and Panzarasa. See
Resp. 48–49; Sur-reply 23. Specifically, Patent Owner asserts that claim 18
requires inserting an indication “into the structured document,” whereas
Panzarasa inserts an indication “into a rendering of the structured document,
i.e., the human-readable text displayed to the user as opposed to the
machine-readable structured document itself.” Resp. 48 (emphasis by Patent
Owner). In addition, Patent Owner contends that Petitioner “never
explained how a ‘text box,’ which is a user-interface element displayed to
the user, could be and would be inserted into a machine-readable structured
document or how [the] alleged structured documents (e.g., Carus’s template)
could be and would be integrated into Panzarasa and accept a text box.” Id.
at 49; see Sur-reply 23.
We agree with Petitioner that claim 18’s subject matter would have
been obvious based on the combined teachings of Carus and Panzarasa.
Carus discloses a structured document, i.e., a template with template-specific
data that becomes a report, e.g., a medical report. See Ex. 1003, A3–A5;
Ex. 1006 ¶¶ 6–12, 16–18, 36, 39–41, 43–44, 50; Ex. 1025 ¶¶ 17–19; supra
IPR2019-00499
Patent 8,781,829 B2

78
§ III.D.2(b). And Panzarasa discloses inserting a prompt for missing content
into a medical report. See Ex. 1003, A41–A43; Ex. 1007, 150 (Fig. 8).
Further, for the reasons explained by Dr. Sears, an ordinarily skilled artisan
would have been motivated to modify Carus according to Panzarasa’s
teachings to insert a prompt for missing content into a structured document.
See Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 61–62, A28–A29.
As for Patent Owner’s assertion that Panzarasa inserts an indication
“into a rendering of the structured document, i.e., the human-readable text
displayed to the user,” we conclude above that a “structured document” does
not exclude documents intended for user review. See supra § III.C.3(a);
Resp. 48. In addition, Patent Owner concedes that the structured document
“is actually more than what is displayed.” Resp. 55. Because the structured
document “is actually more than what is displayed,” inserting something into
“what is displayed” also inserts something into the structured document.
Hence, inserting “an indication” about missing content into a rendering of
the structured document equates to inserting “an indication” about missing
content into the structured document itself.
As for Patent Owner’s contention concerning a problem integrating
the teachings of Carus and Panzarasa relating to a text box, Carus already
discloses a text box for data entry. Ex. 1006 ¶ 15; see Ex. 1003, A19, A21,
A33, A42–A43. As Dr. Sears stated, an ordinarily skilled artisan “would
have understood that this form field [text box] could be used in connection
with Panzarasa’s disclosure relating to inserting a prompt for missing
information directly within the structured document.” Ex. 1003, A43.
For the reasons discussed above, Petitioner has shown by a
preponderance of the evidence that claim 18 is unpatentable under § 103(a)
IPR2019-00499
Patent 8,781,829 B2

79
as obvious over Carus in view of an ordinarily skilled artisan’s knowledge
and Panzarasa.
6. DEPENDENT CLAIM 25
Claim 25 depends from claim 4 and recites “displaying a label with
the form field to guide the user in providing input.” Ex. 1001, 14:46–47.
Petitioner contends that claim 25’s subject matter would have been
obvious based on the combined teachings of Carus and Panzarasa.
Pet. 48–50; see Ex. 1003, A44–A46. Specifically, Petitioner asserts that
“Panzarasa discloses multiple different labels for guiding a user’s input.”
Pet. 48; see Ex. 1003, A44. Petitioner supports that assertion with the
highlighted version of Panzarasa’s Figure 8 reproduced below (Pet. 49):

Figure 8 shows a graphical user interface. Ex. 1007, 150. According to
Petitioner, this version of Figure 8’s graphical user interface highlights with
yellow certain labels in part (E) for recommendations and non-compliances,
IPR2019-00499
Patent 8,781,829 B2

80
i.e., the labels R 5.11, R 5.15, R 9.6, and R 10.5 on the left side of certain
rows. See Ex. 1003, A44–A45; Ex. 1007, 150–51. In addition, according to
Petitioner, this version highlights with orange the form fields in part (E)
where a user was prompted to provide a reason or motivation for denying a
recommendation and highlights with purple the words “Insert a Motivation”
in those form fields. See Ex. 1003, A44–A45.
To support Petitioner, Dr. Sears explained that label R 10.5 “indicates
that the best practice regarding supplying aspirin to patients with acute
stroke was denied because of ‘patient-related problems’” and that label
R 5.11 “indicates that the recommendation regarding examination of supra-
aortic vessels was denied and that a user should insert a motivation for the
denial.” Ex. 1003, A45. He also explained that “[t]hese labels help inform
the user which recommendations they need to supply a motivation for
in response to the system’s prompt to explain why the user denied the
recommended best practice.” Id.
In addition, Dr. Sears identified labels for certain form fields in
part (A), e.g., patient ID, patient name, and gender, that “explain what their
associated fields represent.” Ex. 1003, A46; see Ex. 1007, 150 (Fig. 8).
Dr. Sears stated that an ordinarily skilled artisan “reviewing Panzarasa
would have immediately recognized the benefits in incorporating labels into
the Carus’ disclosure to help assist users with providing the requested
feedback in response to prompts and reminders disclosed by Carus.”
Ex. 1003, A46; see id. at A33. He explained that “a text box or radio button
on its own, without any label, would fail to indicate any meaning to the user
regarding what data to input.” Id. at A33 (citing Ex. 1013, 103).
IPR2019-00499
Patent 8,781,829 B2

81
Patent Owner makes the same patentability arguments for claim 25
as for claims 12 and 13. See Resp. 45–48; Sur-reply 23.
We agree with Petitioner that claim 25’s subject matter would have
been obvious based on the combined teachings of Carus and Panzarasa.
Panzarasa’s Figure 8 illustrates several labels, including labels for form
fields, e.g., the labels R 5.11, R 5.15, R 9.6, and R 10.5. Ex. 1003,
A44–A46; Ex. 1007, 150 (Fig. 8). Further, for the reasons explained by
Dr. Sears, an ordinarily skilled artisan would have been motivated to modify
Carus according to Panzarasa’s teachings to display a label for a form field
to guide a user in providing input. See Ex. 1003, A33, A46.
For the reasons discussed above, Petitioner has shown by a
preponderance of the evidence that claim 25 is unpatentable under § 103(a)
as obvious over Carus in view of an ordinarily skilled artisan’s knowledge
and Panzarasa.
F. Obviousness over Soble in View of an
Ordinarily Skilled Artisan’s Knowledge:
Claims 1, 4, 6, 12, 13, 18, 21, 25, and 26
Petitioner challenges claims 1, 4, 6, 12, 13, 18, 21, 25, and 26 under
§ 103(a) as obvious over Soble in view of an ordinarily skilled artisan’s
knowledge. See Pet. 7–8, 50–73. Below, we provide an overview of Soble,
and then we consider the obviousness issues raised by the parties.
1. OVERVIEW OF SOBLE (EX. 1008)
Soble discloses a system “for preparing reports, such as medical
reports,” that “can verbalize information, using speech synthesis (text-to-
speech), to support a dialogue between a user and the reporting system
during the course of the preparation of the report in order that the user can
avoid inefficient visual distractions.” Ex. 1008, code (57); see id. ¶¶ 1, 22,
IPR2019-00499
Patent 8,781,829 B2

82
31, 34, 43–45, 61. The system “permits a user to create a report by
submitting information to the system in the form of one or more user inputs
through the use of a user input device.” Id. ¶ 24. The user input device may
comprise “a keyboard, mouse, touch screen, keypad, microphone, dictation
device, or speech recognition mechanism.” Id.; see id. ¶¶ 31, 36, 40–42, 50,
62–63, 66, 74, 79, 117, 139.
When the system employs speech recognition, the user may input
information with “free-form statements,” “fixed-form statements,” and
“mixed-form statements,” i.e., a combination of free-form and fixed-form
speech. Ex. 1008 ¶ 32. “Free-form statements include . . . narrative speech
such as comments, observations, and interpretations to name a few.” Id.
“Fixed-form statements include pre-defined speech such as commands and
user acknowledgements.” Id.
To facilitate report preparation, the system employs macros and macro
templates. Ex. 1008 ¶¶ 12–14, 26–28, 36, 44–46, 66–67, 99–100, 109,
Fig. 1. A macro is “a text string identified by a name.” Id. ¶ 12. A macro
template is a macro with “a mix of text strings and placeholders.” Id.
Placeholders “indicate where the user may—or must—insert additional
text.” Id. Placeholders include blank slots and pick-list options. Id.
¶¶ 13–14, 94–99, Fig. 1. A user may invoke a macro or macro template
by saying its name. Id. ¶¶ 12–13, 36, 45, 76–77, 79, 89, 99–100, 109.
When receiving user input, the system may provide “prompts that
guide the user to enter information,” such as “prompts listing choices
requiring a refined selection by the user” and “prompts for additional
information that is needed to complete a report, such as strings of text
required to complete the options in a macro template.” Ex. 1008 ¶¶ 27, 34;
IPR2019-00499
Patent 8,781,829 B2

