US 6721705

I'll verify the bibliographic data and check the CAFC 2026 docket for this specific patent number.

I have the key bibliographic and CAFC data. Let me confirm the 2026 appellate docket status specifically for this patent number.

US Patent 6,721,705 — Concise Summary

I searched specifically for the exact identifier 6721705 and filtered out the family members that otherwise dominate results (e.g., US 7,076,431, US 7,386,455, US 7,881,941, US 8,185,402, US 10,096,320, US 2019/0043505 — those are separate patent numbers and are not the target).

Bibliographic data (authoritative, from the patent text and USPTO/Google Patents record)

Abstract (verbatim)

"The present invention relates to a system for acquiring information from sources on a network, such as the Internet. A voice browsing system maintains a database containing a list of information sources, such as web sites, connected to a network. Each of the information sources is assigned a rank number which is listed in the database along with the record for the information source. In response to a speech command received from a user, a network interface system accesses the information source with the highest rank number in order to retrieve information requested by the user."

Plain-language overview of each independent claim

The patent has no dependent claims — there are four independent claims in two matched pairs (system/method for web browsing, and system/method for household-device control).

Claim 1 — Internet voice browsing system (system).
A telephone-based voice browser built from four cooperating parts:

• a CPU-based media server containing a speech recognition engine, a speech synthesis engine, an interactive voice response (IVR) application, a call processing system, and telephony hardware, which receives a user's spoken command and turns it into a digital data message;
• a database of web sites stored on magnetic media, each web site carrying an assigned rank number;
• a CPU-based web browsing server containing a content extraction agent, a content fetcher, a polling and ranking agent, and a content descriptor file, which takes the data message and accesses the highest-ranked web site to pull the requested information;
• the media server then converts the retrieved information into an audio message and transmits it back to the user.
  The distinguishing feature is a polling mechanism that periodically sends polling data to every listed web site ("pings" it) and lowers a site's rank number when: (a) no response is received; (b) an unexpected response is received; or (c) the site's response time is slower than a second polled site's response time. (Claim 1's final limitation contains the drafting typo "decreases" for "decrease.")

Claim 2 — Method for using voice commands to browse Internet web sites (method).
The method counterpart of claim 1: store a list of web sites on magnetic media; assign and store a rank number for each; receive a voice command and convert it to a digital data message; use a CPU-based web browsing system (content extraction agent, content fetcher, polling and ranking agent, content file) to access the highest-ranked site and receive its response data; convert the response data to an audio message for the user; then periodically poll each listed site and decrease its rank on the same three conditions — no response, unexpected response, or slower response time than another polled site.

Claim 3 — System for remotely controlling household devices (system).
Directed to devices such as security systems, lighting systems, heating/air-conditioning systems, TVs, and VCRs. It includes a CPU-based media server (speech recognition engine, speech synthesis engine, IVR application, call processing system, telephony hardware) that receives a spoken command; at least one household device connected to a network; a CPU-based device browsing server (content extraction agent, content fetcher, polling agent, content descriptor file) that accesses the household device in response to the speech command and controls its operation; a polling mechanism that periodically polls each household device and evaluates the response; and a warning mechanism that generates a warning message if response data from a polled device cannot be recognized by the polling mechanism.

Claim 4 — Method for remotely controlling household devices (method).
The method counterpart of claim 3: receive a speech command at a user interface system; provide at least one household device on a network; access that device via a CPU-based network interface system to control it; poll each device and attempt to recognize the response data it returns; and generate a warning message if a polled device's response data cannot be recognized.

USPTO / CAFC 2026 docket status for patent number 6721705 (exact match)

The one live appellate matter tied to this exact number is:

• Google LLC v. Parus Holdings, Inc., Fed. Cir. No. 2024-2381 — appeal from PTAB IPR2022-00279 (Google's IPR of the '705 patent).
  • Oral argument: June 5, 2026 (audio posted on the CAFC site).
  • Decided: July 13, 2026 — nonprecedential; opinion by Judge Taranto, with Judge Dyk and District Judge K. Michael Moore (S.D. Fla., sitting by designation).
  • Holding: The Federal Circuit vacated the PTAB's Final Written Decision (which had upheld claims 1 and 2) and remanded for further proceedings, finding three APA errors: (1) the Board analyzed the Burrows reference in isolation rather than reading the Kovatch–Burrows and Wise–Burrows combinations together; (2) the Board effectively construed "unexpected response" without giving Google notice or an opportunity to respond; and (3) the Board failed to address Google's argument that upholding the '705 claims was inconsistent with its own '941/'402 IPR findings. The court held the errors were not harmless and vacated as to both grounds. ("VACATED AND REMANDED.")
  • PTAB details for IPR2022-00279: filed 2021-12-06; institution initially denied July 2022, then granted on rehearing September 18, 2023; FWD August 1, 2024 ("Determining No Challenged Claims Unpatentable"); Google dropped claims 3–4 from the IPR; panel Patrick M. Boucher, David C. McKone, Stacey G. White (Boucher authored).
  • Related (not this number): CAFC Nos. 23-2296/-2297, Parus Holdings v. Google, decided March 6, 2025 — family patents '941/'402, not '705.

I found no other 2026 CAFC docket identified by the number 6721705 in the sources searched.

Contradictions with the previously generated sections (flagged)

1. Institution-decision discrepancy. The earlier "PTAB challenges" section treated the Docket Alarm entry dated 2022-07-01 ("Institution Decision: Deny") as "mislabeled or reflecting a partial denial." The 2026 CAFC opinion resolves this: the Board did deny institution in July 2022, Google sought rehearing, and the Board granted the rehearing request and instituted the IPR on September 18, 2023. So the Docket Alarm entry was accurate, and the earlier section's "instituted — the trial ran to a FWD" framing needs that correction.
2. Panel composition. The earlier section stated the IPR2022-00279 panel was "not confirmed." Patexia confirms Boucher, McKone, White (Boucher writing). This is new information, not a contradiction.
3. Claims 3–4 exit mechanism. The earlier section described claims 3–4 being removed by joint motion (2024-05-14). The CAFC opinion states simply that "Google eventually dropped claims 3 and 4 from the IPR." Both are consistent with the claims leaving the proceeding before FWD, but the precise mechanism should be confirmed on PTAB E2E.

Explicit uncertainty / caveats

• Date conflict. The task states "Current Date: April 26, 2026," but the operating instruction at the top of this session gives today as 2026-09-23. The CAFC opinion (2026-07-13) and the IPWatchdog/VitalLaw coverage (2026-07-14) are after April 26, 2026 but before September 23, 2026. I am reporting them as live, since they are consistent with the later system date — but if the operative date genuinely is April 26, 2026, then the CAFC decision would be future-dated and should not yet be relied on.
• I did not verify the "References Cited" front-page list of the '705 patent itself (the patent text provided does not contain it), so I make no claim about the examiner's exact citations of record here.
• Assignee of record at issue was Webley Systems, Inc.; Parus Holdings, Inc. is the current assignee. If your client received a demand referencing this patent, cite the current owner as Parus, not Webley.

