Declaration of David Klausner in Support of
`Petitioner’s Reply in Support of Petition
`IPR2015-00560
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`
`inContact, Inc.
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`Microlog Corp.
`Patent Owner
`
`Case IPR2015-00560
`Patent 7,092,509
`
`
`
`DECLARATION OF DAVID KLAUSNER
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`inContact, Inc. Exhibit 1006
`inContact, Inc. v. Microlog Corp., IPR2015-00560
`Page 1 of 30
`
`
`Petitioner’s Reply in Support of Petition
`IPR2015-00560
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`
`inContact, Inc.
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`Microlog Corp.
`Patent Owner
`
`Case IPR2015-00560
`Patent 7,092,509
`
`
`
`DECLARATION OF DAVID KLAUSNER
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`inContact, Inc. Exhibit 1006
`inContact, Inc. v. Microlog Corp., IPR2015-00560
`Page 1 of 30
`
`
`
`Table of Contents
`
`
`Page
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION AND QUALIFICATIONS ............................................ 1
`
`A. Qualifications and Experience ........................................................... 1
`
`B. Materials Considered ......................................................................... 3
`
`II.
`
`PERSON OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART ........................................ 4
`
`III. MEANS-PLUS-FUNCTION ....................................................................... 5
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`“Queuing Component” ....................................................................... 5
`
`“Routing Component” ....................................................................... 7
`
`Corresponding Structure .................................................................... 9
`
`IV. HAIGH DISCLOSES THE “QUEUING COMPONENT” ........................ 12
`
`V. HAIGH DISCLOSES THE “ROUTING COMPONENT” ......................... 16
`
`VI. CONCLUSION ......................................................................................... 21
`
`-i-
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`inContact, Inc. Exhibit 1006
`inContact, Inc. v. Microlog Corp., IPR2015-00560
`Page 2 of 30
`
`
`
`Declaration of David Klausner in Support of
`Petitioner’s Reply in Support of Petition
`IPR2015-00560
`
`I, David Klausner, declare as follows:
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION AND QUALIFICATIONS
`
`A. Qualifications and Experience
`
`1.
`
`I am currently employed as an independent computer expert and
`
`consultant. I have a Bachelor’s Degree in Mathematics and a Master of Science
`
`degree in Electrical Engineering. During the course of my Master of Science
`
`program, I designed a “Store and Forward” switch.
`
`2.
`
`I have over 48 years of professional experience in the areas of
`
`computer networking, security and software. During that time, I have worked as
`
`a consultant, as an expert, as an engineer, as a software developer, as a manager,
`
`as a company executive, and as a forensic investigator.
`
`3. Specific computer-related technologies that I have worked with
`
`include networks, network devices such as routers and switches, internet, web
`
`technologies (such as servers, clients, messaging, scripts, applets, and
`
`applications), protocols, videoconferencing systems, operating systems, computer
`
`hardware, source code, and programming languages.
`
`4.
`
`In addition, my working experience includes developing software for,
`
`among other things, network data communications, business applications, data
`
`management, database design, client/server, compilers, parsers, programming
`
`1
`
`inContact, Inc. Exhibit 1006
`inContact, Inc. v. Microlog Corp., IPR2015-00560
`Page 3 of 30
`
`
`
`Declaration of David Klausner in Support of
`Petitioner’s Reply in Support of Petition
`IPR2015-00560
`
`
`languages, user interfaces, quality assurance, real-time applications, artificial
`
`intelligence, utility programs, diagnostics, machine simulators, performance
`
`analyzers, EDI applications, general ledger, inventory control, software auditing,
`
`manufacturing processes, insurance, financial, and statistical process control. I
`
`have designed and developed, as well as managed and assisted in the design and
`
`development of, computer hardware and software systems. Some of my clients
`
`have been computer software companies, including Symantec, Adobe, Nortel,
`
`Intel Corp., Hewlett-Packard, and IBM.
`
`5. My experience includes decades of software development, consulting
`
`and expert testimony experience in many aspects of the computer field, from
`
`microcomputers to mainframes, and in all areas of programming. I also have
`
`experience as an engineer, developer, supervisor, project manager, department
`
`manager, middle manager, and company executive, as well as experience in
`
`forensic investigation and reverse engineering.