83
see id. ¶¶ 82–83, 89, 92, 99–100, 109. For example, the “system can check
whether any required content is missing from the report and present spoken
prompts for the missing content.” Id. ¶ 82. Further, the “system can
verbalize” that “a portion of a report is potentially incorrect” or that new
data “conflicts with related or conflicting data existing in a prior report or
elsewhere in the patient record.” Id. ¶¶ 43, 81; see id. ¶¶ 22, 27. The system
verbalizes through “a voice output device,” such as “a speaker or headset” or
“a computer sound card.” Id. ¶ 29.
After receiving user input, the “system processes the information
according to the instructions received from the user.” Ex. 1008 ¶ 25. The
processing may include the following: (1) “specifying a report format,”
(2) “entering a narrative statement into the report,” (3) “recording
information” in the report, (4) “verifying the report content with respect to
standards regarding report completeness,” and (5) “issuing warnings or
alerts based on the presence or absence of specific information in the
report.” Id. ¶ 26. For instance, a warning or alert may result from
“problems with the user input” or “incompatibility of the information
with either the current report or a previous report.” Id. ¶ 27.
2. INDEPENDENT CLAIM 1
(a) Preamble
Claim 1’s preamble recites “[a] computer-implemented method
performed by at least one computer processor.” Ex. 1001, 13:5–6.
Petitioner asserts that to the extent the preamble limits the claim,
Soble discloses the subject matter of the preamble. Pet. 51–52. To show
that Soble discloses that subject matter, Petitioner cites Soble’s claim 1. Id.;
see Ex. 1003, A47. Soble’s claim 1 concerns a “method for a user to create
IPR2019-00499
Patent 8,781,829 B2

84
a report through voice output,” including “receiving information from user
input via a user input device,” “processing the information,” and
communicating a response “as voice output verbalized through use of a
voice output device.” Ex. 1008, claim 1.
Patent Owner does not make any arguments specific to claim 1’s
preamble. See, e.g., Resp. 52–66.
Generally, a preamble does not limit a claim. Allen Eng’g, 299 F.3d
at 1346. Here, we need not decide whether claim 1’s preamble limits the
claim because we agree with Petitioner that Soble discloses “[a] computer-
implemented method performed by at least one computer processor.” In
particular, Soble describes an embodiment where “a computer or other
electronic device capable of executing speech recognition software”
processes speech input. Ex. 1008 ¶ 31. In addition, Soble identifies
“a computer sound card” as a voice output device. Id. ¶ 29.
(b) Step (A)
Claim 1 recites “(A) applying automatic speech recognition to an
audio signal to produce a structured document representing contents of the
audio signal.” Ex. 1001, 13:7–9.
Petitioner asserts that Soble teaches step (A) because Soble discloses
a user inputting information “through a speech recognition mechanism” and
the system “then parses the input word sequence” for processing. Pet. 52
(quoting Ex. 1008 ¶¶ 63–64); see Ex. 1003, A48–A51. Petitioner also
asserts that the processing may include (1) “specifying a report format,”
including a report format with multiple sections, (2) “entering a narrative
statement into the report,” and (3) “recording information” in the report.
Pet. 52–53 (quoting Ex. 1008 ¶ 26); see Ex. 1003 ¶ 54, A52. Petitioner
IPR2019-00499
Patent 8,781,829 B2

85
further asserts that Soble depicts an illustrative radiology report “that has
been organized into sections,” i.e., sections for “clinical history 502;
procedure 503; findings 504 (grouped into (sub)sections by anatomy,
pathology or subprocedure); comparisons 506; and impressions 507.”
Pet. 53–54 (quoting Ex. 1008 ¶ 65); see Ex. 1003, A48–A49.
To support those assertions, Petitioner relies on Soble’s Figure 4
(reproduced below):

Figure 4 “illustrates the content of a radiology report, including organized
sections.” Ex. 1008 ¶ 56; see id. ¶ 65.
In addition, Petitioner contends that Figure 4’s radiology report
“encodes, for example, the concept of the date of birth as the discrete data
element ‘01/01/1950.’” Reply 21–22; see Ex. 1025 ¶ 13.
IPR2019-00499
Patent 8,781,829 B2

86
To support Petitioner, Dr. Sears stated that in Figure 4’s radiology
report “the concept of a birth date is encoded as a discrete data element (the
patient’s birthday, January 1, 1950) because of its placement in the report.”
Ex. 1025 ¶ 13. He explained that “[b]y positioning the date next to the
‘DOB’ header, the date is encoded as a birthday.” Id. He also explained
that if “the date was placed under the ‘Chest CT report’ header instead, the
date would be encoded as the report date (or date of appointment).” Id.
According to Dr. Sears, “it is clear to a user that January 1, 1950 and
December 10, 2007 are the patient’s date of birth and the date of the report,
respectively, because of how the dates are encoded (e.g., placed) in the
structured document.” Id.
Patent Owner disputes that Soble teaches step (A). See Resp. 52–55;
Sur-reply 24–25. Specifically, Patent Owner asserts that “Soble simply
places text strings in various sections of its reports” and that “[t]hose text
strings do not encode any concepts from the user’s speech as discrete data
elements.” Resp. 54. Patent Owner similarly asserts that “Soble’s entire
report is merely formatted plaintext assembled by filling in the blanks with
any text, even gibberish” and that “the ’829 patent expressly distinguishes
between text and encoded concepts in discrete data elements.” Sur-reply 24
(emphasis by Patent Owner).
We agree with Petitioner that Soble teaches step (A). Soble discloses
applying automatic speech recognition to a user’s speech and parsing “the
input word sequence” for processing. Ex. 1008 ¶¶ 63–64; see id. ¶¶ 23–24,
31–34; Ex. 1003, A48–A51. The processing may include (1) “specifying
a report format,” including a report format with multiple sections,
(2) “entering a narrative statement into the report,” and (3) “recording
IPR2019-00499
Patent 8,781,829 B2

87
information” in the report. Ex. 1008 ¶ 26; see id. ¶¶ 63–64, 82–116, Fig. 3;
Ex. 1003 ¶ 54, A52. As an illustrative a report, Soble’s Figure 4 depicts a
radiology report “that has been organized into sections,” i.e., sections for
“clinical history 502; procedure 503; findings 504 (grouped into
(sub)sections by anatomy, pathology or subprocedure); comparisons 506;
and impressions 507.” Ex. 1008 ¶ 65, Fig. 4; see id. ¶ 56; Ex. 1003,
A48–A49. Another illustrative report includes sections for Procedure,
Findings (with subsections for Heart, Lungs, and Mediastinum), and
Conclusions. Ex. 1008 ¶¶ 101–116; see Resp. 57 (citing Ex. 1008
¶¶ 101–116).
Figure 4’s radiology report is a “structured document,” i.e., a
document organized into a structure or particular format that organizes
information as discrete data elements. See Ex. 1003, A48–A51; Ex. 1025
¶ 25; supra § III.C.3. First, Figure 4’s radiology report is organized into a
structure or particular format, i.e., “organized into sections.” Ex. 1008 ¶ 65,
Fig. 4; see id. ¶ 56; Ex. 1003, A48–A49. The ’829 patent describes
“structured elements” of a “structured document” as including “sections.”
Ex. 1001, 7:1–6.
Second, Figure 4’s radiology report organizes information as discrete
data elements, e.g., dates extracted from a user’s speech. Ex. 1008, Fig. 4;
see id. ¶¶ 23–24, 31–34, 63–65, Fig. 3; Ex. 1025 ¶ 13. The ’829 patent
explains that discrete data elements include “dates, medications, allergies,
and diagnoses.” Ex. 1001, 6:60–67; see Ex. 1025 ¶ 13. Figure 4’s radiology
report includes a birth date as the discrete data element “01/01/1950” and a
report date or appointment date as the discrete data element “12/10/2007.”
Ex. 1008, Fig. 4; see Ex. 1025 ¶ 13. Further, the report formats the dates as
IPR2019-00499
Patent 8,781,829 B2