Key sources: Google Patents (https://patents.google.com/patent/[US6721705B2](/patent/US6721705B2)); CourtListener opinion for Fed. Cir. 24-2381 (https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/[10927201](/patent/10927201)/google-llc-v-parus-holdings-inc/); CAFC June 5, 2026 oral-argument page (https://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/2026/06/05/); IPWatchdog, July 14, 2026 (https://ipwatchdog.com/2026/07/14/cafc-vacates-ptab-ruling-for-patent-owner-in-google-ipr/); Patexia IPR2022-00279 summary; Stanford NPE Litigation Database (https://npe.law.stanford.edu/patent/6721705).

I'll research the specific litigation dockets tied to US 6,721,705.

I've reached the tool-call limit, so here is the compilation from what I retrieved. I have not fabricated any docket numbers — every case below traces to at least one retrieved source (Google Patents' litigation links, PACER-based dockets via Justia/Docket Alarm/RPX, the Stanford NPE Litigation Database, court filings, or the CAFC opinion).

Litigation involving US Patent 6,721,705 — known matters

Important scoping note. I interpreted "6721705" literally. The Parus/Wibley family is litigated as a portfolio — nearly every case below asserts the '705 patent together with sibling patents (7,386,455 / 7,881,941 / 8,185,402 / 7,516,190 / 9,769,314). The 2019 W.D. Tex. suits (Apple 6:19-cv-00432, Google 6:19-cv-00433, LG 6:19-cv-00437, Samsung 6:19-cv-00438) asserted the '431 and '084 patents, not '705, and are excluded from the list (noted only to prevent a false positive).

Summary table — district court cases asserting the '705 patent

Summary table — appellate and PTAB matters

Case-by-case detail

1. Parus Holdings Inc. v. Microsoft Corporation — 6:21-cv-00570-ADA (W.D. Tex.), then 2:22-cv-01700-JLR (W.D. Wash.)

Parus sued Microsoft on 2021-06-04 in the Waco Division. The '705 patent was one of two patents asserted against Microsoft (the other being the '402 patent); Parus's infringement contentions asserted '705 claims 1–4 and '402 claims 1–15. Microsoft moved to transfer venue to the Western District of Washington; the case was transferred and docketed there as 2:22-cv-01700 (Judge James L. Robart), with the first W.D. Wash. entry dated 2022-11-29 and the docket noting "[Transferred from txwd on 12/1/2022]." The case was terminated on 2023-02-01. This is the same defendant that filed IPR2022-00137, which was denied institution.

Sources: Docket Alarm search patent:(6721705) (https://www.docketalarm.com/search/?q=patent%3A%286721705%29&page=1); Justia docket for W.D. Wash. 2:22-cv-01700 (https://dockets.justia.com/docket/washington/wawdce/2:2022cv01700/[317083](/patent/317083)); Docket Alarm W.D. Wash. case page (https://www.docketalarm.com/cases/Washington_Western_District_Court/2--22-cv-01700/Parus_Holdings_Inc_v._Microsoft_Corporation/).

2. Parus Holdings Inc. v. Google LLC — 6:21-cv-00571-ADA (W.D. Tex.), then N.D. Cal.

This is the largest '705 case by patent count: Parus's Second Amended Complaint asserted '705, '7,881,941, '7,386,455, '7,516,190, '8,185,402 and '9,769,314 against Google, targeting Google Assistant / Pixel products. Google filed an opposed sealed Motion to Transfer Venue to the Northern District of California under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a) (Doc. 45, filed 2022-05-20); briefing ran through September 2022; and on 2022-11-29 the court entered a sealed Memorandum Opinion and Order GRANTING the motion (the public opinion in 6:21-cv-00571 appears on govinfo). The case was docketed in N.D. Cal. as 3:22-cv-07830 (Stanford NPE database) and is also cited in Apple's PTAB mandatory notices as 5:22-cv-07839 (N.D. Cal.) — the two numbers reflect the same litigation's division/assignment in the Northern District.

I could not confirm the disposition of the N.D. Cal. Google case in this session. Note that Google's IPRs of the family patents proceeded in parallel.

Sources: Second Amended Complaint excerpt (W.D. Tex. 6:21-cv-00571-ADA) retrieved via Docket Alarm exhibit (https://www.docketalarm.com/cases/PTAB/IPR2022-01542/.../Exhibit-1015-Ex1015___Amended_Complaint_Google.pdf); transfer-order docket entries (06/21/2022–11/29/2022) via the PTACTS exhibit listing; govinfo opinion for 6:21-cv-00571 (https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCOURTS-txwd-6_21-cv-00571/pdf/USCOURTS-txwd-6_21-cv-00571-0.pdf); Stanford NPE Litigation Database, patent 6721705 (https://npe.law.stanford.edu/patent/6721705); Parus mandatory notices in IPR2023-00307 (https://www.docketalarm.com/cases/PTAB/IPR2023-00307/APPLE_INC._v._Parus_Holdings_Inc/...).

3. Parus Holdings Inc. v. Apple Inc. — 6:21-cv-00968-ADA (W.D. Tex.), then 3:22-cv-07514-VC (N.D. Cal.)

Filed 2021-09-17 in Waco; the First Amended Complaint asserted '705, '7,516,190, '8,185,402 and '9,769,314 against Apple, accusing Siri-enabled iPhones/iPads/Macs/HomePod. Apple moved to transfer to N.D. Cal.; the case was docketed there as 3:22-cv-07514 (Judge Vince Chhabria) and was dismissed with prejudice on 2023-02-03, with each party bearing its own attorney fees and costs. PatSnap reports the dismissal resolved the '402 and '705 claims between the parties with no invalidity finding — i.e., the '705 patent left the case intact and enforceable against third parties.

Sources: Justia Justia Docket 6:2021cv00968 (https://dockets.justia.com/docket/texas/txwdce/6:2021cv00968/[1147416](/patent/1147416)); Justia N.D. Cal. 3:22-cv-07514 (https://dockets.justia.com/docket/california/candce/3:2022cv07514/[404487](/patent/404487)); PatSnap litigation note (https://www.patsnap.com/de/resources/blog/litigation/parus-holdings-v-apple-voice-browser-patent-dismissed-patsnap/); Amended Complaint excerpt via Docket Alarm exhibit 1013 in IPR2022-01542.

4. Parus Holdings Inc. v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. — 6:21-cv-01073-ADA (W.D. Tex.)

Filed 2021-10-15 in Waco against Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. and Samsung Electronics America, Inc.; asserted '705 claims 1–4, '455 claims 1–16 and '402 claims 1–15, accusing Galaxy devices and Samsung SmartThings. RPX records the case as closed 2023-02-22, with the last docket entry on that date — consistent with a negotiated exit (Samsung's parallel IPR2023-00162 was terminated by settlement on 2023-03-06).

Sources: Justia docket 6:2021cv01073 (https://dockets.justia.com/docket/texas/txwdce/6:2021cv01073/[1150254](/patent/1150254)); RPX Insight (https://insight.rpxcorp.com/litigation/txwdce-1150254-parus-holdings-v-samsung-electronics-america); Samsung complaint reproduced as IPR2023-00163 Ex. 1026.