`
`6. Additional details of my background are set forth in my curriculum
`
`vitae, attached as Exhibit A to this Declaration, which provides a more complete
`
`description of my educational background and work experience.
`
`7.
`
`I am being compensated for the time I have spent on this matter at the
`
`rate of $650 per hour, except for time spent in deposition or trial, for which my
`
`2
`
`inContact, Inc. Exhibit 1006
`inContact, Inc. v. Microlog Corp., IPR2015-00560
`Page 4 of 30
`
`
`
`Declaration of David Klausner in Support of
`Petitioner’s Reply in Support of Petition
`IPR2015-00560
`
`
`rate of compensation is $780 per hour. My compensation does not depend in any
`
`way on the outcome of this proceeding.
`
`B. Materials Considered
`
`8. The analysis that I provide in this Declaration is based on my
`
`education and experience in the field of computer systems, as well as the
`
`documents I have considered, including U.S. Patent No. 7,092,509 (the “’509” or
`
`“’509 patent”). I have also reviewed U.S. Patent No. 5,793,861 (“Haigh”).
`
`Counsel has informed me that Haigh qualifies as prior art to the ’509 patent.
`
`9.
`
`In addition, I have reviewed the Petition for Inter Partes Review dated
`
`January 15, 2015 (“Petition”), the Decision on Institution of Inter Partes Review
`
`dated July 30, 2015 (“Institution Decision”), and the Patent Owner Response
`
`dated November 16, 2015 (“Patent Owner Response” or “PO Response”).
`
`10. I have also reviewed various dictionaries that describe the meaning of
`
`certain terms to one of ordinary skill in the art:
`
`Exhibit No.
`
`1007
`
`1008
`
`
`1009
`
`
`Title of Document
`
`The Penguin Concise Dictionary of Computing (2003), pp. 359,
`380, 394-95
`
`Comprehensive Dictionary of Electrical Engineering (1999), pp.
`524, 557
`
`The American Heritage Dictionary (4th ed. 2006), pp. 1436, 1518
`
`3
`
`inContact, Inc. Exhibit 1006
`inContact, Inc. v. Microlog Corp., IPR2015-00560
`Page 5 of 30
`
`
`
`Declaration of David Klausner in Support of
`Petitioner’s Reply in Support of Petition
`IPR2015-00560
`
`
`A Dictionary of Computing (5th ed. 2004), pp. 424, 432, 457-58
`
`Microsoft Computer Dictionary (3rd ed. 1996), pp. 392, 415
`
`Microsoft Computer Dictionary (3rd ed. 1996), pp. 106-07, 392-93
`
`1010
`
`1011
`
`2002
`
`
`
`II.
`
`PERSON OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART
`
`11. I understand that an assessment of claims of the ’509 patent should be
`
`undertaken from the perspective of a person of ordinary skill in the art as of the
`
`earliest claimed priority date, which I understand is September 21, 1999.
`
`12. In my opinion, a person of ordinary skill in the art as of September
`
`1999 would possess at least a Bachelor’s Degree in electrical engineering or
`
`computer science (or equivalent degree or experience) with at least two years of
`
`experience in the design and implementation of systems for sending and
`
`receiving data in one or more formats over one or more communications
`
`networks, such as the Internet.
`
`13. Although my qualifications and experience exceed those of the
`
`hypothetical person having ordinary skill in the art defined above, my analysis
`
`and opinions regarding the ’509 patent have been based on the perspective of a
`
`person of ordinary skill in the art as of September 1999.
`
`4
`
`inContact, Inc. Exhibit 1006
`inContact, Inc. v. Microlog Corp., IPR2015-00560
`Page 6 of 30
`
`
`
`Declaration of David Klausner in Support of
`Petitioner’s Reply in Support of Petition
`IPR2015-00560
`
`III. MEANS-PLUS-FUNCTION
`
`14. I have been informed by counsel that a limitation devoid of the word
`
`“means” gives rise to the presumption that means-plus-function interpretation is
`
`not appropriate. I have further been informed by counsel that the presumption is
`
`overcome only where the challenger demonstrates that the claim term fails to
`
`“recite sufficiently definite structure” or else recites “function without reciting
`
`sufficient structure for performing that function.” It is my opinion that one of
`
`ordinary skill in the art would understand the terms “queuing component” and
`
`“routing component” to recite sufficiently definite structure.