88
a triplet of values with (1) a two-digit month, (2) a two-digit day, and (3) a
four-digit year. Ex. 1008, Fig. 4; see Ex. 2005, 7:20–31, 10:60–64
(discussing dates formatted as a triplet of values); Tr. 60:10–61:13
(discussing dates formatted as a triplet of values). Because the report
formats the dates as a triplet of values, we disagree with Patent Owner’s
assertion that “Soble’s entire report is merely formatted plaintext assembled
by filling in the blanks with any text, even gibberish.” See Sur-reply 24.
In addition, Figure 4’s radiology report “represent[s] contents of the
audio signal” as required by step (A). See Ex. 1003, A51–A52. For
instance, a user may invoke a macro or macro template to specify a report
format, e.g., radiology report, or add content to a report by saying the name
of the macro or macro template. See Ex. 1008 ¶¶ 12–14, 16, 24, 26, 45,
63–65, 76–77, 89–116, Figs. 1, 3; see also Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 53–54, A51–A52.
Further, a user may add narrative statements to a report by uttering an “input
word sequence.” Ex. 1008 ¶¶ 14, 16, 26, 32, 63–66, 109, Figs. 1, 3; see also
Ex. 1003, A48, A51–A52.
In the Sur-reply, Patent Owner argues that Petitioner “alleges for the
first time” in the Reply “that Soble encodes the concept of a birthdate into
a discrete data element” in Figure 4’s radiology report. Sur-reply 24. Patent
Owner urges the Board to disregard Petitioner’s “untimely argument.” Id. at
23–24. But Petitioner’s contentions in the Reply further explain Figure 4’s
radiology report, which Petitioner cited in the Petition for step (A). See
Pet. 53–55; Reply 21–22. “Parties are not barred from elaborating on their
arguments on issues previously raised.” Chamberlain Grp., Inc. v. One
World Techs., Inc., 944 F.3d 919, 925 (Fed. Cir. 2019).
IPR2019-00499
Patent 8,781,829 B2

89
(c) Step (B)
Claim 1 recites “(B) determining whether the structured document
includes an indication of compliance for each of a plurality of best practices
to produce a conclusion.” Ex. 1001, 13:10–12.
Petitioner asserts that Soble teaches step (B) because Soble discloses
“verifying the report content with respect to standards regarding report
completeness” and “issuing warnings or alerts based on the presence or
absence of specific information in the report.” Pet. 56–57 (emphasis by
Petitioner) (quoting Ex. 1008 ¶ 26); see Ex. 1003, A53–A54; Ex. 1025 ¶ 29.
Petitioner also asserts that an ordinarily skilled artisan would have
understood “the disclosed reporting standards to be best practices.” Pet. 56;
see Ex. 1003, A53. Petitioner further asserts that “[i]n order to issue an alert
that information is present or absent, the system must determine whether the
information is contained in the structured document.” Pet. 57; see Ex. 1003,
A73.
To support Petitioner, Dr. Sears discussed a Soble example where
a user says, “Sign report,” and the system responds by saying, “Report is
missing the following required sections: Left ventricular function [and]
Calcium score.” Ex. 1003, A53 (quoting Ex. 1008 ¶ 82). He explained that
this example shows that “the user is unable to sign the report (i.e., finalize
the report) without including information regarding left ventricular function
and calcium score.” Id. at A54. In addition, Dr. Sears stated that an
ordinarily skilled artisan would have understood “each of these to represent
a best practice.” Id.
Dr. Sears also discussed a more-detailed Soble example where the
system prompts a user to “enter the missing content” as shown below:
IPR2019-00499
Patent 8,781,829 B2

90
User: Sign report
System: Report is missing the following required
sections:
System: Enter left ventricular function
[Wait for and process user information]
System: Enter calcium score
[Wait for and process user information]
System: Required content complete
System: Sign report?
User: Yes
System: Report signed
Ex. 1003, A58 (quoting Ex. 1008 ¶ 83). Dr. Sears explained that in this
example “the user is prompted to provide information relating to left
ventricular function (i.e., a first best practice) and calcium score (i.e.,
a second best practice).” Id.
Patent Owner disputes that Soble teaches step (B). See Resp. 55–62;
Sur-reply 25–26. Specifically, Patent Owner asserts that “Soble does not
truly check to see if its report is substantively complete” and instead “just
checks to see if all of the blanks are filled in with something.” Resp. 55–56
(emphasis by Patent Owner); see id. at 1–2, 62; Sur-reply 25–26. Patent
Owner similarly asserts that Soble “never checks to see if, for example, the
entered ‘calcium score’ or ‘left ventricular function’ indicates a problem or
is nonsensical.” Resp. 57 (citing Ex. 1008 ¶¶ 82–83, 101–116); see
Sur-reply 26.
In addition, Patent Owner contends that “[a]t best, Soble determines if
its report complies with one practice,” i.e., “report completeness” by having
“text in every location it should have text.” Resp. 56; see id. at 55. Patent
Owner also contends that even if “ensuring all of a report’s blanks are filled
IPR2019-00499
Patent 8,781,829 B2

91
with any text (even gibberish) is an indication of compliance with a best
practice,” it “is just one best practice, and the claims require at least two.”
Sur-reply 26 (emphases by Patent Owner).
Further, Patent Owner argues that “Soble gives example warnings and
alerts regarding the presence of a section or text in the report that are
unrelated to best practices, such as a user searching for a certain section in
the report.” Resp. 58 (citing Ex. 1008 ¶¶ 136–141). Patent Owner asserts
that “[i]f the system cannot find the desired section, it ‘responds with a
verbalized warning . . . that no matching section was found.’” Id. (quoting
Ex. 1008 ¶ 139). Patent Owner similarly asserts that Soble’s system checks
whether there are “entire sections that are missing, not just a blank in a
random macro template, but the entire section.” Tr. 90:20–91:23.
In response, Petitioner asserts that step (B) “only requires a
determination that there is ‘an indication of compliance,’ which is distinct
from determining whether or not the information actually complies.”
Reply 23 (emphases by Petitioner); see Ex. 1025 ¶ 26. In addition,
Petitioner contends that the ’829 patent discloses that “an indication of
compliance” is “satisfied simply by determining” whether “information has
been provided.” Reply 23 (citing Ex. 1001, 5:15–22).
We agree with Petitioner that Soble teaches step (B). The ’829 patent
explains that best practices include “rules, guidelines, or preferences” for
information “included in [a] report (such as the patient’s name and date of
the patient’s visit)” and actions “required to be taken before [a] report can be
completed (such as performing a particular procedure, such as a foot exam,
on the patient during the visit described in the report).” Ex. 1001, 6:8–16.
IPR2019-00499
Patent 8,781,829 B2

92
According to the patent, a preference for a “piece of information” constitutes
a best practice. Id. at 5:23–27.
Just as a patient’s name and visit date relate to different best practices,
a patient’s left ventricular function and calcium score also relate to different
best practices. See Ex. 1001, 5:23–27, 6:8–12. Thus, in the Soble examples
that Dr. Sears discussed, the “rules, guidelines, or preferences” for a report
containing a patient’s left ventricular function and calcium score constitute
a plurality of best practices. See Ex. 1003, A53–A54, A58; Ex. 1008
¶¶ 82–83; Ex. 1025 ¶ 30. Hence, contrary to Patent Owner’s contentions,
Soble’s system does not determine compliance with just one best practice.
See Resp. 55–56; Sur-reply 26.
The ’829 patent also explains that a conclusion concerning an
“indication of compliance” with a best practice may rest on “the presence of
information” or “the absence of information” in the structured document.
Ex. 1001, 5:7–22; see id. at code (57) (describing “a conclusion that required
information is missing”). The patent discloses an example where
determining whether a structured document includes an “indication of
compliance” with a best practice involves determining whether a structured
document includes a “piece of information.” Id. at 5:23–27.
In the Soble examples that Dr. Sears discussed, a user “indicates that a
report is complete,” and the system “check[s] whether any required content
is missing from the report and present[s] spoken prompts for the missing
content,” i.e., a patient’s left ventricular function and calcium score.
Ex. 1008 ¶¶ 82–83; see id. ¶¶ 27, 64, Fig. 3; Ex. 1003, A53–A54, A58;
Ex. 1025 ¶ 30. Soble teaches that to determine whether any required content
is missing and to present spoken prompts for the missing content, the system
IPR2019-00499
Patent 8,781,829 B2

