NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.

United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit ______________________

MMODAL LLC,

Appellant

v.

NUANCE COMMUNICATIONS, INC.,

Appellee

______________________

2020-1693

______________________

Appeal from the United States Patent and Trademark 

Office, Patent Trial and Appeal Board in No. IPR2018-

01355.

______________________

Decided: February 23, 2021

______________________

GABRIEL K. BELL, Latham & Watkins LLP, Washington, DC, argued for appellant. Also represented by INGE 

OSMAN, JONATHAN M. STRANG, KEVIN WHEELER; DAVID K.

CALLAHAN, Chicago, IL. 

 NATHAN R. SPEED, Wolf, Greenfield & Sacks, PC, Boston, MA, argued for appellee. Also represented by RICHARD 

GIUNTA, ELISABETH HUNT, ANDREW TIBBETTS.

 ______________________

Case: 20-1693 Document: 43 Page: 1 Filed: 02/23/2021
2 MMODAL LLC v. NUANCE COMMUNICATIONS, INC.

Before REYNA, TARANTO, and STOLL, Circuit Judges.

TARANTO, Circuit Judge.

Nuance Communications, Inc. owns U.S. Patent No. 

7,379,946, entitled “Categorization of Information Using 

Natural Language Processing and Predefined Templates.” 

At the request of MModal LLC, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board instituted an inter partes review (IPR) of claims 

1–6 of the ’946 patent under 35 U.S.C. §§ 311–319. The 

Board eventually rejected MModal’s proposed construction 

of a key claim limitation—“information . . . required for 

generation of a particular report”—and determined that 

MModal had failed to prove unpatentability. MModal LLC 

v. Nuance Commc’ns, Inc., No. IPR2018-01355, 2020 WL 

582392 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 5, 2020) (Final Written Decision).

MModal timely appealed under 35 U.S.C. §§ 141, 319. 

We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(4)(A). We 

affirm.

I

A

The ’946 patent describes and claims methods for putting text (data stream) into structured formats (templates) 

by extracting specified information from the text. See ’946 

patent, col. 1, lines 65–67 (“The invention relates generally 

to methods and apparatus for categorizing input data in 

speech recognition systems and classifying the data into 

predetermined classifications.”). According to the patent, 

existing systems that used natural-language-processing 

software “tend[ed] to be large and complex” and were “not 

fully capable of extracting all of the relevant information 

from, for example, a medical report.” Id., col. 2, lines 24–

29. The patent’s description of the background to the invention focuses on medical reports, referring to “predetermined categorization scheme[s]” known in the medical field 

for slotting diagnosis and treatment information into specified information fields for, e.g., billing, compliance 

Case: 20-1693 Document: 43 Page: 2 Filed: 02/23/2021
MMODAL LLC v. NUANCE COMMUNICATIONS, INC. 3

documents, or government reporting. Id., col. 2, line 33

through col. 4, line 11.

The ’946 patent proposes a method of processing freeform input data and identifying “latent information,” according to “a predetermined classification of information,” 

such as information about “a particular medical problem” 

or “an allergy, a treatment, or a medication.” Id., col. 7, 

lines 10–16. The patent describes retrieval of a “user-defined template” “based on characteristics of the latent data 

within the data stream.” Id., col. 7, lines 34–55. A template “associated with a predetermined classification 

scheme” is generally used for organizing the information, 

id., col. 4, lines 44–62, and may also fill a need to give 

“prompts or reminders [to a user] to collect certain predetermined information,” id., col. 4, lines 32–35. 

Claim 1 of the ’946 patent, the sole independent claim,

includes the only claim limitation at issue here. It recites:

1. A computer implemented method for generating 

a report that includes latent information, comprising;

receiving an input data stream;

performing one of normalization, validation, and 

extraction of the input data stream;

processing the input data stream to identify latent information within the data stream that 

is required for generation of a particular report, wherein said processing of the input data 

stream to identify latent information comprises of 

identifying a relevant portion of the input data 

stream, bounding the relevant portion of the input 

data stream, identifying a predetermined class of 

information, and normalizing the relevant portion 

of the input data stream;

Case: 20-1693 Document: 43 Page: 3 Filed: 02/23/2021
4 MMODAL LLC v. NUANCE COMMUNICATIONS, INC.

activating a relevant report template based on the 

said identified latent information;

populating said template with template-specified 

data;

processing the template-specified data to generate 

a report.