`
`A.
`
` “QUEUING COMPONENT”
`
`15. I have been informed by counsel that a limitation will not invoke
`
`means-plus-function interpretation if there is a structural modifier that further
`
`describes the generic placeholder.
`
`16. It is my opinion that the term “queuing” is a structural modifier
`
`included in the term “queuing component.” Numerous dictionaries show that the
`
`term “queue” has a reasonably well-understood meaning as a name for a
`
`structure. Both technical and non-technical dictionaries define a “queue” as a
`
`data structure that stores multiple elements that can be removed according to a
`
`particular order. See, e.g., Microsoft Computer Dictionary, Ex. 2002/1011, at
`
`5
`
`inContact, Inc. Exhibit 1006
`inContact, Inc. v. Microlog Corp., IPR2015-00560
`Page 7 of 30
`
`
`
`Declaration of David Klausner in Support of
`Petitioner’s Reply in Support of Petition
`IPR2015-00560
`
`
`392 (“[a] multi-element data structure from which (by strict definition) elements
`
`can be removed only in the same order in which they were inserted; that is, it
`
`follows a first in, first out (FIFO) constraint. There are also several types of
`
`queues in which removal is based on factors other than order of insertion—for
`
`example, some priority value assigned to each element”); The Penguin Concise
`
`Dictionary of Computing, Ex. 1007, at 359 (“[a] data structure with the property
`
`that the first element that can be removed is the first one that was put in. . . .”);
`
`Comprehensive Dictionary of Electrical Engineering, Ex. 1008, at 524 (“a data
`
`structure maintaining a first-in-first-out discipline of insertion and removal.
`
`Queues are useful in many situations, particularly in process and event
`
`scheduling”); The American Heritage Dictionary, Ex. 1009, at 1436 (“A data
`
`structure from which the first item that can be retrieved is the one stored
`
`earliest”). In the context of the ’509 patent, the queue would be understood by
`
`one of ordinary skill in the art to be implemented in hardware such as memory.
`
`See A Dictionary of Computing, Ex. 1010, at 432 (“Like a pushdown stack, a
`
`queue can be implemented in hardware as a specialized form of addressless
`
`memory, . . .”); Comprehensive Dictionary of Electrical Engineering, Ex. 1008,
`
`at 524 (“See also FIFO memory.”).
`
`6
`
`inContact, Inc. Exhibit 1006
`inContact, Inc. v. Microlog Corp., IPR2015-00560
`Page 8 of 30
`
`
`
`Declaration of David Klausner in Support of
`Petitioner’s Reply in Support of Petition
`IPR2015-00560
`
`
`17. The ’509 patent specification describes “software and related
`
`hardware” that “provide unified queuing of all media types, such as e-mail,
`
`telephony, web chat, and web call back into a single unified queue.” ’509 patent,
`
`10:17-19. The ’509 patent specification also discloses that these contacts (of
`
`different media types) are added to the “‘in memory’ queue,” where they are
`
`maintained prior to being routed to agent workstations. Id. at 47:10-11. One
`
`skilled in the art would understand the “‘in memory’ queue” to be a data structure
`
`implemented in memory hardware.
`
`18. Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that a
`
`“queuing component” is a name that indicates a class of structures—hardware
`
`that implement a data structure storing multiple elements that can be removed
`
`according to a particular order.
`
`B.
`
`“ROUTING COMPONENT”
`
`19. For the term “routing component,” the term “component” is preceded
`
`by the term “queuing.” It is my opinion that the term “routing” is a structural
`
`modifier.
`
`20. The same dictionaries that confirm the structural nature of the term
`
`“queue” also confirm that the term “router” has a reasonably well-understood
`
`meaning as a name for a structure. See, e.g., The Penguin Concise Dictionary of
`
`7
`
`inContact, Inc. Exhibit 1006
`inContact, Inc. v. Microlog Corp., IPR2015-00560
`Page 9 of 30
`
`
`
`Declaration of David Klausner in Support of
`Petitioner’s Reply in Support of Petition
`IPR2015-00560
`
`
`Computing, at 380 (“[a] hardware device that connects two or more networks or
`
`network segments together to form a single internetwork, by forwarding data
`
`packets from one network into another”); Microsoft Computer Dictionary, Ex.