93
produced a conclusion based on “the absence of information” in the report.
See Ex. 1003, A53–A54; Ex. 1025 ¶ 29; see also Ex. 1001, 5:19–22. Even
if the system “just checks to see if all of the blanks are filled in with
something,” as Patent Owner asserts, “the absence of information” in
the report constitutes “an indication of compliance with a best practice.”
Ex. 1001, 5:7–22; see Resp. 56.
In addition, Soble’s system does not “just check to see if all of the
blanks are filled in with something,” as Patent Owner asserts. Ex. 1008
¶ 27; see Resp. 56. Soble discloses checking a report for “problems with the
user input” and “incompatibility of the information with either the current
report or a previous report.” Ex. 1008 ¶ 27; see Ex. 1003, A55–A56.
Patent Owner’s assertions that Soble’s system checks for the presence
or absence of report sections does not accurately reflect the entirety of
Soble’s disclosure. See Resp. 58 (citing Ex. 1008 ¶¶ 136–141);
Tr. 90:20–91:23. While Soble discloses checking for the presence or
absence of a report section, Soble also discloses checking for the presence
or absence of specific information or data. See, e.g., Ex. 1008 ¶¶ 26–27,
81–83, 136–141. For example, the system may “issu[e] warnings or alerts
based on the presence or absence of specific information in the report.” Id.
¶ 26; see Ex. 1003, A54; Ex. 1025 ¶ 29.
(d) Step (C)
Claim 1 also recites “(C) inserting content into the structured
document, based on the conclusion, to produce a modified structured
document.” Ex. 1001, 13:13–15.
Petitioner asserts that Soble teaches step (C) because Soble discloses
prompting a user “to provide additional information” after determining that
IPR2019-00499
Patent 8,781,829 B2

94
“required content is missing.” Pet. 60–61; see Ex. 1003, A58–A59;
Ex. 1025 ¶ 30. Petitioner contends that “after being prompted to provide
additional information, the user enters additional information . . . such as
entering data items or providing an additional, or refined, selection to the
plurality of responses.’” Pet. 61 (alteration by Petitioner) (quoting Ex. 1008
¶ 64); see Ex. 1003, A59. Further, Petitioner asserts that Soble discloses
processing the “additional information” provided by the user and placing the
“additional information” in the report, thus producing “a modified structured
document.” Pet. 61–62; see Ex. 1003, A59–A60. According to Petitioner,
an ordinarily skilled artisan would have understood that “the additional
information would be given in response to the system determining the report
did not comply with standards relating to report completeness,” i.e., in
response to a “conclusion” according to step (B). Pet. 61; see Ex. 1003,
A53, A59–A60.
Patent Owner disputes that Soble teaches step (C). See Resp. 65–66;
Sur-reply 26–27. Specifically, Patent Owner asserts that “Soble prompts the
user to fill out a macro template’s blanks before the completed macro’s text
string—with no remaining blanks—is inserted into the report.” Sur-reply
26–27 (emphasis by Patent Owner); see Resp. 66. Thus, according to Patent
Owner, “the alleged insertion is not ‘based on the conclusion’ regarding the
alleged structured document, the report, or the report’s compliance with any
best practices.” Sur-reply 27; see Resp. 65–66 (similarly arguing that the
blanks in a macro “are not filled out ‘based on the conclusion’ regarding the
report or its compliance with a plurality of best practices”).
We agree with Petitioner that Soble teaches step (C). Soble explains
that the system may “verify[] the report content with respect to standards
IPR2019-00499
Patent 8,781,829 B2

95
regarding report completeness.” Ex. 1008 ¶ 26; see Ex. 1003, A53. In
addition, as discussed above for step (B), in the Soble examples that
Dr. Sears discussed, a user “indicates that a report is complete,” and the
system “check[s] whether any required content is missing from the report
and present[s] spoken prompts for the missing content,” i.e., a patient’s left
ventricular function and calcium score. Ex. 1008 ¶¶ 82–83; see id. ¶¶ 27,
64, Fig. 3; Ex. 1003, A53–A54, A58; Ex. 1025 ¶ 30; supra § III.F.2(c).
When a user “indicates that a report is complete,” the report at that point
corresponds to a “structured document.” See Ex. 1003, A59–A60; Ex. 1008
¶ 82. When a user inserts the missing content into the report responsive to
the spoken prompts, the system “produce[s] a modified structured
document” according to step (C). Ex. 1003, A60; see Ex. 1008 ¶¶ 64,
82–83. Moreover, the content inserted into the report responsive to the
spoken prompts is “based on the conclusion” produced in step (B), i.e., the
conclusion that the report lacks the content that resulted in the spoken
prompts. See Ex. 1003, A59–A60; Ex. 1025 ¶ 30.
Also, because a report may lack specific information or data when
a user “indicates that a report is complete,” Soble’s system does not require
a user to complete a macro template when the user invokes the macro
template. See Ex. 1008 ¶¶ 64, 82–83, Fig. 3. As explained below for
claim 18, Soble contemplates that a user might not complete a macro
template during report preparation. See infra § III.F.7.
(e) Steps (D) and (E)
Claim 1 further recites “(D) generating a first indication that a user
should provide additional input of a first type to conform the structured
document to a first best practice in the plurality of best practices” and
IPR2019-00499
Patent 8,781,829 B2

96
“(E) generating a second indication that the user should provide additional
input of a second type to conform the structured document to a second best
practice in the plurality of best practices.” Ex. 1001, 13:16–23.
Petitioner asserts that Soble teaches steps (D) and (E) because Soble
discloses providing “prompts for additional information that is needed to
complete a report, such as strings of text required to complete the options in
a macro template.” Pet. 58 (emphasis by Petitioner) (quoting Ex. 1008
¶ 27); see Ex. 1003, A55–A56. Further, Petitioner asserts that Soble
discloses that macro templates “may be used to conform a document to
certain best practices.” Pet. 58; see Ex. 1003, A56. Petitioner adds that
“Soble discloses generating multiple indications in a loop to prompt a user
to provide additional information.” Pet. 59 (citing Ex. 1008, Fig. 3); see
Ex. 1003, A57.
In addition, Petitioner identifies Soble’s example where the system
initially prompts the user to “Enter left ventricular function” and
subsequently prompts the user to “Enter calcium score.” Pet. 60 (citing
Ex. 1008 ¶ 83); see Ex. 1003, A58. Petitioner then contends that
(1) reporting “information regarding left ventricular function” represents
“a first best practice” following an angiography and (2) reporting
“information regarding the patient’s calcium score” represents “a second
best practice” following an angiography. Pet. 60; see Ex. 1003, A53–A54,
A58; Ex. 1025 ¶ 30.
Patent Owner disputes that Soble teaches steps (D) and (E). See
Resp. 62–65. In particular, Patent Owner contends that Petitioner “failed to
demonstrate that Soble teaches these steps” because Petitioner “pointed only
to one alleged best practice,” i.e., “report completeness.” Resp. 62–63; see
IPR2019-00499
Patent 8,781,829 B2