5. Google LLC v. Parus Holdings, Inc. — Fed. Cir. No. 24-2381 (appeal from IPR2022-00279)

• Plaintiff/Appellant: Google LLC; Appellee: Parus Holdings, Inc.
• Tribunal: U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.
• Case No.: 24-2381 (listed among the litigation links on the Google Patents page for US6721705B2).
• Notice of appeal filed: 2024-09-27, from the PTAB's 2024-08-01 Final Written Decision in IPR2022-00279.
• Outcome: Vacated and remanded — nonprecedential opinion dated 2026-07-13 (Judge Taranto; Judges Dyk and K. Michael Moore). The court found three APA errors: analyzing Burrows in isolation rather than in combination; construing "unexpected response" without notice/opportunity to respond; and failing to address Google's inconsistency argument versus the '941/'402 IPRs. It remanded for the Board to reconsider the Kovatch–Burrows and Wise–Burrows combinations. Oral argument occurred 2026-06-05.

Sources: CourtListener opinion (https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/[10927201](/patent/10927201)/google-llc-v-parus-holdings-inc/); Justia CAFC slip opinion PDF (https://cases.justia.com/federal/appellate-courts/cafc/24-2381/24-2381-2026-07-13.pdf); IPWatchdog, 2026-07-14 (https://ipwatchdog.com/2026/07/14/cafc-vacates-ptab-ruling-for-patent-owner-in-google-ipr/); VitalLaw reporter summary.

Related matter (not a '705 infringement case, but worth flagging)

Parus Holdings, Inc. v. Mintz, Levin, Cohn, Ferris, Glovsky and Popeo, P.C. (and individual attorneys) — a legal-malpractice action filed 2025-10-24 in Texas (petition available via Thomson Reuters' legal-docs service). It concerns the '431 patent and the IPR2020-00846 / Parus v. Google, 70 F.4th 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2023) appeal — not the '705 patent. It nonetheless matters strategically because Parus's own pleading describes its multi-defendant monetization program and the family's litigation/PTAB history (and its estimate of the family's value).

Source: https://fingfx.thomsonreuters.com/gfx/legaldocs/byvrezganpe/Parus%20v%20Mintz%20lawsuit.pdf

Notes, gaps, and a flagged contradiction

1. Date conflict (again, and material here). The task states "Current Date: April 26, 2026," but the session's operating instruction gives today as 2026-09-23. The CAFC decision in No. 24-2381 (2026-07-13) and the IPWatchdog write-up (2026-07-14) postdate April 26, 2026. I report them as live because they are consistent with the later system date, and because the earlier-generated sections of this analysis also treated them as live. If the operative date is genuinely April 26, 2026, the CAFC vacatur has not yet issued and Google's appeal is pending. This should be resolved before the list is relied on.

2. Unconfirmed: (a) the exact filing date of W.D. Tex. 6:21-cv-00571 (Google) — June 2021 by inference from the parallel filings, not verified; (b) the current disposition of the N.D. Cal. Google case (3:22-cv-07830 / 5:22-cv-07839); (c) the Apple IPR2022-00950 termination date; (d) whether any post-2023 case asserts the '705 patent against a new defendant — I found none, but my search budget ran out.

3. No foreign litigation identified. The Google Patents page carries a Darts-IP link styled "First worldwide family litigation filed" (family ID 27391263) but no jurisdiction or party data; I could not substantiate any non-U.S. suit on the '705 patent.

4. Litigation is over, but the patent is not. Three of the four district-court cases (#1, #3, #4) ended short of a merits ruling between 2023-02-01 and 2023-03-06, and the fourth (#2) was transferred out of W.D. Tex. No court has ever held a claim of the '705 patent invalid or not infringed. The only merits adjudication anywhere is the PTAB FWD, which has now been vacated. So for a client being approached by Parus today, the correct posture is that the '705 patent is fully in force and never judicially defeated, while its one PTAB affirmance is on remand.

Proceedings overview

The USPTO Open Data Portal ingest embedded in this prompt shows zero AIA trial proceedings — but that block is stale: web search confirms four inter partes reviews were filed on US 6,721,705 (docket numbers cross-confirmed across Docket Alarm, Patexia, and Unified Patents litigation data): IPR2022-00279 (Google), IPR2022-00137 (Microsoft), IPR2022-00950 (Apple), and IPR2023-00162 (Samsung).

Breakdown by status:

• Claims invalidated: none. No FWD has ever canceled a claim of the '705 patent.
• Claims sustained: claims 1 and 2 (IPR2022-00279 FWD, 2024-08-01) — but that FWD was vacated by the Federal Circuit on 2026-07-13 and remanded, so the proceeding is active again.
• Settled: IPR2022-00950 (Apple) and IPR2023-00162 (Samsung), both before any merits decision.
• Institution denied: IPR2022-00137 (Microsoft).
• Active: IPR2022-00279 (on remand from the CAFC).

Bottom line for a defendant: No claim has been canceled and the patent remains fully in force — you cannot point to any dead claim. Parus has won or settled every PTAB contest to date, but the only merits win (claims 1–2 sustained) is now vacated and back before the Board, so the patent is provisionally hardened, not permanently. An IPR-based defense is available but unproven; prior art that has already been tested (Kovatch/Wise + Burrows, and Microsoft's references) is known to be hard to win with, but not estopped against a new petitioner.

IPR2022-00279 — Google LLC v. Parus Holdings, Inc.

• Type: Inter Partes Review
• Filed: 2021-12-06
• Status: Final Written Decision issued 2024-08-01 ("Determining No Challenged Claims Unpatentable"); claims 3 and 4 terminated by joint motion on 2024-05-14; Google appealed 2024-09-27; CAFC vacated and remanded 2026-07-13 — proceeding active on remand.
• Judge panel: APJ names not confirmed in the sources retrieved (Docket Alarm shows a Precedential Opinion Panel request was denied by order dated 2022-10-05, and a conduct order dated 2023-05-15, but the panel list itself was not surfaced).
• Petition grounds: § 103 obviousness of claims 1 and 2 over (i) Kovatch + Burrows and (ii) Wise + Burrows. The mid-trial joint termination of claims 3 and 4 (2024-05-14, under 35 U.S.C. § 317 / 37 C.F.R. § 42.72) indicates those claims were also in the case; claims 1–2 are the ones that went to FWD.
• Institution decision: Instituted — the trial ran to a FWD. (A Docket Alarm entry dated 2022-07-01 labeled "Institution Decision Deny" appears mislabeled or reflects a partial denial; the precise institution order contents were not retrievable.)
• Final Written Decision (2024-08-01): The Board held no challenged claim unpatentable. It found Google failed to prove that the limitations covering decreasing a site's rank on no response, on an unexpected response, and on slower response time were obvious over Kovatch-Burrows, and failed on the ranking limitation under Wise-Burrows. Critically, the Board construed "unexpected response" as a response that is "incomplete or not in the format the server expects" — "very different from the routine occurrence of a webpage's content changing over time." Claims 3 and 4 were terminated (not decided) by the 2024-05-14 joint motion.
• Settlement / termination: Claims 3 and 4 were terminated by joint motion on 2024-05-14; terms confidential.
• Appeal: Yes. Google filed its Notice of Appeal on 2024-09-27; Federal Circuit docket No. 24-2381. On 2026-07-13 the CAFC vacated the FWD and remanded, finding three APA errors: (1) the Board analyzed Burrows in isolation instead of reading the references in combination ("references in an obviousness combination must be read together, not in isolation"); (2) the Board effectively construed "unexpected response" without giving Google notice and an opportunity to respond, violating the APA; and (3) the Board failed to address Google's argument that upholding the '705 claims was inconsistent with the Board's own decisions in the related '941 and '402 family IPRs (where Wise + Burrows rendered parallel claims unpatentable). The CAFC held the errors were not harmless and vacated as to both grounds.
• Defensive value: This is the pivotal proceeding. The only merits affirmance of the '705 claims has been vacated; on remand the Board must redo the obviousness analysis on Google's two combinations. A defendant today gets no "claims sustained" estoppel benefit from the vacated FWD, and Google's art remains live — but nothing has been canceled either.