Id., col. 16, lines 10–29 (emphasis added).

B

In July 2018, MModal filed a petition for an inter 

partes review, challenging all six claims of the ’946 patent. 

MModal presented two grounds, both relying on Ricky K. 

Taira et al., Automatic Structuring of Radiology Free-Text 

Reports, 21 RADIOGRAPHICS 237 (Jan.–Feb. 2001). J.A. 

1700. The first ground was unpatentability for obviousness 

of all claims over Taira, alone or in combination with U.S. 

Patent No. 5,267,155 (Buchanan). J.A. 1029. The second 

ground was unpatentability for obviousness of claims 1 and 

5 over U.S. Patent No. 6,915,254 (Heinze), alone or in combination with Taira. Id.

Taira is the sole reference that is material on appeal. 

It describes “a system that automatically structures the 

important medical information contained in a radiology 

free-text document as a formal information model that can 

be interpreted by a computer program.” J.A. 1702. Taira’s

system identifies portions of a radiology report and the relationship among those portions, categorizes the data, and

populates the field in a structured report. See J.A. 1702

(Fig. 2 and associated description). Taira’s “structural analyzer” identifies “various sections of the [hand-written] report” and common formatting layouts. J.A. 1703. The 

system dissects the language in each section and formulates relationships between a “head (or topic)” in the report 

and words modifying the “head (or topic).” J.A. 1702, 1705–

06. Those relationship levels are then used to construct a 

formal, computer-data-file report. See J.A. 1705. 

Case: 20-1693 Document: 43 Page: 4 Filed: 02/23/2021
MMODAL LLC v. NUANCE COMMUNICATIONS, INC. 5

Taira’s final report includes “frames,” each of which 

corresponds to a “head (or topic)” and the various “property 

subframes” associated with that “head (or topic).” J.A. 

1702, 1706. As an example, Taira describes a frame dedicated to “abnormal findings,” which includes property subframe fields for eleven properties, such as “existence, 

location, quantity, [and] size,” as well as information about 

“relevant context,” such as “time, evidence, certainty, degree, and dimension.” J.A. 1706. Taira’s system populates 

the slots in the frames with the input data in accordance 

with the relationships identified earlier in the process. J.A. 

1706.

The Board instituted the IPR on February 6, 2019. Nuance, in its Patent Owner Response, asserted in part that 

MModal’s Petition failed to explain how Taira disclosed “latent information . . . that is required for generation of a 

particular report” (the required-information limitation), as 

required by claim 1. J.A. 1228–31. In the Petition, 

MModal had not proposed a construction of that requiredinformation limitation, arguing that each claim term 

should “be given its plain and ordinary meaning.” J.A. 

1022. In its Petitioner’s Reply, MModal answered Nuance’s Patent Owner Response by arguing that it rested on 

an “unreasonably narrow construction” of the required-information claim limitation, and it newly set forth an express construction for the limitation (and for two other 

terms not at issue here). J.A. 1287. Specifically, MModal 

argued that “information . . . required for generation of a 

particular report” means “information used to generate any 

particular report.” J.A. 1287–91. Nuance then filed a Patent Owner’s Sur-Reply (authorized by the Board), arguing 

that MModal’s constructions were procedurally improper 

(because new) and substantively incorrect. J.A. 1330–32.

In its Final Written Decision, the Board first addressed 

the claim constructions proposed by MModal in its Reply,

while stating that, “regardless of the Reply’s newly proposed claim constructions, the Petition’s challenge . . . fails 

Case: 20-1693 Document: 43 Page: 5 Filed: 02/23/2021
6 MMODAL LLC v. NUANCE COMMUNICATIONS, INC.

to adequately address” the required-information limitation. Final Written Decision, 2020 WL 582392, at *3. The 

Board concluded, applying the broadest-reasonable-interpretation standard for claim construction, that MModal’s 

“newly-made arguments and evidence” did not support 

MModal’s argument “that the claim language ‘required for 

generation’ means ‘used to generate.’” Id. at *3–4. The 

Board reasoned that MModal’s construction “effectively 

reads out the claim’s recitation of the information being ‘required,’ and would result in an unreasonably broad interpretation of the claim language as it would cover any 

information used in generating a report, even if that information was not required.” Id. at *4. Thus, the Board rejected the “used in” construction “newly proposed in the 

Reply.” Id.