97
id. at 64. Patent Owner references the Soble examples that Dr. Sears
discussed where the report lacked entries for left ventricular function and
calcium score and the system “prompted the user to provide text to fill those
fields.” Id. at 64 (citing Ex. 1008 ¶¶ 82–83). Patent Owner then contends
that Soble does not disclose “checking to see if the information is indicative
of a problem with the patient or even a valid input.” Id.
In response, Petitioner asserts that steps (D) and (E) “only require that
the user ‘should provide additional input’ that conforms to the first or second
best practice.” Reply 2 (quoting Ex. 1001, 13:16–23); see id. at 23;
Ex. 1025 ¶ 27. Petitioner also asserts that “there is no requirement that the
claimed method additionally check whether the provided information
actually conforms to a best practice.” Reply 2 (emphasis by Petitioner); see
Ex. 1025 ¶¶ 26–27.
We agree with Petitioner that Soble teaches steps (D) and (E). Each
step requires generating an “indication that a user should provide additional
input” to “conform the structured document to” a “best practice[].” The
’829 patent explains that a “best practice[]” includes a “rule[], guideline[],
or preference[]” for information “included in [a] report.” Ex. 1001, 6:8–16.
According to the patent, a preference for a “piece of information” constitutes
a best practice. Id. at 5:23–27. The patent does not indicate that a best
practice necessarily involves checking the preferred information for
accuracy. See, e.g., id. at 5:7–50, 6:8–16, 6:29–48, 8:19–29, 9:38–10:11.
In the Soble examples that Dr. Sears discussed, the “rules, guidelines,
or preferences” for a report containing a patient’s left ventricular function
and calcium score constitute a plurality of best practices. See Ex. 1003,
A53–A54, A58; Ex. 1008 ¶¶ 82–83; Ex. 1025 ¶ 30. Generating a prompt for
IPR2019-00499
Patent 8,781,829 B2

98
the user to provide the patient’s left ventricular function corresponds to
“generating a first indication that a user should provide additional input
of a first type to conform the structured document to a first best practice”
according to step (D). Ex. 1008 ¶¶ 82–83; see id. ¶¶ 27, 64, Fig. 3;
Ex. 1003, A53–A54, A58; Ex. 1025 ¶¶ 27, 30. Generating a prompt for the
user to provide the patient’s calcium score corresponds to “generating a
second indication that the user should provide additional input of a second
type to conform the structured document to a second best practice”
according to step (E). Ex. 1008 ¶¶ 82–83; see id. ¶¶ 27, 64, Fig. 3; Ex. 1003,
A53–A54, A58; Ex. 1025 ¶¶ 27, 30.
In addition, as discussed above for step (B), and contrary to Patent
Owner’s contentions, Soble discloses checking a report for “problems with
the user input” and “incompatibility of the information with either the
current report or a previous report.” Ex. 1008 ¶ 27; see Resp. 56, 64; supra
§ III.F.2(c).
(f) Conclusion for Claim 1
For the reasons discussed above, Petitioner has shown by a
preponderance of the evidence that claim 1 is unpatentable under § 103(a)
as obvious over Soble in view of an ordinarily skilled artisan’s knowledge.
3. DEPENDENT CLAIMS 2, 3, AND 21
Claims 3 and 21 each depend from claim 2 and recite the same steps.
Ex. 1001, 13:29–33, 14:35–39. Claims 2 and 21 read as follows:
2. The method of claim 1, wherein (C) comprises:
(C)(1) prompting a human user to provide the content;
(C)(2) receiving input from the human user representing
the content; and
(C)(3) inserting the content into the structured document.
IPR2019-00499
Patent 8,781,829 B2

99
21. The method of claim 2:
wherein (C)(1) comprises displaying a structured
input element;
wherein (C)(2) comprises receiving input from
the human user in the structured input element.
Id. at 13:24–28, 14:35–39.
(a) Claim 2
Petitioner contends that Soble teaches claim 2 step (C)(1) for the same
reasons that Soble teaches claim 1 steps (C), (D), and (E). Pet. 63; see
Ex. 1003, A61 (quoting Ex. 1008 ¶¶ 82–83). Petitioner contends that Soble
teaches claim 2 step (C)(2) because Soble “discloses that [a] medical
professional supplies the missing content in response to a system prompt.”
Pet. 63; see Ex. 1003, A61–A62 (quoting Ex. 1008 ¶¶ 82–83). Petitioner
contends that Soble teaches claim 2 step (C)(3) for the same reasons that
Soble teaches claim 1 step (C). Pet. 63; see Ex. 1003, A63. Dr. Sear’s
testimony parallels Petitioner’s contentions. Compare Ex. 1003, A61–A63,
with Pet. 63.
Patent Owner does not make any arguments specific to claim 2. See,
e.g., Resp. 69–71; Sur-reply 29.
For the reasons articulated by Petitioner and Dr. Sears, we agree that
Soble teaches claim 2’s subject matter. See Pet. 62–63; Ex. 1003, A61–A63;
Ex. 1008 ¶¶ 82–88; supra §§ III.F.2(d)–(e).
(b) Claims 3 and 21
Petitioner contends that the subject matter of claims 3 and 21 would
have been obvious over Soble in view of an ordinarily skilled artisan’s
knowledge. Specifically, Petitioner asserts that “displaying a structured
input element” according to step (C)(1) would have been obvious to an
IPR2019-00499
Patent 8,781,829 B2

100
ordinarily skilled artisan because Soble’s claim 30 “explicitly claims
‘a display device to illustrate the information’ that a user inputs.” Pet. 64;
see Ex. 1003, A64. Petitioner then contends that an ordinarily skilled artisan
would have understood “that this same display device would be used to
display the system prompts that are being provided to the user aurally.”
Pet. 64; see Ex. 1003, A64. Further, Petitioner urges that Soble’s
“disclosure of ‘a keyboard or mouse’ for inputting information” suggests
“a visual display” to “provide visual feedback to the user.” Pet. 64 (quoting
Ex. 1008 ¶ 117).
In addition, Petitioner asserts that Soble teaches “receiving input from
the human user in the structured input element” according to step (C)(2)
because Soble “discloses that [a] medical professional supplies the missing
content in response to a system prompt.” Pet. 63, 65; see Ex. 1003,
A61–A62, A68.
To support Petitioner, Dr. Sears stated that “Soble’s user prompts are
structured input elements.” Ex. 1003, A65. He identified Soble’s audible
pick-list options as “one example of a structured input element.” Id. In
addition, Dr. Sears explained that an ordinarily skilled artisan would have
understood “that the audio prompts presented to a user would also be
advantageously displayed, simultaneously, on a visual display device.” Id.
at A64. He also explained that an ordinarily skilled artisan would have
known “that certain situations would in fact not be best suited for receiving
audio.” Id. (emphasis by Dr. Sears). As examples of those situations,
Dr. Sears identified “a noisy environment or where a user needs to be
focusing on some other audio source, such as a patient’s voice.” Id. He
IPR2019-00499
Patent 8,781,829 B2

101
explained that “presenting the feedback visually on a display device would
be beneficial” in those situations. Id.
In response, Patent Owner asserts that “displaying a structured input
element” according to step (C)(1) “requires visibly presenting an input
element such as a form field.” Resp. 69 (emphasis by Patent Owner). Patent
Owner also asserts that “Soble teaches only audibly presenting its structured
input elements.” Id. (emphasis by Patent Owner). In addition, Patent Owner
contends that “a display device to illustrate the information” according to
Soble’s claim 30 illustrates the “information from a user input” according to
Soble’s claim 28, “not the system’s prompts or structured input elements.”
Id. at 71.
We agree with Petitioner that the subject matter of claims 3 and 21
would have been obvious over Soble in view of an ordinarily skilled
artisan’s knowledge. Soble discloses a display device. Ex. 1008 ¶¶ 8–9, 39,
claim 30; see Ex. 1003, A64. Soble does not describe any restrictions on
what the display device may display. See, e.g., Ex. 1008 ¶¶ 8–9, 39.
Further, as Dr. Sears stated, “Soble’s user prompts are structured input
elements,” e.g., Soble’s audible pick-list options. Ex. 1003, A65. Patent
Owner asserts that “Soble teaches only audibly presenting its structured
input elements,” and thus concedes that Soble discloses structured input
elements. Resp. 69.
In addition, as Dr. Sears explained, an ordinarily skilled artisan would
have known to display structured input elements because “presenting the
feedback visually on a display device would be beneficial” in certain
situations, e.g., “a noisy environment or where a user needs to be focusing
on some other audio source, such as a patient’s voice.” Ex. 1003, A64.
IPR2019-00499
Patent 8,781,829 B2