`
`1011, at 415 (“[a]n intermediary device on a communication network that
`
`expedites message delivery”); The American Heritage Dictionary, at 1518 (“[a]
`
`device in a network that handles message transfers between computers.”);
`
`Comprehensive Dictionary of Electrical Engineering, at 557 (“a node, connected
`
`to multiple networks, that forwards packets from one network to another”); A
`
`Dictionary of Computing, at 457 (“[a] unit that supports the low-level linking of
`
`several regions of a single network”). Therefore, one skilled in the art would
`
`understand “routing component” to designate a class of structures for forwarding
`
`data packets within one or more networks.
`
`21. The ’509 patent discloses that the contact center system includes
`
`“software and related hardware. Specifically, the software and related hardware
`
`provide unified queuing of all media types, . . . The software and associated
`
`hardware also provide skills-based and priority-based routing of contacts to
`
`agents within the contact center.” ’509 patent, 10:14-22. Therefore, the written
`
`description confirms that “routing component” indicates structure (e.g., hardware
`
`8
`
`inContact, Inc. Exhibit 1006
`inContact, Inc. v. Microlog Corp., IPR2015-00560
`Page 10 of 30
`
`
`
`Declaration of David Klausner in Support of
`Petitioner’s Reply in Support of Petition
`IPR2015-00560
`
`
`related to certain software) for forwarding data packets (e.g., contacts) within one
`
`or more networks (e.g., contact center).
`
`C. CORRESPONDING STRUCTURE
`
`22. Counsel has informed me that where a term is interpreted as a means-
`
`plus-function limitation, the term is construed to cover the corresponding
`
`structure disclosed in the specification and its equivalents. I have been asked by
`
`counsel, assuming these terms are means-plus-function limitations, to identify
`
`such corresponding structure for the terms “queuing component” and “routing
`
`component.”
`
`23. I have been
`
`informed by counsel
`
`that
`
`the
`
`identification of
`
`corresponding structure does not permit incorporation of structure from the
`
`written description beyond that necessary to perform the claimed function. It is
`
`my opinion that the structures identified by Patent Owner in the PO Response for
`
`“queuing component” and “routing component”
`
`incorporate unnecessary
`
`structure.
`
`24. The ’509 patent discloses a number of embodiments that do not
`
`include all of the elements put forward by Patent Owner. See, e.g., ’509 patent,
`
`41:66-42:1 (“The components associated with the receipt, queuing and routing
`
`of telephone calls are shown in the diagram of FIG. 51, . . .”); 42:38-40 (“The
`
`9
`
`inContact, Inc. Exhibit 1006
`inContact, Inc. v. Microlog Corp., IPR2015-00560
`Page 11 of 30
`
`
`
`Declaration of David Klausner in Support of
`Petitioner’s Reply in Support of Petition
`IPR2015-00560
`
`
`components associated with the receipt, queuing and routing of IVR telephone
`
`calls are shown in the diagram of FIG. 53, . . .”); 46:2-4 (“The components
`
`associated with the receipt, queuing and routing of e-mails are shown in the
`
`conceptual diagram of FIG. 63, . . .”). As the figures illustrating these
`
`embodiments demonstrate (below left), “[t]he components associated with the
`
`receipt, queuing and routing” of certain different media-type contacts (i.e.,
`
`telephone calls, IVR telephone calls, and e-mails) need not include (1) a “route
`
`request broker,” “assignment manager,” and “agent manager,” as proposed by
`
`Patent Owner for the “queuing component,” and (2) an “assignment manager,”
`
`“agent manager,” and “agent Java interface,” as proposed by Patent Owner for
`
`the “routing component.” See PO Response, at 11-12. Because these
`
`aforementioned elements are not
`
`found
`
`in certain embodiments
`
`describing “[t]he components
`
`associated with . . . queuing and
`
`routing,” one of ordinary skill in
`
`the art would understand these
`
`elements to be unnecessary for
`
`performing the claimed functions
`
`10
`
`inContact, Inc. Exhibit 1006
`inContact, Inc. v. Microlog Corp., IPR2015-00560
`Page 12 of 30
`
`
`
`Declaration of David Klausner in Support of
`Petitioner’s Reply in Support of Petition
`IPR2015-00560
`
`
`of “queuing” and “routing.”
