Invalidity dossier
US 6317707
Automatic clustering of tokens from a corpus for grammar acquisition
Current assignee: Nuance Communications Inc
Added 9/23/2026, 7:34:15 PM
Active provider: DeepSeek · deepseek-flash
Patent summary
Title, assignee, inventors, filing/issue dates, abstract, and a plain-language overview of the claims.
Patent Overview
Title: Automatic clustering of tokens from a corpus for grammar acquisition
Patent No.: US6317707B1
Application No.: US09/207,326
Inventors: Srinivas Bangalore; Giuseppe Riccardi
Original Assignee: AT&T Inc.
Current Assignee (as listed): Nuance Communications Inc; AT&T Properties LLC
Priority/Filing Date: 1998-12-07
Publication (Grant) Date: 2001-11-13
Status (as listed): Expired – Lifetime (anticipated expiration 2018-12-07)
Classifications: G06F40/253 (grammatical analysis); G06F40/284 (lexical analysis, e.g. tokenisation); G06F18/24323 (tree-organised classifiers), among others.
Purpose. The patent concerns building linguistic models from a corpus of speech. Per the supplied text, prior clustering for language modeling induced classes to predict smoothed probabilities for rare or unseen events and "does not provide insight into language model of grammar." The disclosed method instead uses clustering to group words and/or phrases by lexical significance so the resulting clusters "provide an indicator of grammatical structure."
Plain-language scope. The method: (1) identifies high-frequency "context words" (e.g., a predetermined number such as 50); (2) for the remaining "input words," counts occurrences of predetermined relationships with context words (e.g., adjacency at −2, −1, +1, +2 positions), yielding frequency values such as f₁₁₁–f₁₁₄ for "Chicago" and "to"; (3) maps each input word to an N-dimensional frequency vector, N being a multiple of context words, input words, and relations; (4) grows clusters recursively, forming a hierarchical "cluster tree" with centroid and radius per node up to a "root cluster"; (5) cuts the tree at a predetermined line (e.g., the median of inter-cluster merge distances), discarding larger clusters; and (6) ranks remaining clusters by compactness. The text states Manhattan distance performed better than Euclidean or maximum metrics. The list of clusters is the grammatical model. The method applies to words, phrases, syllables, or phonemes, and to relationships beyond adjacency. The abstract adds that words in the same cluster possess the same lexical significancy.
Source: https://patents.google.com/patent/[US6317707](/patent/US6317707)/en
What the excerpt does not establish. It provides no claims text, no complete description (the description is explicitly marked an excerpt), no tables, no dependent-claim limitations, no experimental results beyond the cited tables, and no litigation or validity analysis. Claim scope, prosecution history, and the full specification are not established here.
Generated 10/1/2026, 9:41:57 PM
Cases on file (0)
Specific litigation cases in our database that name US patent 6317707. The free-form analysis below may also discuss cases beyond this list.
No cases on file mention this patent. Upload a CSV or add a case manually in Admin → Manage litigation cases.
Litigation summary
Past and pending lawsuits — plaintiffs, defendants, jurisdictions, outcomes, and notable rulings.
Proceedings on file (0)
All PTAB activity →AIA trial proceedings (IPR / PGR / CBM) filed at the USPTO Patent Trial and Appeal Board against this patent. Sourced from the USPTO Open Data Portal and refreshed every six hours; each proceeding number deep-links to the PTAB E2E docket.
No PTAB proceedings on file. This patent has not been challenged via IPR, PGR, or CBM. The absence is itself a signal — well-asserted patents eventually attract IPRs. The LLM analysis below may surface filings the ODP feed hasn’t indexed yet.
PTAB challenges
AIA trial proceedings at the USPTO Patent Trial and Appeal Board — IPR, PGR, and CBM. Petitioners, judge panels, claim-level invalidation outcomes from Final Written Decisions, and Federal Circuit appeals. The single most important defensive datapoint after litigation history.
Assignment history
Inventors, original assignee, and the chain of ownership recorded with the USPTO — including the correspondent attorney who recorded each assignment, since shell-LLC chains often share one repeat-player attorney even when the entity names look unrelated. Surfaces NPE / patent-troll patterns: shell-entity transfers, known asserters in the chain, repeat correspondent fingerprints, pre-litigation assignments, and bankruptcy fire-sales.
Prior art
Earlier patents, publications, and products that may anticipate or render the claims unpatentable.
Obviousness
Combinations of prior art that suggest the claimed invention would have been obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
Extensions
Patent term adjustments, term extensions, continuations, divisionals, family members, and expiration dates.
Derivative works
Defensive disclosure: derivative variations of each claim designed to render future incremental improvements obvious or non-novel.