102
Hence, an ordinarily skilled artisan would have been motivated to modify
Soble to “display[] a structured input element” according to step (C)(1).
Moreover, Soble explains that structured reporting permits a user “to
record information using a computer user interface, such as a mouse and/or
keyboard.” Ex. 1008 ¶ 10; see Ex. 1003 ¶ 54, A65. Soble discloses
examples of structured reporting “by clicking [an] on-screen button with
a mouse or touching it using a touch screen, or by pressing a key on a
keyboard.” Ex. 1008 ¶¶ 139–140; see id. ¶¶ 24, 117.
Further, Soble teaches “receiving input from the human user in the
structured input element” according to step (C)(2) because Soble discloses
receiving user input in response to prompts for specific information or data.
Ex. 1008 ¶¶ 82–83, 87–88; see id. ¶¶ 24, 117, 132–133, 139–140; Ex. 1003,
A61–A62, A65, A68. Consistent with receiving user input via displayed
structured input elements, Soble discloses receiving user input “via keyboard
entry, mouse clicks or drag-and-drop, touch screen selections, and button
presses.” Ex. 1008 ¶ 24; see Tr. 50:26–51:2 (explaining that “typical
examples of structured input are pull-down lists and radio buttons”).
For the reasons discussed above, Petitioner has shown by a
preponderance of the evidence that claim 21 is unpatentable under § 103(a)
as obvious over Soble in view of an ordinarily skilled artisan’s knowledge.5
4. DEPENDENT CLAIM 4
Claim 4 depends from claim 3 and specifies that “the structured input
element comprises a form field.” Ex. 1001, 13:34–35.

5 As noted above, Petitioner does not challenge claims 2 and 3. See
Pet. 7–8; supra § II.E.
IPR2019-00499
Patent 8,781,829 B2

103
Petitioner contends that claim 4’s subject matter would have been
obvious over Soble in view of an ordinarily skilled artisan’s knowledge
because Soble discloses receiving user input via audible pick-list options.
Pet. 66–67; see Ex. 1003, A69. Petitioner cites the following Soble example
with audible pick-list options denoted by the symbol “▼” and four
categories of stenosis severity:
There is a [STENOSIS ▼] lesion in the [LOCATION]

Mild: mild (<30%)
Moderate: moderate (30-50%)
Moderately-severe: moderately severe (50-70%)
Severe: severe (>70%)
Pet. 66; see Ex. 1003, A69. In this example, a user says, “Macro coronary
lesion,” and the system responds by saying, “Coronary lesion recorded.
Select stenosis from mild, moderate, moderately-severe, severe.” Ex. 1008
¶¶ 94–99.
Petitioner analogizes Soble’s audible pick-list options “to both a text
field and a dropdown list” because “a user is able to input information into”
a placeholder “by selecting from a list of available options.” Pet. 66–67; see
Ex. 1003, A69. Petitioner asserts that an ordinarily skilled artisan would
have understood Soble’s audible pick-list options “to be a form field.”
Pet. 66; see Ex. 1003, A69.
In response, Patent Owner contends that Petitioner incorrectly points
to a “▼” symbol as “indicating a visible dropdown menu” and that the “▼”
symbol denotes a “list of text strings (mild, moderate, etc.) that may be
verbally entered into” a placeholder. Resp. 69–70 (emphasis by Patent
Owner) (citing Ex. 1008 ¶¶ 94–99; Ex. 2003 ¶¶ 223–228). Patent Owner
IPR2019-00499
Patent 8,781,829 B2

104
also contends that Petitioner failed to demonstrate that an ordinarily skilled
artisan would have modified Soble “to display the form fields, especially
given Soble’s emphasis on” (1) “freeing up display space for other uses” and
(2) “freeing the user from having to interact with a display, mouse, and
keyboard” while working. Id. at 71.
We agree with Petitioner that claim 4’s subject matter would have
been obvious over Soble in view of an ordinarily skilled artisan’s
knowledge. The ’829 patent explains that a “prompt may take the form of
a form field, such as a text field, check box, or dropdown list.” Ex. 1001,
8:36–39; see id. at 8:56–58, Fig. 1D. Soble discloses receiving user input
via audible pick-list options. Ex. 1008 ¶¶ 12, 94–99; see Ex. 1003, A69.
Those pick-list options parallel the options in a dropdown list “where a user
may make a selection from a limited set of options.” Ex. 1003, A69. Hence,
an ordinarily skilled artisan would have understood that Soble’s audible
pick-list options constitute a form field like a dropdown list. Id.
As Patent Owner asserts, Soble discloses presenting pick-list options
audibly instead of visibly. Ex. 1008 ¶¶ 94–99; see Resp. 69–70. As
discussed above for claims 3 and 21, however, an ordinarily skilled artisan
would have known to display structured input elements because “presenting
the feedback visually on a display device would be beneficial” in certain
situations. Ex. 1003, A64; see supra § III.F.3(b).
Although Soble describes benefits from receiving user input orally,
e.g., freeing up display space, Soble also contemplates receiving user input
“via keyboard entry, mouse clicks or drag-and-drop, touch screen selections,
and button presses.” Ex. 1008 ¶ 24; see id. ¶¶ 10, 24, 62–63, 79, 117, 139;
Ex. 1003, A65. Also, as discussed above for claims 3 and 21, Soble
IPR2019-00499
Patent 8,781,829 B2

105
discloses examples of structured reporting “by clicking [an] on-screen button
with a mouse or touching it using a touch screen, or by pressing a key on a
keyboard.” Ex. 1008 ¶¶ 139–140; see supra § III.F.3(b). Further, Dr. Sears
identified reasons that would have prompted an ordinarily skilled artisan to
display structured input elements, e.g., “a form field.” Ex. 1003, A64; see
supra § III.F.3(b).
For the reasons discussed above, Petitioner has shown by a
preponderance of the evidence that claim 4 is unpatentable under § 103(a)
as obvious over Soble in view of an ordinarily skilled artisan’s knowledge.
5. DEPENDENT CLAIM 6
Claim 6 depends from claim 1 and specifies that step (B) comprises
the following steps: (1) “identifying a type of the structured document”;
(2) “identifying a best practice associated with the identified type”; and
(3) “determining whether the structured document includes an indication
of compliance with the identified best practice to produce the conclusion.”
Ex. 1001, 13:40–46.
Petitioner asserts that Soble teaches “identifying a type of the
structured document” according to claim 6 because “Soble discloses
numerous report formats,” e.g., gastroenterological report, cardiology report,
and radiology report. Pet. 68 (citing Ex. 1008 ¶ 26); see Reply 24; Ex. 1003,
A71. Petitioner also asserts that certain reports require additional
information, e.g., information about “left main artery (LM), left anterior
descending artery (LAD), left circumflex artery (LCx), and right coronary
artery (RCA)” in a computed tomography (CT) angiography report. Pet. 68
(quoting Ex. 1008 ¶ 67); see Reply 24–25; Ex. 1003, A71. Petitioner argues
that an ordinarily skilled artisan would have understood “that in order to
IPR2019-00499
Patent 8,781,829 B2

106
determine that this additional information was required, the system would
first determine the type of the structured document.” Pet. 68; see Ex. 1003,
A71.
Petitioner contends that Soble teaches “identifying a best practice
associated with the identified type” according to claim 6 because (1) Soble
discloses requiring additional information for certain reports and (2) a
requirement for additional information constitutes a best practice. Pet. 68;
see Ex. 1003, A71–A72. Petitioner also contends that “a requirement
to provide additional information about certain arteries,” for example,
constitutes a best practice. Pet. 68; see Ex. 1003, A71–A72.
In addition, Petitioner contends that Soble teaches “determining
whether the structured document includes an indication of compliance with
the identified best practice to produce the conclusion” according to claim 6
because “Soble discloses that the system can ‘issue[] warnings or alerts
based on the presence or absence of specific information in the report.’”
Pet. 69 (alteration by Petitioner) (quoting Ex. 1008 ¶ 26); see Ex. 1003, A73.
According to Petitioner, “the system must make a determination about
whether information is present or absent in order to provide a warning.”
Pet. 69; see Ex. 1003, A73.
Patent Owner disputes that Soble teaches claim 6’s subject matter.
See Resp. 66–67; Sur-reply 27–28. In particular, Patent Owner contends
that claim 6 “requires identifying a type of the structured document as part
of” claim 1 step (B), while Soble identifies a type of report as part of claim 1
step (A). Resp. 66; see Sur-reply 27–28. Patent Owner asserts that “the first
thing Soble’s user must do is identify what type of report the user will
dictate” because the system “needs to know the report type to know what
IPR2019-00499
Patent 8,781,829 B2