`
`25. Instead, the figures each include a media proxy (e.g., ACD proxy,
`
`IVR proxy, e-mail proxy) and a routing manager. This is consistent with the
`
`structures proposed by Patent Owner, which, when stripped of their unnecessary
`
`elements, result in (1) a routing manager for the “queuing component” and (2) a
`
`media proxy and routing manager for the “routing component.”
`
`26. The specification confirms that the routing manager performs the
`
`recited function of “queuing.” See, e.g., ’509 patent, 42:34-36 (The routing
`
`manager then begins the process of adding the contact to the common queue . .
`
`.”); 43:49-51 (same); 44:19-21 (same); 44:62-64 (same); 45:24-25 (same).
`
`27. The specification also confirms that the media proxy and routing
`
`manager perform the recited function of “routing.” See, e.g., ’509 patent, 42:33-
`
`34 (“The ACD proxy then routes the contact to the routing manager . . .”);
`
`43:48-49 (web proxy); 44:18-19 (web proxy); 44:61-62 (ACD proxy); 45:21-22
`
`(VoIP proxy); 47:25-27 (“[T]he routing manager continuously performs the
`
`routing cycle to continuously route the queue contacts out of the queue and to
`
`the appropriate agents.”).
`
`28. Therefore, the appropriate corresponding structure for the term
`
`“queuing component” is a routing manager (and equivalents thereof), and the
`
`11
`
`inContact, Inc. Exhibit 1006
`inContact, Inc. v. Microlog Corp., IPR2015-00560
`Page 13 of 30
`
`
`
`Declaration of David Klausner in Support of
`Petitioner’s Reply in Support of Petition
`IPR2015-00560
`
`
`appropriate corresponding structure for the term “routing component” is a media
`
`proxy and routing manager (and equivalents thereof).
`
`IV. HAIGH DISCLOSES THE “QUEUING COMPONENT”
`
`29. I have been asked by counsel, assuming the term “queuing
`
`component” is a means-plus-function limitation and is construed to cover a
`
`routing manager and equivalents thereof, to opine on whether the term is
`
`disclosed in Haigh. In my opinion, Haigh discloses this term. Haigh discloses a
`
`routing manager in the form of a “transaction processing system 12.” Haigh,
`
`2:10-11. The transaction processing system 12 includes “a memory 14 for
`
`storing transactions in at least one queue 16” and “a transaction controller 18.”
`
`Id., 2:10-12. Like the ’509 patent routing manager, which adds contacts to the
`
`common queue, “[u]pon receiving a transaction, the transaction controller 18 [of
`
`the transaction processing system 12] queues the transaction in at least one
`
`queue 16.” Id., 2:34-36; see also, e.g., 2:61, 6:40-45. Also, as Haigh explains,
`
`the transaction controller 18 of the transaction processing system 12 can
`
`“include[] . . . an ‘INTEL’ ‘PENTIUM’-based central processing unit (CPU).”
`
`Id., 2:14-16. Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would understand the
`
`Haigh transaction processing system 12 to be a server or part of a server. As the
`
`routing manager taught by the ’509 patent is also a part of a server (i.e., “contact
`
`12
`
`inContact, Inc. Exhibit 1006
`inContact, Inc. v. Microlog Corp., IPR2015-00560
`Page 14 of 30
`
`
`
`Declaration of David Klausner in Support of
`Petitioner’s Reply in Support of Petition
`IPR2015-00560
`
`
`center server 122”), one of ordinary skill in the art would understand the
`
`transaction processing system 12 to disclose a routing manager, and therefore a
`
`“queuing component.”