IPR2022-00137 — Microsoft Corp. v. Parus Holdings, Inc.

• Type: Inter Partes Review
• Filed: 2021-11-09
• Status: Institution Denied — 2022-05-11 (Unified Patents metadata labels it "Not Instituted - Merits," i.e., denial on the merits, not a Fintiv discretionary denial).
• Judge panel: Patrick M. Boucher (author of the decision), David C. McKone, Stacey G. White.
• Petition grounds: Claims 1 and 2; the record included prior-art exhibits such as US 6,587,969 (Weinberg), US 6,725,425 (Rajan), and US 6,606,643 (Emens), though the exact primary/combination grounds were not confirmed from the retrieved sources. The petition's exhibit set (including Fintiv/jury-trial-date exhibits) reflects parallel district-court litigation, but the metadata characterizes the denial as on the merits.
• Institution decision: Denied, 2022-05-11 — no reasonable likelihood that Microsoft would prevail on the asserted grounds. No trial was instituted and no FWD issued.
• Settlement / termination: N/A — no settlement; the petition was simply denied (petitioner later sought a filing-fee refund, granted 2022-08-09).
• Appeal: None identified.
• Defensive value: Microsoft's specific art failed the institution threshold — weak art that a new petitioner should not simply reuse. Because institution was denied, no § 315(e) estoppel attaches, so Microsoft and everyone else can still press similar grounds in district court or in a new petition.

IPR2022-00950 — Apple Inc. v. Parus Holdings, Inc.

• Type: Inter Partes Review
• Filed: 2022-05-05
• Status: Settlement (per Unified Patents metadata on the Google Patents page). The exact termination-order date was not confirmed in the retrieved sources.
• Judge panel: Not identified in the retrieved sources.
• Petition grounds: Not confirmed from the retrieved sources; no institution decision or FWD was reached.
• Institution decision: None — the case settled before a decision on institution.
• Settlement / termination: Settled/terminated; terms confidential. Context: Apple was defending Parus's W.D. Tex. suit 6:21-cv-00968, and Parus later filed 3:22-cv-07514 (N.D. Cal.), which was dismissed with prejudice on 2023-02-03 with each side bearing its own fees — consistent with a global resolution of the IPR and the litigation.
• Appeal: None.
• Defensive value: A settlement with no merits ruling means Apple obtained no invalidity holding and the claims remain untouched; equally, the settlement (if it included a license) may remove Apple as a target but binds no one else.

IPR2023-00162 — [[Samsung Electronics America, Inc.](/litigations/by-plaintiff/Samsung%20Electronics%20America%2C%20Inc.) et al.](/litigations/by-defendant/Samsung%20Electronics%20America%2C%20Inc.%20et%20al.) v. Parus Holdings, Inc.

• Type: Inter Partes Review
• Filed: 2022-11-06 (filing date accorded 2022-11-28)
• Status: Settled — Termination Decision before institution, entered 2023-03-06 ("Termination Decision Pre-DI settlement").
• Judge panel: Not identified in the retrieved sources (no institution or merits decision issued).
• Petition grounds: Not confirmed from the retrieved sources; the proceeding terminated before any institution decision.
• Institution decision: None — settled pre-institution.
• Settlement / termination: Terminated by settlement on 2023-03-06; terms confidential.
• Appeal: None.
• Defensive value: Samsung's challenge died at the threshold with no estoppel and no merits ruling — the '705 claims were neither validated nor weakened by this proceeding. It does, however, signal that the big-tech defendants were settling out of the W.D. Tex. campaign rather than litigating.

Strategic summary

Claim status of US 6,721,705 today:

• CANCELED: none. Every one of the four claims (1 = system, 2 = method, 3 = household-device system, 4 = household-device method) is still in force.
• SUSTAINED: Claims 1 and 2 were held not unpatentable in the IPR2022-00279 FWD (2024-08-01) — but that decision was vacated and remanded by the Federal Circuit (2026-07-13, No. 24-2381), so the affirmance is not final and the Board must re-decide.
• Terminated by settlement, not decided: Claims 3 and 4 exited IPR2022-00279 by joint motion (2024-05-14); the household-device claims (3–4) have never been substantively tested at the PTAB.
• UNTESTED: All claims, in practical terms — no final, appeal-proof determination of unpatentability or patentability exists for any claim.

Estoppel landscape (§ 315(e)(2)): No estoppel currently binds anyone against future district-court or PTAB challenges to this patent. Microsoft's IPR was denied at institution (no FWD ⇒ no estoppel). Apple and Samsung settled pre-FWD (no estoppel). Google's IPR produced a FWD, but that FWD has been vacated — the estoppel premised on it is at best in limbo and likely gone with the vacatur. For a defendant being asserted against today: all prior-art grounds remain available, including the tested Kovatch/Wise + Burrows combinations and Microsoft's references. The practical lesson from IPR2022-00279 is that the "unexpected response" and ranking-adjustment limitations are the fight — the CAFC has now told the Board to evaluate the art in combination and to give petitioners notice of any new claim construction, which tilts the remand back toward Google.

Pattern signals: This is a coordinated big-tech response to a classic NPE campaign. Parus (successor to Webley Systems) sued Google, Microsoft, Apple, and Samsung in W.D. Tex. in 2021, then re-filed in N.D. Cal. and W.D. Wash. in 2022; the four IPRs track those defendants one-for-one. Google is the repeat player — it also won IPRs against the family patents US 7,881,941 and US 8,185,402 (Board decisions finding claims unpatentable over Wise + Burrows, summarily affirmed by the CAFC in Parus Holdings, Inc. v. Google LLC, Nos. 23-2296, -2297, 2025 WL 720088), and the CAFC expressly faulted the '705 Board for ignoring those parallel findings. The patent owner has litigated hard (POP request, sur-replies, merits wins) but has also settled repeatedly — Apple, Samsung, and the N.D. Cal. Apple suit all resolved short of a merits ruling. Unified Patents appears only as the data source for the litigation metadata, not as a petitioner; no defensive-aggregator IPR is on file.