107
sections it will have.” Resp. 66–67 (citing Ex. 1008 ¶ 63; Ex. 2003
¶¶ 209–215). In addition, Patent Owner contends that nothing in Soble
teaches “analyzing the user’s text to determine and dynamically change the
report type (and thus required sections) after the user begins filling out the
report.” Sur-reply 28 (emphasis by Patent Owner).
We agree with Petitioner that Soble teaches claim 6’s subject matter.
Soble explains that a user may initially specify a report format, e.g.,
gastroenterological report, cardiology report, or radiology report. Ex. 1008
¶ 63; see id. ¶¶ 20, 26; Ex. 1003 ¶ 54, A71. Soble further explains that after
specifying a report format, a user may add content to the report, e.g., by
“providing an additional, or refined, selection” to the system. See Ex. 1008
¶¶ 64–65, 67–73, Fig. 3; Ex. 1003, A71.
For instance, Soble’s Figure 4 depicts a radiology report “that has
been organized into sections,” i.e., sections for “clinical history 502;
procedure 503; findings 504 (grouped into (sub)sections by anatomy,
pathology or subprocedure); comparisons 506; and impressions 507.”
Ex. 1008 ¶ 65, Fig. 4; see id. ¶ 56; Ex. 1003, A49. Soble discloses an
example where a user creates a CT angiography report from Figure 4’s
radiology report by causing the system to include “sections for the coronary
arteries added within the findings section: left main artery (LM), left
anterior descending artery (LAD), left circumflex artery (LCx), and right
coronary artery (RCA).” Ex. 1008 ¶¶ 67–73; see Ex. 1003, A71–A72.
By adding those sections to a radiology report’s findings section, the
system produces a particular kind of radiology report, i.e., a CT angiography
report. Ex. 1008 ¶ 67; see Ex. 1003, A71–A72. In essence, the added
sections tailor the initial report format and produce a specific report “type”
IPR2019-00499
Patent 8,781,829 B2

108
from a generic report “type.” For a radiology report, other specific types
include an X-ray report and an ultrasound report. See Ex. 1008 ¶ 17. Thus,
Soble teaches “identifying a type of the structured document” according to
claim 6.
Further, Soble teaches “identifying a best practice associated with the
identified type” according to claim 6 because Soble discloses requiring
additional information in a particular type of radiology report, e.g.,
information about “left main artery (LM), left anterior descending artery
(LAD), left circumflex artery (LCx), and right coronary artery (RCA)” in a
CT angiography report. Ex. 1008 ¶¶ 65, 67, Fig. 4. The requirements for
information about those four arteries constitute a plurality of best practices.
Ex. 1003, A71–A72; see Ex. 1001, 5:23–27, 6:8–16.
In addition, Soble teaches “determining whether the structured
document includes an indication of compliance with the identified best
practice to produce the conclusion” according to claim 6 for the same
reasons that Soble teaches “determining” according to claim 1 step (B). See
Ex. 1003, A53–A54, A73; supra § III.F.2(c). As Dr. Sears stated, “[i]n
order to issue an alert about the presence or absence of information, the
system must first determine whether the information is present or absent and
conclude that it either is or is not present.” Ex. 1003, A73.
For the reasons discussed above, Petitioner has shown by a
preponderance of the evidence that claim 6 is unpatentable under § 103(a)
as obvious over Soble in view of an ordinarily skilled artisan’s knowledge.
6. DEPENDENT CLAIMS 12 AND 13
Claim 12 depends from claim 1 and recites “generating a prompt for
additional input, based on the conclusion, the prompt rendered separately
IPR2019-00499
Patent 8,781,829 B2

109
from a rendering of the structured document.” Ex. 1001, 13:64–67.
Claim 13 depends from claim 12 and recites the following steps: “receiving
input representing the content” and “removing the rendered prompt.” Id.
at 14:1–3.
In the Petition, Petitioner relied on Soble’s aural prompts for
claims 12 and 13. See Pet. 69–71. In our Institution Decision, we
questioned whether the phrase “prompt rendered separately from a rendering
of the structured document” in claim 12 encompasses aural prompts or only
encompasses visible prompts. Inst. Dec. 37–39. In the Response, Patent
Owner asserted that “the claimed renderings must be visible.” Resp. 68; see
id. at 18–20. In the Reply, Petitioner stated that it “will not pursue its
argument that an auditory display is within the scope of” claims 12 and 13.
Reply 10.
In view of Petitioner’s modified contentions as set forth in the Reply,
Petitioner has not shown by a preponderance of the evidence that claims 12
and 13 are unpatentable under § 103(a) as obvious over Soble in view of an
ordinarily skilled artisan’s knowledge.
7. DEPENDENT CLAIM 18
Claim 18 depends from claim 1 and specifies that step (C) comprises
“inserting, into the structured document, an indication that the content is
missing.” Ex. 1001, 14:22–24.
Petitioner contends that Soble teaches claim 18’s subject matter
because “Soble discloses inserting placeholders into a report that indicate
required content is missing from the report.” Pet. 71; see Ex. 1003, A78.
To support that contention, Petitioner cites the chart from Soble reproduced
below (Pet. 72):
IPR2019-00499
Patent 8,781,829 B2

110

This chart shows in the left column the names for macros and macro
templates and shows in the right column the text strings and placeholder
locations associated with the respective macros and macro templates. See
Ex. 1008 ¶ 13.
Petitioner asserts that a placeholder indicates that a user must provide
content that is missing. Pet. 71–72; see Ex. 1003, A78. Petitioner also
asserts that “Soble teaches that in response to a prompt to provide
information that conforms with a best practice, the user could insert a macro
with a placeholder.” Reply 25.
Patent Owner disputes that Soble teaches claim 18’s subject matter.
See Resp. 67–68; Sur-reply 28. In particular, Patent Owner contends that
claim 18 concerns claim 1 step (C) and that Petitioner impermissibly relies
on the same placeholders for claim 18 that Petitioner “relied on for step (B)
as providing an indication of compliance and to trigger the prompts for
steps (D) and (E)” in claim 1. Resp. 67–68. Further, Patent Owner asserts
that “Soble does not insert macros with empty placeholders into its report”
and instead “requires the user to fill out the placeholders before inserting
text into the document.” Resp. 68 (citing Ex. 1008 ¶ 84); see Sur-reply 28.
Patent Owner also asserts that a “macro template’s blanks are not indications
IPR2019-00499
Patent 8,781,829 B2

111
of anything in the report, i.e., the alleged structured document.”
Sur-reply 28.
We agree with Petitioner that Soble teaches claim 18’s subject matter.
Soble explains that a macro template contains “a mix of text strings and
placeholders” and that placeholders “indicate where the user may—or
must—insert additional text.” Ex. 1008 ¶ 12; see Ex. 1003 ¶ 53; Ex. 1025
¶ 29. If a user invokes a macro template by saying its name, “the associated
text and placeholders are positioned in” a report. Ex. 1008 ¶ 12; see id.
¶¶ 13–14, Fig. 1. A placeholder is “an indication that the content is missing”
according to claim 18. Ex. 1003, A78.
Contrary to Patent Owner’s assertions, Soble does not require a user
to complete a macro template before inserting additional content into a
report. See Ex. 1008 ¶¶ 14, 82–83, Fig. 1; Resp. 68; Sur-reply 28. Soble
discloses prompting a user to complete a macro template when the user
invokes the macro template. Ex. 1008 ¶¶ 84–89. But Soble does not require
a user to complete a macro template when the user invokes the macro
template because the “system can check whether any required content is
missing from the report” based on “an analysis of the report as a whole.”
Ex. 1008 ¶ 82; see id. ¶ 14, Fig. 1. Moreover, “an analysis of the report as
a whole” may occur when a user “indicates that a report is complete,” e.g.,
after the user has invoked multiple macro templates. Id. ¶ 82. Hence, Soble
contemplates that a user might not complete a macro template during report
preparation.
As an example, Soble’s Figure 1(a) shows a report prepared by
initially invoking a macro, next invoking a macro template with one
placeholder, and finally invoking a macro template with two placeholders.
IPR2019-00499
Patent 8,781,829 B2