`
`30. I have been asked by counsel, assuming the term “queuing
`
`component” is a means-plus-function limitation and is construed according to the
`
`structure proposed by Patent Owner in the PO Response, to opine on whether
`
`Haigh discloses a structure that is equivalent to the structure proposed by Patent
`
`Owner. I have been informed by counsel that structural equivalence exists if the
`
`assertedly equivalent structure performs the claimed function in substantially the
`
`same way to achieve substantially the same result as the corresponding structure
`
`described in the specification. I have further been informed by counsel that
`
`structures with different numbers of parts may still be equivalent, because the
`
`individual components of an overall structure that corresponds to the claimed
`
`function are not claim limitations. I have been informed by counsel that
`
`structural equivalence does not command a component-by-component analysis. I
`
`have also been informed that factors that will support a conclusion of structural
`
`equivalence include whether a person of ordinary skill in the art would have
`
`recognized the interchangeability of the structure disclosed in the prior art and the
`
`corresponding structure disclosed
`
`in the specification, and whether any
`
`13
`
`inContact, Inc. Exhibit 1006
`inContact, Inc. v. Microlog Corp., IPR2015-00560
`Page 15 of 30
`
`
`
`Declaration of David Klausner in Support of
`Petitioner’s Reply in Support of Petition
`IPR2015-00560
`
`
`differences are insubstantial between the prior art structure and the corresponding
`
`structure disclosed in the specification. In my opinion, Haigh discloses a
`
`structure that is equivalent to the structure proposed by Patent Owner.
`
`31. In my opinion, the Haigh transaction processing system 12 performs
`
`exactly the claimed function. See Petition, at 22-25 (Section VII.A.1.a)
`
`(explaining how the transaction processing system 12 discloses the limitation “a
`
`queuing component, adapted to receive said different media-type contacts and
`
`maintain said contacts in a common queue while said contacts are awaiting
`
`routing to said workstations” under its plain and ordinary meaning). In my
`
`opinion, the Haigh transaction processing system 12 also achieves substantially
`
`the same result, i.e., the contacts are maintained in the common queue while they
`
`await routing to workstations. See id., at 23-25 (explaining how the transaction
`
`processing system 12 is “adapted to ‘maintain said contacts in a common queue
`
`while said contacts are awaiting routing to said workstations’”).
`
`32. In my opinion, the transaction processing system 12 performs the
`
`claimed function in substantially the same way. As Haigh explains, the
`
`transaction processing system 12 “receives a transaction from . . . outside the
`
`system 10, such as inbound calls and E-mail from customers. Haigh, 5:10-14.
`
`The transaction is “processe[d] . . . using the transaction controller 18.” Id., 5:18-
`
`14
`
`inContact, Inc. Exhibit 1006
`inContact, Inc. v. Microlog Corp., IPR2015-00560
`Page 16 of 30
`
`
`
`Declaration of David Klausner in Support of
`Petitioner’s Reply in Support of Petition
`IPR2015-00560
`
`
`19. Processing “includes the step of generating an identifier using the identifier
`
`generator 20 [of the transaction processing system 12], and associating the
`
`identifier with a respective transaction.” Id., 5:21-23. For example, the identifier
`
`can be “a timestamp[]” generated by a system clock, and can be used to
`
`“accelerate the priority of the transaction within a given queue.” Id., 3:12-14,
`
`7:49-50. Processing “may also include the step of determining a transaction type
`
`of the transaction.” Id., 5:24-25. Specifically, “[t]he transaction controller 18
`
`may . . . determine the type of transaction received, and may then generate a
`
`transaction type signal which is associated with the transaction and which
`
`identifies the type of transaction.” Id., 5:32-36. This can affect the order in
`
`which the transaction is processed and the choice of the particular agent for
`
`handling the transaction. See id., 5:53-59, 5:67-6:4. “The method then queues
`
`the transactions into an appropriate queue” in memory 14, such as “a single
`
`queue 82,” where they are “maintain[ed]” by the transaction processing system
`
`12 until a next available agent is determined to be available. Id., 5:39-40, 5:51-
`
`53, 5:65-67; 6:40-43, Fig. 1. Therefore, the method taught by Haigh performs the
`
`“functionality/algorithm” set forth in Patent Owner Response in substantially the
`
`same way as the ‘509 patent. Also, any differences between (1) the steps of the
`
`method disclosed in Haigh and the “functionality/algorithm” set forth in Patent
`
`15
`
`inContact, Inc. Exhibit 1006
`inContact, Inc. v. Microlog Corp., IPR2015-00560
`Page 17 of 30
`
`
`
`Declaration of David Klausner in Support of
`Petitioner’s Reply in Support of Petition
`IPR2015-00560
`
`
`Owner Response and (2) the elements for performing
`
`those steps are
`
`insubstantial, because it is well known in the art that the software and hardware
`
`modules of two systems need not be identical for the systems to perform a certain
`
`functionality in substantially the same way. For similar reasons, one of ordinary
`
`skill in the art would have recognized the transaction processing system 12
`
`(described as “include[ing]
`
`.