The Board then turned to the specific obviousness challenges. Notably, MModal limits its contention in the present appeal to arguing the sufficiency of its presentation to 

the Board regarding what Taira itself teaches. MModal

makes no argument here that relies on Buchanan or 

Heinze. MModal’s appeal depends entirely on whether the

Board erred in its discussion of what MModal presented to 

the Board regarding Taira’s teaching of the required-information claim limitation.

The Board noted what MModal asserted in the Petition 

about Taira. “The Petition asserts that ‘Taira discloses the 

use of expert-defined models to target specific information 

contained within the radiology free-text document in latent 

form (the claimed latent information)’ (Pet. 40 [J.A. 1046]), 

as well as structuring that information to generate a particular report (id. at 40–41 [J.A. 1046–47]).” Final Written 

Decision, 2020 WL 582392, at *4. The Board did not question those assertions.1 But those assertions, the Board 

1 The Board’s acceptance of those assertions about 

Taira seems implicit in what the Board said when 

Case: 20-1693 Document: 43 Page: 6 Filed: 02/23/2021
MMODAL LLC v. NUANCE COMMUNICATIONS, INC. 7

reasoned, do not say that, or explain why, Taira’s latent 

information was “required for generation” of a report. “The 

Petition, however, does not assert that (much less explain 

why) any latent information targeted by expert-defined 

data models and used in a particular report by Taira is information ‘required for generation of’ that particular report, as specified by claim 1.” Id. at *8.2

For that reason, the Board stated, even aside from the 

dispute about claim construction, MModal’s challenge 

failed because MModal did not provide “[a] full statement 

of the reasons for relief requested, including a detailed explanation of the significance of the evidence including material facts,” 37 C.F.R. § 42.22(a)(2), which must include a 

statement of “[h]ow the challenged claim is to be construed”

and “[h]ow the construed claim is unpatentable,” id.

recounting MModal’s assertion about the combination of 

Taira and Buchanan in the Petition at J.A. 1047–48. The 

Board said: “This discussion presents a reason that it allegedly would have been obvious to take the latent information Taira identifies and include it in a report, given 

Buchanan’s teaching of generating reports. It also suggests that a structured report would have been required.” 

Final Written Decision, 2020 WL 582392, at *8 (emphases 

added).

2 The Board added that the Petition does not adequately explain how this claim limitation is met even by 

the combination of Taira and Buchanan. Id. (“[The Petition], however, does not explain adequately a basis for asserting that it would have been obvious to modify Taira to 

perform the claimed approach of ‘processing the input data 

stream to identify latent information within the data 

stream that is required for generation of a particular report,’ which is not alleged to be disclosed by Buchanan. See

[Pet.] at 41–42 [J.A. 1047–48].”). In this court, as already 

noted, MModal relies only on Taira for this claim element.

Case: 20-1693 Document: 43 Page: 7 Filed: 02/23/2021
8 MMODAL LLC v. NUANCE COMMUNICATIONS, INC.

§ 42.104(b)(3)–(4). See Final Written Decision, 2020 WL 

582392, at *9. In any event, the Board concluded, if it considered MModal’s argument in its Reply that simply “generating reports with identified latent information” suffices

to meet the claim limitation, MModal still must lose: As 

already explained, “the Reply does not persuade us that its 

broad interpretation is reasonable.” Id. The Board also 

noted that certain characterizations of Taira in the Reply 

“would only be persuasive if [the Board] adopted 

[MModal’s] unsupported construction of the claim language ‘required for generation of’ as meaning ‘used to generate.’” Id. Finally, the Board addressed MModal’s one 

apparent argument that a portion of Taira, i.e., an example 

involving “spiculated masses greater than 5 cm in diameter 

in the left upper lobe,” J.A. 1701, taught latent information 

actually “required for [the] particular report,” not just used 

in it, see Final Written Decision, 2020 WL 582392, at *9. 

The Board concluded that this assertion “is procedurally 

improper new argument” because the Petition does “not 

cite this disclosure when addressing the claim limitation” 

at issue. Id.