112
Ex. 1008 ¶¶ 14, 53, Fig. 1. That report contains three placeholders
indicating that content is missing. Id. ¶ 14, Fig. 1.
Further, if “an analysis of the report as a whole” determines that
“required content is missing from the report,” the system may “present
spoken prompts for the missing content.” Ex. 1008 ¶¶ 82–83. A user may
respond to a prompt for missing content by, among other things, invoking a
macro template containing a placeholder indicating that content is missing.
See id. ¶¶ 12–13, 63–64, Fig. 3. When a user responds to a prompt for
missing content by invoking a macro template containing a placeholder, the
system “insert[s], into the structured document, an indication that the content
is missing” according to claim 18.
For the reasons discussed above, Petitioner has shown by a
preponderance of the evidence that claim 18 is unpatentable under § 103(a)
as obvious over Soble in view of an ordinarily skilled artisan’s knowledge.
8. DEPENDENT CLAIM 25
Claim 25 depends from claim 4 and recites “displaying a label with
the form field to guide the user in providing input.” Ex. 1001, 14:46–47.
Petitioner contends that claim 25’s subject matter would have been
obvious over Soble in view of an ordinarily skilled artisan’s knowledge for
the same reasons that the subject matter of claims 3 and 4 would have been
obvious. Pet. 72; see Ex. 1003, A80. To support Petitioner, Dr. Sears cited
the Soble example with audible pick-list options denoted by the symbol “▼”
and four categories of stenosis severity. Ex. 1003, A80 (citing Ex. 1008
¶¶ 94–99). In that example, Dr. Sears identified the words “[s]elect stenosis
from mild, moderate, moderately-severe, severe” as a label for the pick-list
options. Id. (alteration by Dr. Sears) (quoting Ex. 1008 ¶ 99).
IPR2019-00499
Patent 8,781,829 B2

113
Patent Owner disputes that claim 25’s subject matter would have been
obvious for the same reasons that Patent Owner disputes that the subject
matter of claims 3 and 4 would have been obvious. See Resp. 69–71;
Sur-reply 29.
We agree with Petitioner that claim 25’s subject matter would have
been obvious over Soble in view of an ordinarily skilled artisan’s
knowledge. As discussed above for claims 3 and 4, an ordinarily skilled
artisan would have known to display structured input elements, such as pick-
list options, because “presenting the feedback visually on a display device
would be beneficial” in certain situations. Ex. 1003, A64, A69. Soble
discloses identifying each pick-list option with one or more words, i.e.,
labeling each pick-list option. Ex. 1003, A80; Ex. 1008 ¶ 99. Just as an
ordinarily skilled artisan would have known to display structured input
elements, that artisan would have known to display labels for structured
input elements. See Ex. 1003, A64, A69, A80. Without labels, structured
input elements would fail to indicate what data to input. Id. at A33.
For the reasons discussed above, Petitioner has shown by a
preponderance of the evidence that claim 25 is unpatentable under § 103(a)
as obvious over Soble in view of an ordinarily skilled artisan’s knowledge.
9. DEPENDENT CLAIM 26
Claim 26 depends from claim 1 and specifies that step (A) comprises
“applying automatic speech recognition to a first portion of the audio signal
to produce a structured document representing contents of the first portion of
the audio signal, during generation of a second portion of the audio signal.”
Ex. 1001, 14:48–52.
IPR2019-00499
Patent 8,781,829 B2

114
Petitioner contends that claim 26’s subject matter would have been
obvious over Soble in view of an ordinarily skilled artisan’s knowledge
because claim 26 covers the “common feature of ASR systems” that “speech
synthesis may be performed while a user is simultaneously providing audio
input.” Pet. 73. Petitioner asserts that it would have been obvious to an
ordinarily skilled artisan to “apply ASR to produce the report (i.e., structured
document) while the user is dictating additional information (i.e., generating
a second portion of an audio signal).” Id.
To support Petitioner, Dr. Sears stated that “continuous speech
recognition systems continuously process the user’s audio . . . while the user
continues to speak.” Ex. 1003 ¶ 18. He explained that an ordinarily skilled
artisan would have known “that speech recognition systems would function
to allow a user to input audio while speech recognition was performed on
earlier inputted audio” because “this is exactly what is contemplated by
continuous speech recognition.” Id. at A34. He also explained that claim 26
covers “the functionality of continuous speech recognition, something that
speech recognition systems were capable of before the priority date of the
[’]829 Patent.” Id. According to Dr. Sears, it “would have been
immediately obvious to” an ordinarily skilled artisan “that Soble’s speech
recognition system would be capable of applying automatic speech
recognition to produce a structured document while the user generates a
second portion of the audio signal.” Id. at A81.
Patent Owner does not make any arguments specific to claim 26. See,
e.g., Resp. 66–71; Sur-reply 27–29.
We agree with Petitioner that claim 26’s subject matter would have
been obvious over Soble in view of an ordinarily skilled artisan’s
IPR2019-00499
Patent 8,781,829 B2

115
knowledge. Because claim 26 covers “the functionality of continuous
speech recognition,” it would have been obvious to an ordinarily skilled
artisan “that Soble’s speech recognition system would be capable of
applying automatic speech recognition to produce a structured document
while the user generates a second portion of the audio signal.” Ex. 1003,
A34, A81; see id. ¶ 18.
For the reasons discussed above, Petitioner has shown by a
preponderance of the evidence that claim 26 is unpatentable under § 103(a)
as obvious over Soble in view of an ordinarily skilled artisan’s knowledge.
IV. CONCLUSION
Based on the evidence presented with the Petition, the evidence
introduced during the trial, and the parties’ respective arguments, Petitioner
has shown by a preponderance of the evidence that (1) claims 1, 4, 6, 12, 13,
21, 25, and 26 are unpatentable under § 103(a) as obvious over Carus in
view of an ordinarily skilled artisan’s knowledge; (2) claims 12, 13, 18,
and 25 are unpatentable under § 103(a) as obvious over Carus in view of an
ordinarily skilled artisan’s knowledge and Panzarasa; and (3) claims 1, 4, 6,
18, 21, 25, and 26 are unpatentable under § 103(a) as obvious over Soble in
view of an ordinarily skilled artisan’s knowledge.6 But Petitioner has not

6 Should Patent Owner wish to pursue amendment of the challenged claims
in a reissue or reexamination proceeding after the issuance of this Final
Written 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
IPR2019-00499
Patent 8,781,829 B2

116
shown by a preponderance of the evidence that claims 12 and 13 are
unpatentable under § 103(a) as obvious over Soble in view of an ordinarily
skilled artisan’s knowledge.
In summary:
Claims 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/ Basis
Claims
Shown
Unpatentable
Claims Not
Shown
Unpatentable
1, 4, 6,
12, 13, 21,
25, 26
103(a) Carus 1, 4, 6, 12, 13, 21, 25, 26
12, 13,
18, 25 103(a)
Carus,
Panzarasa 12, 13, 18, 25
1, 4, 6, 12,
13, 18, 21,
25, 26
103(a) Soble 1, 4, 6, 18, 21, 25, 26 12, 13
Overall
Outcome
1, 4, 6, 12, 13,
18, 21, 25, 26

V. ORDER
Accordingly, it is
ORDERED that claims 1, 4, 6, 12, 13, 18, 21, 25, and 26 of the
’829 patent are determined to be unpatentable; and
FURTHER ORDERED that, because this is a Final Written Decision,
the parties to the proceeding seeking judicial review of the decision must
comply with the notice and service requirements of 37 C.F.R. § 90.2.

any such related matters in updated mandatory notices. See 37 C.F.R.
§ 42.8(a)(3), (b)(2).
IPR2019-00499
Patent 8,781,829 B2

117
PETITIONER:

Brian E. Ferguson
Robert S. Magee
Daniel E. Musher
WEIL, GOTSHAL & MANGES LLP
brian.ferguson@weil.com
robert.magee@weil.com
daniel.musher@weil.com
Nuance.MModal.IPR@weil.com

PATENT OWNER:

Jonathan M. Strang
Inge A. Osman
Surendra K. Ravula
David K. Callahan
Kevin C. Wheeler
LATHAM & WATKINS LLP
jonathan.strang@lw.com
inge.osman@lw.com
surendrakumar.ravula@lw.com
david.callahan@lw.com
kevin.wheeler@lw.com