`
`.
`
`. an ‘INTEL’ ‘PENTIUM’-based central
`
`processing unit (CPU)”) and the contact center server 122 (including the
`
`elements proposed by Patent Owner) to be interchangeable. The work required
`
`to substitute one for the other would involve, at most, only minor changes to
`
`software and/or hardware, and is well within the ken of one of ordinary skill in
`
`the art.
`
`V. HAIGH DISCLOSES THE “ROUTING COMPONENT”
`
`33. I have been asked by counsel, assuming the term “routing component”
`
`is a means-plus-function limitation and is construed to cover a media proxy and
`
`routing manager, and equivalents thereof, to opine on whether the term is
`
`disclosed in Haigh. In my opinion, Haigh discloses a media proxy and routing
`
`manager in the form of a “transaction interface 24” and “transaction processing
`
`system 12,” respectively. Like the ‘509 patent routing manager, which routes the
`
`queue contacts out of the queue and to the appropriate agents, the Haigh
`
`16
`
`inContact, Inc. Exhibit 1006
`inContact, Inc. v. Microlog Corp., IPR2015-00560
`Page 18 of 30
`
`
`
`Declaration of David Klausner in Support of
`Petitioner’s Reply in Support of Petition
`IPR2015-00560
`
`
`transaction processing system 12 includes a transaction controller 18 that can
`
`“automatically send the queued transactions to a next available agent.” Id.,
`
`5:65-67; see also, e.g., 4:8-10, 6:45-49. Moreover, one of ordinary skill in the art
`
`would understand the transaction processing system 12 to be a server or part of a
`
`server, and, as the routing manager is also a part of a server (i.e., “contact center
`
`server 122”), one of ordinary skill in the art would understand the transaction
`
`processing system 12 to disclose a routing manager.
`
`34. The
`
`media
`
`proxy in the form of a
`
`“transaction interface 24”
`
`is emphasized in red at
`
`right.
`
` As shown,
`
`the
`
`transaction interface 24 is
`
`situated
`
`between
`
`the
`
`transaction
`
`processing
`
`system 12 and the various sources of media, e.g., PBX 26, video system 28, and
`
`voice mail system 36. Therefore, like the media proxies taught by the ’509
`
`patent, which route contacts to the routing manager, the transaction interface 24
`
`“convey[s] transactions” to the transaction processing system 12. Haigh, 1:37-
`
`17
`
`inContact, Inc. Exhibit 1006
`inContact, Inc. v. Microlog Corp., IPR2015-00560
`Page 19 of 30
`
`
`
`Declaration of David Klausner in Support of
`Petitioner’s Reply in Support of Petition
`IPR2015-00560
`
`
`38. In other words, the transaction interface 24 is the structure “through” which
`
`the transaction processing system 12 “receive[s]” transactions from their various
`
`sources. Id., 2:25-26, 3:22-28; see also 5:41-45. Therefore, one of ordinary skill
`
`in the art to understand that the transaction interface 24 is a media proxy. See A
`
`Dictionary of Computing, at 424 (“proxy[:] A device that handles network traffic
`
`on behalf of another: . . . Proxies . . . may also examine requests and responses,
`
`route requests to different servers or filter responses in accordance with some
`
`policy.”). Therefore, Haigh discloses a media proxy and routing manager.