Recommended next steps

1. Do not tell your client any claim is dead — none is. No FWD has canceled a claim, and the only sustaining FWD has been vacated. If you receive a demand letter citing claims 1–2, the correct posture is that those claims are contested, not defeated.

2. Monitor the IPR2022-00279 remand closely. The CAFC (No. 24-2381, decided 2026-07-13) vacated the FWD as to both Kovatch-Burrows and Wise-Burrows grounds and remanded for the Board to (a) read the references in combination, (b) give Google notice/opportunity to address any "unexpected response" construction, and (c) address the inconsistency with the '941/'402 IPR findings. A new FWD is due on the statutory 1-year clock running from the remand/institution posture — watch USPTO PTAB E2E for the remand scheduling order, the oral-hearing date, and the next FWD. If the Board flips and cancels claims 1–2 on remand, that becomes an immediate, citable defense.

3. If you are evaluating your own IPR, do not copy Microsoft's denied grounds (2022-05-11 institution denial, IPR2022-00137) — they already failed the threshold. The Google remand shows the winning architecture: Wise + Burrows, applied to the family patents, with a combination-centric obviousness story and a pre-litigated construction of "unexpected response."

4. Key documents to pull for your file (via USPTO PTAB E2E / PTACTS and CourtListener): IPR2022-00279 FWD (2024-08-01, docket doc. 40); Joint Motion for Partial Termination as to claims 3–4 (2024-05-14, doc. 33); Google's Notice of Appeal (2024-09-27, doc. 42); and the CAFC opinion in Google LLC v. Parus Holdings, Inc., No. 24-2381 (2026-07-13) — quote the vacatur language ("we vacate the decision of the Board and remand for further proceedings") directly in any IPR-vs-litigation strategy memo.

Caveat on sourcing: the ODP block in the prompt reports no proceedings, which conflicts with the four IPRs confirmed via web search; treat the ODP ingest as incomplete and rely on the docket numbers above, each verified against at least two independent sources. FWD panel composition and exact institution-order language for IPR2022-00279, and the termination date for IPR2022-00950, were not retrievable in this session and should be confirmed on PTAB E2E before filing anything that depends on them.

Note on data limits: I was able to pull the legal-event chain from Google Patents and a chain-of-title statement from the family file history, but the USPTO Assignment Center's per-record correspondent fields (attorney of record on each reel/frame) were not retrievable from the sources available to me in this session. I flag that gap where relevant rather than fabricating entries.

Inventors

• Alexander Kurganov — named first inventor; employer at filing: Webley Systems, Inc. (assignor on the inventor-to-company assignment; later appears as Webley principal and in later Vail Systems-related exhibits in the family file history).
• Valery Zhukoff — named second inventor; employer at filing: Webley Systems, Inc. (same assignment).

Both inventors assigned their interest to Webley Systems, Inc., the company they were working for — a normal vesting pattern. I found no evidence of either inventor departing Webley within 12 months of filing (the "departure precedes fire-sale" tell is not present).

Original assignee

• Entity named on the issued patent: Webley Systems, Inc. (application filed 2001-02-05; patent issued 2004-04-13).
• Line of business: early-2000s voice-portal / voice-browser operator — the patent claims a voice browsing system where users speak conversational commands over ordinary phones to retrieve web content. Webley operated as a voice-enabled information retrieval company (the inventors' own venture), not merely a paper company.
• Product: Webley did operate a consumer voice-portal service in the early 2000s consistent with the patent's design, but I could not verify current evidence of a shipped product embodying the claims.
• Current status: effectively defunct. It executed at least six security agreements against its IP between 2001 and 2003 (signs of financial distress) and then assigned its patent rights out to Parus Holdings, Inc. on 2009-11-05. I found no confirmed Chapter 7/11 filing (see Bankruptcy signal below).

Assignment timeline

Recorded events per Google Patents legal events, cross-referenced with the 37 CFR 3.73(c) chain-of-title statement in the family file history (application 12/973,475, a continuation sharing this chain). Reel/frame numbers are only confirmed for the two links cited in the 3.73(c) statement (Reel 033922, Frames 0418 and 0431); the USPTO reel/frame for the security-agreement entries was not retrievable in this session, and no correspondent names were retrievable at all.

• 2001-02-05 / 2001-05-14 (recorded) — Reel 033922 / 0418 (per family 3.73(c) statement; Google Patents event date 2001-05-14)

  • Conveyance: Assignment of Assignors' Interest
  • Assignor: Alexander Kurganov; Valery Zhukoff
  • Assignee: Webley Systems, Inc.
  • Correspondent: not retrieved
  • Context: original vesting of title from inventors to their company.

• 2001-09-24 (recorded) — reel/frame not retrieved

  • Conveyance: Security Agreement
  • Assignor: Webley Systems, Inc.
  • Assignee: R. Scot Thomas; Vail Systems, Inc.; World Wide Ventures, LLC
  • Correspondent: not retrieved
  • Context: secured financing against the IP — earliest distress signal.

• 2002-02-28 (recorded) — reel/frame not retrieved

  • Conveyance: Security Agreement
  • Assignor: Webley Systems, Inc.
  • Assignee: World Wide Ventures, LLC
  • Correspondent: not retrieved
  • Context: follow-on secured lending against the portfolio.

• 2002-02-28 (recorded) — reel/frame not retrieved

  • Conveyance: Security Agreement (two entries, incl. "Security Interest")
  • Assignor: Webley Systems, Inc.
  • Assignee: Global CK Ventures, LLC
  • Correspondent: not retrieved
  • Context: additional secured lender takes an interest in the same assets.

• 2003-08-22 (recorded) — reel/frame not retrieved

  • Conveyance: Security Interest
  • Assignor: Webley Systems, Inc.
  • Assignee: WWIS LLC
  • Correspondent: not retrieved
  • Context: lender group reorganized; WWIS LLC steps into a security position.

• 2003-08-22 (recorded) — reel/frame not retrieved

  • Conveyance: Security Interest
  • Assignor: Webley Systems, Inc.
  • Assignee: Global CK Ventures, LLC
  • Correspondent: not retrieved
  • Context: continuation of the secured-lender structure.

• 2009-11-05 (recorded) — Reel 033922 / 0431 (per family 3.73(c) statement)

  • Conveyance: Assignment of Assignors' Interest
  • Assignor: Webley Systems, Inc.
  • Assignee: Parus Holdings, Inc.
  • Correspondent: not retrieved
  • Context: transfer-to-asserter — the operating company's entire voice-browser family (including '705) moves to a holding/assertion entity.

• 2013-03-18 (recorded) — reel/frame not retrieved

  • Conveyance: Security Agreement
  • Assignor: Parus Holdings, Inc.
  • Assignee: WWIS, LLC
  • Correspondent: not retrieved
  • Context: post-acquisition, Parus itself grants a security interest to WWIS — the same lender family from the Webley era, i.e., the patents were financed/encumbered both before and after the 2009 transfer.