II

MModal presents two primary arguments on appeal: 

that the Board incorrectly rejected its proposed construction for the required-information limitation and that, even 

after rejecting MModal’s proposed construction, the Board 

erred in concluding that MModal, in its Petition, failed to 

adequately explain how Taira meets that limitation. We 

reject both arguments. 

A

We review the Board’s claim construction de novo

“where, as here, there is no relevant extrinsic evidence.” 

Homeland Housewares, LLC v. Whirlpool Corp., 865 F.3d 

1372, 1374 (Fed. Cir. 2017). Because this inter partes review “stems from a petition filed before November 13, 2018, 

the claims are given the ‘broadest reasonable 

Case: 20-1693 Document: 43 Page: 8 Filed: 02/23/2021
MMODAL LLC v. NUANCE COMMUNICATIONS, INC. 9

interpretation’ consistent with the specification.” Game & 

Tech. Co. v. Wargaming Grp. Ltd., 942 F.3d 1343, 1351 

(Fed. Cir. 2019); see also Cuozzo Speed Techs., LLC v. Lee, 

136 S. Ct. 2131, 2142 (2016).

“Under a broadest reasonable interpretation, words of 

the claim must be given their plain meaning, unless such 

meaning is inconsistent with the specification and prosecution history.” Trivascular, Inc. v. Samuels, 812 F.3d 1056, 

1062 (Fed. Cir. 2016). Here, MModal’s proposed construction is contrary to the plain meaning of the words at issue,

especially considered in the context of the claim as a whole. 

That meaning is not inconsistent with the specification or 

prosecution history.

Claim 1 requires: 

processing the input data stream to identify 

latent information within the data stream 

that is required for generation of a particular 

report, wherein said processing of the input data 

stream to identify latent information comprises of

[sic] identifying a relevant portion of the input data 

stream, bounding the relevant portion of the input 

data stream, identifying a predetermined class of 

information, and normalizing the relevant portion 

of the input data stream.

’946 patent, col. 16, lines 15–23 (emphasis added). Under 

the highlighted language, a step in the method is to “identify latent information within the data stream,” and given 

the restrictive “that is required . . .” phrase, that particular 

identified information must have the property that it is “required for generation of a particular report.” To be “required,” in ordinary usage (including in patent cases), is to 

be necessary. Here, the language means that the latent 

information is such that if it is not identified, the “particular report” could not be generated. That plain meaning demands more than that the identified information ends up 

Case: 20-1693 Document: 43 Page: 9 Filed: 02/23/2021
10 MMODAL LLC v. NUANCE COMMUNICATIONS, INC.

being used in the report, i.e., more than what MModal’s 

proposed construction demands.

This plain meaning fits with other language in the 

claim. Within the limitation itself, when different and less 

demanding concepts are called for, terms different from the 

“information . . . required” language are used: “identifying 

a relevant portion of the input data stream,” “bounding the 

relevant portion of the input data stream,” and “identifying 

a predetermined class of information.” Id., col. 16, lines 19–

23 (emphases added). And the remainder of the claim

states that “the said identified latent information” is used 

to “activat[e] a relevant report template,” which is then 

“populat[ed]” on the way to “generat[ing] a report.” Id., col. 

16, lines 24–29. Because this language provides that the 

selection of the template, which precedes the generation of 

the report, depends on already knowing what latent information is “required for generation of a particular report” 

(“the said identified latent information”), it reinforces the 

plain-meaning understanding that the “required” information is not whatever latent information ends up in the 

report. More generally, it is unclear just what the “information . . . required” language would add to the rest of the 

claim under MModal’s construction. 

The specification is not inconsistent with the plain 

meaning of the required-information limitation. It refers 

to information that “needs to be collected for record-keeping purposes,” id., col. 2, lines 42–45, and “required” information, id., col. 9, line 8; see also id., col. 11, lines 6–9. And 

nothing in the specification contradicts the plain meaning 

of the claim language.

Similarly, the two portions of the prosecution history 

that MModal identifies do not warrant deviating from the 

plain meaning of the required-information limitation. 