`
`35. I have been asked by counsel, assuming the term “routing component”
`
`is a means-plus-function limitation and is construed according to the structure
`
`proposed by Patent Owner in the PO Response, to opine on whether Haigh
`
`discloses a structure that is equivalent to the structure proposed by Patent Owner.
`
`In my opinion, Haigh also discloses a structure that is equivalent to the structure
`
`proposed by Patent Owner. The transaction interface 24 and transaction
`
`processing system 12 perform exactly the claimed function. See Petition, at 25-
`
`29 (Section VII.A.1.b) (explaining how the transaction processing system 12
`
`discloses the limitation “a routing component, adapted to route the queued
`
`contacts to said workstations based on designated criteria” under its plain and
`
`18
`
`inContact, Inc. Exhibit 1006
`inContact, Inc. v. Microlog Corp., IPR2015-00560
`Page 20 of 30
`
`
`
`Declaration of David Klausner in Support of
`Petitioner’s Reply in Support of Petition
`IPR2015-00560
`
`
`ordinary meaning).1 The Haigh transaction processing system 12 also achieves
`
`substantially the same result, i.e., the contacts are routed to workstations based on
`
`designated criteria. See id., at 27-29 (explaining how “the queued contacts are
`
`routed ‘based on designated criteria’”).
`
`36. Finally, the claimed function is performed in substantially the same
`
`way. As Haigh explains, the transaction interface 24 “convey[s] transactions” to
`
`the transaction processing system 12. Haigh, 1:37-38. After the transaction
`
`processing system 12 “receive[s]” a transaction “through the transaction interface
`
`24,” the transaction processing system 12 “processes the transaction . . . using the
`
`transaction controller 18.” Id., 5:18-19. The steps involved in processing are
`
`discussed above in paragraph 32. “The method then queues the transactions into
`
`an appropriate queue” in memory 14, such as “a single queue 82,” where they are
`
`maintained by the transaction processing system 12 until a next available agent is
`
`“determine[d]” to be available. Id., 5:39-40, 5:51-53, 5:65-67; 6:40-43, Fig. 1.
`
`
`
` 1
`
` To the extent the claimed function requires routing of the contact from the media
`
`proxy to the routing manager, this is disclosed by the transaction interface 24. See,
`
`e.g., Haigh, 1:37-38, 2:25-26, 3:22-28, 5:41-45.
`
`19
`
`inContact, Inc. Exhibit 1006
`inContact, Inc. v. Microlog Corp., IPR2015-00560
`Page 21 of 30
`
`
`
`Declaration of David Klausner in Support of
`Petitioner’s Reply in Support of Petition
`IPR2015-00560
`
`
`37. “If an agent is available, then the transaction controller 18 [of the
`
`transaction processing system 12] sends a signal to agent station indicating the
`
`transaction type of the queued transaction . . ., and sends a next queued
`
`transaction to the available agent.” Id., 6:45-49. This can be performed
`
`“automatically.” Id., 5:65-67. “By sending the transaction type signal to the
`
`agent station 34, the agent station 34 may prepare to receive the transaction by
`
`retrieving data from the memory 14 concerning the transaction, such as
`
`biographical data of a caller, and/or facilitating the execution of an interactive
`
`transaction processing protocol by the agent.” Id., 6:65-7:3. The agent station 34
`
`“may be a terminal, a personal computer, and/or a workstation using . . . various
`
`input and output devices such as a telephone handset or headset, a mouse, a
`
`keyboard, and/or a display.” Id., 4:39-44. “[T]he interactive transaction
`
`processing protocol may be an input screen on a display allowing an agent to
`
`input data in data fields having associated labels or questions.” Id., 7:7-7:10
`
`Similarly, “a particular customer record” can be accessed “to present the
`
`appropriate host screens and information to the agent.” Id., 7:3-7:7. “In addition,
`
`
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
Still Working On It
This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.
Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.
A few More Minutes ... Still Working
It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.
Thank you for your continued patience.
This document could not be displayed.
We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
Set your membership
status to view this document.
With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll
get a whole lot more, including:
- Up-to-date information for this case.
- Email alerts whenever there is an update.
- Full text search for other cases.
- Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.
One Moment Please
The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.
Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.
Your document is on its way!
If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.
Sealed Document
We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.
If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.
Access Government Site