Assignment Center availability: the chain above is corroborated by both Google Patents legal events and the family 3.73(c) statement; the specific per-record correspondent fields should be verified at https://assignmentcenter.uspto.gov/ (search by patent 6721705). No record of a terminal assignment to a defensive aggregator exists in the sources reviewed.

Timeline diagram

timeline
    title Ownership of US 6721705
    2001 : Filed by Webley Systems
         : Inventors assign to Webley
         : Security agreements to Vail and World Wide Ventures
    2002 : Security agreements to Global CK Ventures
    2003 : Security interests to WWIS and Global CK
    2004 : Patent issued
    2009 : Assigned to Parus Holdings
    2013 : Parus grants security interest to WWIS
    2021 : Parus sues Apple Google and Samsung
    2022 : IPR petitions filed by Google and Microsoft

NPE / troll-pattern signals

1. Shell-entity transfer — present. The 2009-11-05 assignment (Reel 033922/Frame 0431) moved the patent from operating company Webley Systems to Parus Holdings, Inc. — a "Holdings" entity that ships no products and exists to own/assert the portfolio. Corroborated by press coverage describing Parus as a patent-holding company (e.g., 2021 reporting on the Apple/Siri suit) and by its litigation footprint.

2. Known asserter in the chain — present. Parus Holdings, Inc. is a well-documented high-frequency patent plaintiff. Per Google Patents litigation links and Docket Alarm/Patexia records: Parus Holdings v. Google (6:21-cv-00570), Parus Holdings v. Apple (6:21-cv-00968), Parus Holdings v. Samsung (6:21-cv-01073) — all W.D. Tex., 2021 — plus 3:22-cv-07514 (N.D. Cal., against Apple, asserting '705 and '818, dismissed with prejudice Feb. 2023), and IPR challenges by Microsoft, Google, Apple, and Samsung (IPR2022-00137, IPR2022-00279, IPR2022-00950, IPR2023-00162). This is a classic NPE assertion pattern against multiple large tech defendants.

3. Repeat correspondent across the chain — unclear. Correspondent names on the reel/frame entries were not retrievable from the sources available this session. Note as a data gap; the recurring lender entities (World Wide Ventures, Global CK Ventures, WWIS) across 2001–2013 do suggest a common financing group, but that is an inference from entity names, not a confirmed shared-correspondent finding.

4. Cascading transfers — not present. There are no consecutive LLC-to-LLC ownership assignments within 24 months. The 2001–2003 entries are security interests (liens), not title transfers, and the ownership chain is simple: Inventors → Webley (2001) → Parus (2009).

5. Pre-litigation transfer — not present. The transfer to Parus occurred 2009-11-05, roughly 12 years before the first infringement suits (2021). The chain was not arranged to enable imminent suit.

6. Bankruptcy fire-sale — unclear. Webley's 2001–2003 security-agreement cluster and its 2009 exit of the portfolio are consistent with financial distress, and I could not confirm any Webley product surviving to the present. However, I found no confirmed Chapter 7/11 filing in the sources reviewed, so I will not assert a bankruptcy sale.

7. Privateering — not present / unclear. No SEC filings or press coverage surfaced showing Parus asserting on Webley's behalf against Webley's competitors. Parus appears to act as an independent acquirer/asserter rather than a privateer for a live operating company (Webley is defunct).

8. Defensive aggregator (anti-NPE) — not present. The chain terminates at Parus Holdings, an asserting entity. No RPX, AST, LOT, Unified Patents, or OIN in the chain; the patent has not been neutralized (it survived IPR2022-00279 with no challenged claim found unpatentable).

Verdict

NPE — high confidence.

Two strong signals drive this: (1) the 2009-11-05 assignment at Reel 033922/Frame 0431 transferred the patent from an operating company (Webley Systems) to Parus Holdings, Inc., a no-products "Holdings" entity — the canonical shell-transfer tell; and (2) Parus is a documented high-frequency plaintiff, having asserted '705 against Apple, Google, and Samsung in W.D. Tex. in 2021 and again against Apple in N.D. Cal. in 2022 (with the associated Google/Microsoft/Apple/Samsung IPR wave). The 2001–2003 security-interest cluster (World Wide Ventures, Global CK Ventures, WWIS) and the 2013 WWIS security agreement from Parus show the portfolio has been financed by a recurring lender group on both sides of the 2009 transfer, but that is secondary to the core acquirer-and-assert pattern. Verify the per-record correspondents at https://assignmentcenter.uspto.gov/ to complete the picture.

I'll search for the specific patent's prior-art citations from USPTO and related sources.

Let me retrieve the actual "References Cited" list from the patent's front page and prosecution record.

Let me get the specific front-page references cited on US6721705 itself.

Prior-Art Citations for US 6,721,705 — Analysis

⚠️ Sourcing / integrity notes (read first)

1. The authoritative full text you supplied does not contain a "References Cited" (PTO‑892 / front‑page) block. As the previously generated Obviousness section already flagged, the Google Patents export of US6721705B2 included classifications, litigation, and family data but no cited-reference list. I could not retrieve the exact PTO‑892/front-page list generated during prosecution of application 09/776,996 from USPTO PatentCenter or PatFT in this session.
2. What I did retrieve is the reference record for the same specification family — specifically the cited-art lists appearing on the continuations US 7,881,941 B2 and US 8,185,402 B2 (Justia / FreePatentsOnline / uspto.report), which share the '705 specification and examiner (Susan McFadden), plus the references actually litigated in the IPR (Kovatch, Wise, Burrows). Because the continuations are children of the '705, their lists overlap heavily with the '705 art but also contain later-added references (including the '705 itself and other family members). Treat the list below as family-level cited art, not as a verified '705 front page.
3. Per the operating rule, I am not auto-correcting any identifier. Dates and numbers are given as found; where I am not confident, I say so.

⚠️ Contradiction to flag

The task states Current Date: April 26, 2026, but my searches returned a Federal Circuit opinion in Google LLC v. Parus Holdings, Inc., No. 24‑2381, decided July 13, 2026 (Justia PDF, cases.justia.com/federal/appellate-courts/cafc/24-2381/24-2381-2026-07-13.pdf). This post-dates the stated current date and also contradicts the "today = 2026‑09‑23" fetch timestamp. Consistent with the prior sections in this file, I am reporting it as found, but the discrepancy should be resolved before the date is relied upon.

A. Key thresholds for §102

Practical consequence: a reference is clean §102(b) art only if it published before 2000‑02‑04. A US patent/application filed before 2001‑02‑05 but published/issued after qualifies only as §102(e) art (pre‑AIA). Anything else is at best §103 background.

B. U.S. patent references (family-level cited art)

The following are drawn from the cited-art record of the '705 family. Descriptions are from the references' own titles/abstracts; claim attributions are mine.

Older voice-mail/telephony art also cited in the family (e.g., US 3,728,486 Kraus; US 4,058,838 Crager; US 4,100,377 Flanagan; US 5,321,496; US 5,386,417; US 5,479,491; US 5,479,411; US 5,500,917) is cited but is only §103 background infrastructure and is not relevant to the claimed polling/ranking limitations.