MModal first points to Nuance’s statement that the prior 

art did not disclose “‘processing an input data stream to 

identify latent information for inclusion in a report’ as in 

Case: 20-1693 Document: 43 Page: 10 Filed: 02/23/2021
MMODAL LLC v. NUANCE COMMUNICATIONS, INC. 11

the amended claims,” MModal Opening Br. 35 (quoting

J.A. 2860), but in the paragraph preceding the one MModal 

cites, Nuance made a narrower distinction, stating: “Nowhere does [the prior art] describe processing an input data 

stream to identify latent information . . . that is necessary

for generation of a report,” J.A. 2860 (emphasis added). 

MModal also points to a second portion of the prosecution 

history: After a rejection over prior art, Nuance, rather 

than clarifying the meaning of the required-information 

limitation, amended the limitation by incorporating the

“wherein” clause quoted above from the original dependent 

claim 6, which the Examiner had indicated was allowable. 

MModal Opening Br. 35 (citing J.A. 2871); see also J.A.

2891; J.A. 2873. These aspects of the prosecution history 

are not fairly understood to contain a clear statement of 

disavowal or a redefinition that undermines the plain 

meaning of the required-information limitation. See Immunex Corp. v. Sanofi-Aventis U.S. LLC, 977 F.3d 1212, 

1220 (Fed. Cir. 2020); Continental Circuits LLC v. Intel 

Corp., 915 F.3d 788, 798 (Fed. Cir. 2019).

For those reasons, and having considered MModal’s 

other arguments, we reject MModal’s claim-construction 

challenge. We affirm the Board’s claim construction of the 

required-information limitation as having a plain meaning 

that demands more than that identified latent information 

is used in a particular report.

B

Having so concluded, we must affirm if we see no reversible error in the Board’s conclusion that MModal did 

not adequately explain how Taira discloses the requiredinformation limitation under the Board’s construction. We 

see no such error.

MModal argues in this court that, before the Board, it 

adequately identified two aspects of Taira as disclosing the 

limitation under the Board’s construction. MModal Opening Br. 41–42; MModal Reply Br. 4–10. MModal relies on 

Case: 20-1693 Document: 43 Page: 11 Filed: 02/23/2021
12 MMODAL LLC v. NUANCE COMMUNICATIONS, INC.

Taira’s discussion of a “set of property subframes” related 

to chosen topics, giving the example of “spiculated masses 

greater than 5 cm . . . .” J.A. 1701–02. And MModal relies 

on Taira’s discussion of a “head (or topic)” in reports taught 

by Taira. J.A. 1702. Neither of these aspects of Taira, we 

conclude, supports disturbing the Board’s decision in this 

case.

The Board expressly rejected MModal’s reliance on the

“spiculated masses” aspect of Taira because MModal presented this basis for finding the claim limitation in Taira 

too late. Final Written Decision, 2020 WL 582392, at *9. 

When arguing that Taira teaches this limitation in its Petition, MModal did not point to this aspect of Taira. J.A. 

1046–48. MModal pointed to it only in its Reply. J.A. 1298. 

As for the “head (or topic)” aspect of Taira (or “property subframes” beyond the spiculated-masses example), MModal 

did not point the Board to this aspect of Taira even in its 

Reply. The Board therefore did not address it at all. 

A petitioner generally must provide in the petition an 

understandable explanation of the element-by-element 

specifics of the unpatentability challenges, including the 

particular portions of prior art supporting those challenges. See 37 C.F.R. §§ 42.22(a)(2), 42.104(b)(3)–(4); Harmonic Inc. v. Avid Tech., Inc., 815 F.3d 1356, 1363–64 (Fed. 

Cir. 2016); Ariosa Diagnostics v. Verinata Health, Inc., 805 

F.3d 1359, 1367 (Fed. Cir. 2015). “It is of the utmost importance that petitioners in the IPR proceedings adhere to 

the requirement that the initial petition identify ‘with particularity’ the ‘evidence that supports the grounds for the 

challenge to each claim.’” Intel. Bio-Systems, Inc. v. Illumina Cambridge Ltd., 821 F.3d 1359, 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2016) 

(quoting 35 U.S.C. § 312(a)(3)). Those proceedings are defined by “statutes, regulations, and practices [that] embody

expedition- and efficiency-based policies.” Ariosa, 805 F.3d

at 1367; see also Intel. Bio-Systems, 821 F.3d at 1369.