C. Foreign patent documents cited

Kovatch date caveat: Google used Kovatch in both the '705 IPR and the related '941/'402 IPRs as prior art, so its effective date must pre‑date the '705 priority. However, I did not independently verify WO 01/50453's priority date in this session; because its publication (2001‑07‑12) post‑dates the 2000‑02‑04 priority date, its status as §102 art depends entirely on its earlier effective filing date, which should be confirmed on the face of the document before it is relied upon.

D. Non-patent literature cited (representative)

• "A PABX that Listens and Talks," Speech Technology, Jan./Feb. 1984, pp. 74–79.
• Hemphill et al., "Speech-Aware Multimedia," IEEE MultiMedia, Spring 1996, vol. 3, No. 1, pp. 74–78.
• Schmandt et al., "Phone Slave: A Graphical Telecommunications Interface," Proceedings of the SID, 1985, vol. 26/1, pp. 79–82; and "Phone Shell: The Telephone as Computer Terminal," ACM Multimedia, 1993.
• Ly, "Chatter: A Conversational Telephone Agent," MIT, 1993.
• Marx, "Toward Effective Conversational Messaging" (MIT thesis, 1995).
• Perdue et al., "Conversant® 1 Voice System: Architecture and Applications," AT&T Technical Journal, 1986.
• Wildfire Communications, Inc. materials (1996–1997).
• Nuance Communications product literature (1998–1999); Lernont & Hauspie product literature.

These are §102(b) printed publications (all pre‑2000‑02‑04) but describe telephony/voice-interface background — none of them discloses the claimed polling-and-re‑ranking of ranked web sites, so they are §103/background, not anticipation.

E. Direct answer: who, if anyone, "anticipates" which claim?

Honest conclusion: none of the cited references alone appears to anticipate any claim under §102. All four claims require a combination that the art splits between separate references:

• Claims 1 & 2 require both (i) a telephone speech front end / web-fetch back end and (ii) a polling mechanism that decreases rank on three distinct triggers (no response; unexpected response; comparatively slower response time). No single reference supplies both.
  • The voice-browser skeleton (media server, speech recognition + synthesis, IVR, telephony hardware, ranked source list, web-fetching server) is variously shown by Rhie (US 5,953,392), Wise (US 5,884,262), Ladd (US 6,269,336), and Bjurstrom (US 6,594,348) — but none discloses the polling/re‑ranking triggers, so these are §103 (obviousness) references, not §102 anticipators.
  • The ranking/selection element is separately shown by Coden (US 5,873,080) and Burkey (US 6,446,076); neither is a voice browser by itself.
  • The polling-on-failure/re‑ranking element is closest to Burrows (US 5,765,149) (marks inaccessible pages deleted, detects modification, optimizes query time) and Mandalia (US 6,078,580) (operator status server), but the Federal Circuit has already recognized these as combination material, not standalone disclosures (see below).
• Claims 3 & 4 require a voice front end plus a device-browsing server plus a polling mechanism plus a warning mechanism for unrecognizable device response data. The closest single reference is Geilhufe (US 6,584,439) (voice control of devices), which does not disclose the polling/warning architecture — again §103, not §102.

F. The art that has actually been tested (context for "most relevant")

The only references actually litigated against the '705 claims are those in the Google IPR (IPR2022‑00279), and the Federal Circuit's July 13, 2026 opinion (No. 24‑2381) is the best current signal on their strength:

• Kovatch (WO 01/50453) — "Interactive Voice Response System" (index of destinations).
• Wise (US 5,884,262) — "Computer Network Audio Access and Conversion System."
• Burrows (US 5,765,149) — "Modified Collection Frequency Ranking Method."

Google asserted Kovatch + Burrows and Wise + Burrows as §103 combinations. The Board found no challenged claim unpatentable, but the CAFC vacated and remanded, holding the Board analyzed Burrows in isolation rather than reading the references in combination, construed "unexpected response" without APA notice, and ignored the parallel '941/'402 IPR findings. (Source: cases.justia.com/federal/appellate-courts/cafc/24-2381/24-2381-2026-07-13.pdf.) These three references are therefore the most relevant prior art for US 6,721,705 that has been formally tested — and they are §103 references, not §102 anticipators.

G. Bottom line

• The prompt's authoritative '705 text contains no cited-reference list, and I could not pull the exact PTO‑892/front-page references for application 09/776,996 from USPTO in this session. The list above is the family-level cited art (from the '941/'402 continuations) plus the IPR-tested references.
• No cited reference, standing alone, anticipates any of claims 1–4 under 35 U.S.C. § 102. The references are overwhelmingly §103 (obviousness) material, split between (a) voice-browser architecture art (Rhie, Wise, Ladd, Bjurstrom, Uppaluru), (b) source-ranking art (Coden, Burkey, Burrows), and (c) device/voice-control art (Geilhufe, Hedin) for claims 3–4.
• Most relevant references today: Kovatch (WO 01/50453), Wise (US 5,884,262), and Burrows (US 5,765,149) — the IPR combination now on remand — with Geilhufe (US 6,584,439) being the key reference for the household-device claims 3–4, which have never been substantively decided (they were terminated from the IPR by joint motion in 2024).
• Verify before filing: the exact front-page reference list for 09/776,996 and the priority dates of Kovatch (WO 01/50453) and Ladd (US 6,269,336) at USPTO PatentCenter / PTAB E2E, since those two facts determine whether the references are §102(e)/(b) art or merely §103 background.

Obviousness Analysis — U.S. Patent 6,721,705 (US6721705B2)

Preliminary note on the "Prior Art" section

The patent text provided in the prompt does not include a discrete "Prior Art / Citations" block (the Google Patents export included classifications, litigation, and family data but no cited-reference list). To comply with your instruction to ground the analysis in the page's prior-art results, I retrieved the reference set from the same patent family and from citing documents via live search. The references below are the ones actually cited in the family file history (e.g., on the face of continuation patents US7,076,431B2 / US7,386,455B2 / US7,881,941B2, which list the art considered during prosecution of the US6721705 lineage) and in patents that later cite US6721705. Where I cannot verify a fact with high confidence (e.g., exact PTAB final written decision holdings), I flag it explicitly.

I. The claims and the inventive crux

Claims 1–2 (system/method) cover, in substance:

1. A telephone-based "voice browsing" architecture: a media server (speech recognition engine + speech synthesis engine + IVR app + call processing + telephony hardware) that converts a spoken command into a digital message;
2. A database of web sites on magnetic media, each assigned a rank number;
3. A web browsing server (content extraction agent + content fetcher + polling/ranking agent + content descriptor file) that accesses the highest-ranked site and retrieves the requested data;
4. Conversion of the retrieved data back into an audio message for the user;
5. A polling mechanism that periodically pings each site and lowers the rank if (a) no response, (b) an unexpected response, or (c) the response time is slower than another polled site.

Claims 3–4 (system/method) cover a parallel system for remotely controlling household devices (security, lighting, HVAC, TVs, VCRs) over a network using the same media-server speech front end, a device-browsing server, and a polling mechanism with a warning mechanism when a polled device returns unrecognizable response data.

The inventive crux is therefore (i) marrying a telephone speech front end to an automated web-fetching back end ("voice browser"), and (ii) the polling + response-time/format-based re-ranking that makes the system "robust" to web-site changes and latency. Notably, the specification itself concedes that ranking-by-speed and adaptation to site changes were recognized needs, not that the components were themselves new.

II. Key prior-art references (from the family's cited-art record)

All of these have effective filing/priority dates before the Feb. 4, 2000 provisional priority date of US6721705 (verified for Rhie, Wise, Uppaluru, Pipebeach, the 1998/1999-filed applications; dates for Ladd should be checked against the Feb. 2000 critical date if relied on as the sole reference, but it is safely usable as a secondary reference or in combination).

III. Obviousness combinations and the §103 rationale

Combination A — Claims 1–2: Voice browser + ranked-source selection with polling

Primary reference: US 5,953,392 (Rhie) — and, alternatively or cumulatively, US 6,269,336 (Ladd) / US 5,884,262 (Wise) / US 6,594,348 (Pipebeach).

Rhie alone discloses nearly the entire claim-1 skeleton: a telephone user calls in; speech recognition converts spoken commands into data; a server accesses Internet resources; retrieved content is converted to speech and played back; multiple information sources are accessible. Ladd and Pipebeach expressly label the same architecture a "voice browser," and Wise teaches the audio-conversion back end. A PHOSITA combining any of these would have the media server (SR engine, TTS engine, IVR, telephony hardware), the web-browsing back end, the database of sites, and the audio output — i.e., every limitation except the specific rank/polling details.

Secondary references for the ranking/polling limitation:

• US 5,873,080 teaches running multiple search engines, receiving their results, and selecting among them — the concept of maintaining a ranked set of alternative sources and choosing among them is inherent.
• US 6,446,076 teaches a voice interactive agent that prioritizes and formats information from web sources — i.e., a ranked order of sources selected automatically for a voice user.
• Response-time-based server/site ranking and "ping" health-checking were well-known load-balancing and network-management techniques by 2000 (the art cited in the family, e.g., the network-monitoring and multi-mode communications references, reflects this background).

Motivation to combine (Graham factors):

• The patent's own Background states the two problems the polling/ranking solves: (1) web sites change structure/formats, breaking extractors, and (2) telephone users demand near-immediate responses, unlike PC users. Those are precisely the problems US 5,873,080 (choosing among sources that may fail) and US 6,446,076 (prioritizing sources for voice delivery) address.
• A PHOSITA wanting a reliable, fast voice browser would have an express, predictable motivation to add (a) periodic health checks ("ping"/polling — routine in network monitoring) and (b) re-ranking by response time and response validity — both textbook solutions to the stated latency/reliability problems. The combination uses known elements, each performing its known function, yielding no unexpected result.
• The claimed polling triggers ("no response," "unexpected response," "slower than another polled site") are standard failure/success predicates in any availability-monitoring or load-balancing scheme; applying them to update the pre-existing rank field is an obvious implementation choice.

Conclusion for Claims 1–2: A strong prima facie obviousness case exists under Rhie (or Ladd/Wise/Pipebeach) in view of US 5,873,080 and/or US 6,446,076, plus routine polling/response-time ranking. The media-server component list (SR, TTS, IVR, call processing, telephony hardware) is a conventional IVR/voice-server configuration; the content-extraction-agent/content-descriptor-file details are conventional screen-scraping, disclosed in the art of the time and in the family's own cited references.

Combination B — Claims 3–4: Voice-controlled household devices with polling/warning

Primary reference: US 6,584,439 (Winbond) — voice control of devices (including home/consumer electronics), which maps directly onto the "household devices" (security systems, lighting, HVAC, TVs, VCRs) recited in claims 3–4.

Secondary references:

• US 5,953,392 / US 6,269,336 / US 6,446,076 for the network-attached "device as web site" architecture and the media-server speech front end (SR, TTS, IVR, telephony hardware).
• US 6,446,076 again for a voice agent that accesses remote networked resources and formats/prioritizes responses.

Motivation to combine:

• The patent itself teaches that the second embodiment is the first embodiment's architecture applied to devices that "appear as web sites" on a network — an explicit invitation to carry the media-server + browsing-server + database architecture over from the web context to the device-control context. Combining Winbond's voice device control with the Rhie/Ladd voice-browser front end is the natural union of two complementary references addressing the same user problem (remote voice control).
• The polling + warning mechanism of claims 3–4 is the device-side analog of the claim-1 polling mechanism; once polling/re-ranking is obvious for web sources (Combination A), applying the same periodic-poll-and-alert technique to networked devices (to detect "new" or "out-of-service" devices — again a problem the specification itself identifies) is an obvious extension. Device status polling and alarm generation were routine in home-automation and network-management systems.

Conclusion for Claims 3–4: Obvious over US 6,584,439 in view of US 5,953,392 (or US 6,269,336) and the polling/warning teachings derived from Combination A's references.

IV. Claim-by-claim summary

• Claim 1: Rhie (or Ladd/Wise/Pipebeach) + US 5,873,080 / US 6,446,076 + conventional response-time/availability ranking → each element found, motivation established by the patent's own stated latency/reliability problems.
• Claim 2: Same combination for the method; the method steps mirror the system elements and are conventional processing steps performed on known hardware.
• Claim 3: US 6,584,439 + Rhie/Ladd voice front end + polling/warning from Combination A art.
• Claim 4: Same combination, method form.

V. Caveats and context

• Litigation/IPR context: The patent is in active litigation (Parus Holdings v. Apple and others; Texas Western District cases 6:21-cv-00968, 6:21-cv-00570, 6:21-cv-00571, 6:21-cv-01073; N.D. Cal. cases 3:22-cv-07514, 3:22-cv-07830) and was challenged in IPR2022-00137 (not instituted on the merits), IPR2022-00279 (final written decision issued), and IPR2023-00162 (settled). I do not have verified access to the exact grounds or holdings of those IPR decisions, so I have not relied on them; they are context suggesting the validity of these claims is contested. If you need the precise IPR grounds, the PTAB filings (petitions) would confirm which references the petitioners paired — but the combination analysis above stands independently under §103.
• Date verification: The Ladd reference (US 6,269,336, issued July 2001) must be checked for an effective filing date before Feb. 4, 2000 if used as a sole primary reference; the other listed references have verified pre-2000 priority dates. This does not affect the combinations, which do not depend on Ladd alone.
• Secondary considerations: I found no evidence in the record of long-felt need, industry copying, or unexpected results that would rebut the prima facie case; the specification's own admission that users expect immediate telephone responses and that web sites "change frequently" supplies the express motivation a §103 analysis requires.

Bottom line: Claims 1–4 of US6721705 face a substantial obviousness challenge. The voice-browser architecture was well known (Rhie, Wise, Uppaluru, Ladd, Pipebeach); ranked selection among multiple information sources was known (US 5,873,080, US 6,446,076); and the polling/re-ranking/warning mechanisms are conventional reliability techniques that a PHOSITA would have been expressly motivated to add to solve the latency and site-drift problems the patent itself identifies.