Case: 20-1693 Document: 43 Page: 12 Filed: 02/23/2021
MMODAL LLC v. NUANCE COMMUNICATIONS, INC. 13

It is in light of those principles that judgments must be 

made in particular cases to distinguish an impermissible 

new argument not sufficiently made in the petition from a 

permissible explanation and defense (in responding, e.g., to 

a Patent Owner’s Response) of a point already sufficiently 

made, in substance, in the petition. See 37 C.F.R. 

§ 42.23(b); Apple Inc. v. Andrea Electronics Corp., 949 F.3d 

697, 705–06 (Fed. Cir. 2020); Henny Penny Corp. v. Frymaster LLC, 938 F.3d 1324, 1331 (Fed. Cir. 2019); Intel. 

Bio-Systems, 821 F.3d at 1369–70. The determination of 

whether the petition has sufficiently made an argument 

amounts to a determination of compliance with procedural 

requirements, a matter generally reviewed for abuse of discretion. See Ericsson Inc. v. Intellectual Ventures I LLC, 

901 F.3d 1374, 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2018); Intel. Bio-Systems, 

821 F.3d at 1367. 

Here, we see no basis for concluding that, to avoid an 

abuse of discretion, the Board was required to determine 

that the Petition adequately presents either of the two aspects of Taira on which MModal now relies as disclosing 

the required-information limitation. Both of these points 

are at least reasonably deemed to be new arguments made 

after the Petition was filed.

In the section of the Petition discussing the requiredinformation claim limitation, J.A. 1046–48, MModal noted 

that Taira discusses “important medical information” and 

“targeted information,” J.A. 1046–47. But MModal did not 

assert that (or explain why) even those aspects of Taira—

or, indeed, any aspects of Taira—disclose identifying “latent information . . . that is required for generation of a 

particular report.” Id. MModal did not mention the “subframes”/“spiculated masses” or the “head (or topic)” portions of Taira as the latent information required for 

generation of a particular report. Only one sentence of the

section of the Petition that expressly addresses this claim 

limitation even refers to “latent information required for 

generating a particular report.” J.A. 1048 (emphasis 

Case: 20-1693 Document: 43 Page: 13 Filed: 02/23/2021
14 MMODAL LLC v. NUANCE COMMUNICATIONS, INC.

added). And in that sentence, indeed in the paragraph containing it, MModal did not assert that Taira itself taught 

the limitation (MModal’s only theory on appeal), but referred to the combination of Taira and Buchanan, said only 

that “both references acknowledged that unstructured dictation or reports could not be submitted to insurance companies or regulatory agencies,” and cited Buchanan but not 

Taira (along with its expert’s materially identical assertion, itself citing only Buchanan). J.A. 1047–48.

It appears that, somewhat later in the Petition, in discussing a different claim element, MModal made a passing 

reference to the “topic” as an example of identified latent 

information. J.A. 1056. But MModal made no such reference in the section of the Petition devoted to the requiredinformation limitation. We do not think that the Board 

was obligated on its own to seize on this reference and construct an assertion about the required-information limitation not made where MModal was discussing that 

limitation. It is notable that MModal itself did not latch 

onto this reference in its Reply, when arguing, in opposition to the Patent Owner Response, that the Petition does 

actually assert that and explain how Taira teaches this

limitation. What the Board must be expected to find without specific guidance does not include everything that it 

might find if told what to look for. Here, considering the 

context of IPR proceedings, governed by the principles described above, we cannot say that the Board erred in finding no sufficient explanation in MModal’s Petition. Cf.

Microsoft Corp. v. Biscotti, Inc., 878 F.3d 1052, 1074–75 

(Fed. Cir. 2017) (“Microsoft’s brief on appeal is far more detailed . . . regarding why it believes [the prior art] anticipates this limitation of claim 69. But, Microsoft needed to 

include those arguments in the petition to institute.”). We 

do not have before us the question whether the Board could 

permissibly have found otherwise. 

Case: 20-1693 Document: 43 Page: 14 Filed: 02/23/2021
MMODAL LLC v. NUANCE COMMUNICATIONS, INC. 15

III

For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the Board’s decision.

AFFIRMED

Case: 20-1693 Document: 43 Page: 15 Filed: 02/23/2021