`
`Paper No. _____
`
`
`
`Filed on behalf of: Verizon Services Corp. et al.
`
`By: Dinesh N. Melwani (dmelwani@bookoffmcandrews.com)
`Roland G. McAndrews (rmcandrews@bookoffmcandrews.com)
`Aaron M. Johnson (ajohnson@bookoffmcandrews.com)
`BOOKOFF McANDREWS, PLLC
`2401 Pennsylvania Ave., NW
`Suite 450
`Washington, DC 20037
`Telephone: 202-808-3550
`Facsimile: 202-450-5538
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`
`
` _________________
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`_________________
`
`VERIZON SERVICES CORP., VERIZON SOUTH INC., VERIZON VIRGINIA
`LLC, VERIZON COMMUNICATIONS INC., VERIZON FEDERAL INC.,
`VERIZON BUSINESS NETWORK SERVICES INC., AND MCI
`COMMUNICATIONS SERVICES, INC.
`Petitioners,
`
`v.
`
`SPHERIX INCORPORATED
`Patent Owner.
`_________________
`
`
`
`
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,980,564
`___________________
`
`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW
`OF U.S. PATENT NO. 6,980,564
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES ................................................................................... iii
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`LISTING OF EXHIBITS ........................................................................................... v
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................... 1
`
`II. MANDATORY NOTICES UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.8 ................................... 1
`
`III. NOTICE OF FEES PAID UNDER 37 C.F.R. §§ 42.15(a) and 42.103 .......... 3
`
`IV. SERVICE OF PETITION UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.105(a) ............................ 3
`
`V. GROUNDS FOR STANDING UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.104 ......................... 3
`
`VI. CHALLENGE AND RELIEF REQUESTED UNDER 37 C.F.R. §
`42.104(b)(1)-(3) ............................................................................................... 4
`
`VII. BACKGROUND ............................................................................................. 5
`
`A.
`
`The Disclosure of the ’564 Patent ......................................................... 5
`
`B.
`
`The Prosecution History of the ’564 patent ........................................10
`
`VIII. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION (37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(3)) ...............................15
`
`A.
`
`“network interface unit” (Claims 1-3 and 5-9) ...................................16
`
`B. “service delivery unit” (Claims 1-3, 7, and 9) ..............................20
`
`C. “family of different types of service delivery units” (Claims 1, 3,
`and 7) .............................................................................................23
`
`D. “format” (Claims 1-3) ...................................................................25
`
`E. “media control module” (Claim 8)................................................26
`
`IX. DETAILED EXPLANATION OF UNPATENTABILITY .........................27
`
`A. Ground 1: Claims 1-3 and 5-9 Are Anticipated by Humpleman .......27
`
`1. Claim 1 ..........................................................................................30
`
`
`
`i
`
`

`

`
`
`2. Claim 2 ..........................................................................................37
`
`3. Claim 3 ..........................................................................................40
`
`4. Claim 5 ..........................................................................................41
`
`5. Claim 6 ..........................................................................................41
`
`6. Claim 7 ..........................................................................................42
`
`7. Claim 8 ..........................................................................................42
`
`8. Claim 9 ..........................................................................................43
`
`B.
`
`Ground 2: Claims 1-3 and 5-9 Are Anticipated by Kimbrough ........44
`
`1. The Proposed Alternative Grounds Based on Kimbrough are Not
`Redundant .....................................................................................47
`
`2. Claim 1 ..........................................................................................48
`
`3. Claim 2 ..........................................................................................54
`
`4. Claim 3 ..........................................................................................55
`
`5. Claim 5 ..........................................................................................56
`
`6. Claim 6 ..........................................................................................56
`
`7. Claim 7 ..........................................................................................57
`
`8. Claim 8 ..........................................................................................58
`
`9. Claim 9 ..........................................................................................59
`
`X.
`
`CONCLUSION ..............................................................................................60
`
`
`
`
`
`ii
`
`

`

`
`
`Cases
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`Hill-Rom Servs., Inc. v. Stryker Corp.,
`
`755 F.3d 1367 (Fed. Cir. 2014) ..................................................................... 20, 23
`
`In re Trans Texas Holdings Corp.
`
`498 F.3d 1290 (Fed. Cir. 2007) ............................................................................16
`
`In re Translogic Tech., Inc.,
`
`504 F.3d 1249 (Fed. Cir. 2007) ............................................................................15
`
`Invitrogen Corp. v. Biocrest Mfg., L.P.,
`
`327 F.3d 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2003) ............................................................................21
`
`Liebel-Flarsheim Co. v. Medrad, Inc.,
`
`358 F.3d 898 (Fed. Cir. 2004) ....................................................................... 20, 23
`
`Oatey Co. v. IPS Corp.,
`
`514 F.3d 1271 (Fed. Cir. 2008) ............................................................................21
`
`Phillips v. AWH Corp.,
`
`415 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc) ..................................................... 15, 16
`
`
`
`Statutes
`
`35 U.S.C. § 102 ................................................................................................ passim
`
`35 U.S.C. § 102(b) .................................................................................. 4, 11, 13, 30
`
`
`
`iii
`
`

`

`
`
`35 U.S.C. § 102(e) ...............................................................................................4, 47
`35 U.S.C. § 102(e) ............................................................................................... 4, 47
`
`35 U.S.C. § 112 ................................................................................................. 16, 27
`35 U.S.C. § 112 ................................................................................................. 16, 27
`
`35 U.S.C. § 315 .......................................................................................................... 2
`35 U.S.C. § 315 .......................................................................................................... 2
`
`35 U.S.C. § 325 .......................................................................................................... 2
`35 U.S.C. § 325 .......................................................................................................... 2
`
`Regulations
`Regulations
`
`37 C.F.R. § 1.111 .....................................................................................................12
`37 CPR. § 1.111 ..................................................................................................... 12
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b) ..............................................................................................15
`37 CPR. § 42.100(b) .............................................................................................. 15
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.103 ..................................................................................................... 3
`37 CPR. § 42.103 ..................................................................................................... 3
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.104 (b)(1)-(3) ..................................................................................... 4
`37 CPR. § 42.104 (b)(1)-(3) ..................................................................................... 4
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.104(a) ................................................................................................. 3
`37 CPR. § 42.104(a) ................................................................................................. 3
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(3) ..........................................................................................15
`37 CPR. § 42.104(b)(3) .......................................................................................... 15
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.105(a) ................................................................................................. 3
`37 CPR. § 42.105(a) ................................................................................................. 3
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.15(a) ................................................................................................... 3
`37 CPR. § 42.15(a) ................................................................................................... 3
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.8 ......................................................................................................... 1
`37 CPR. § 42.8 ......................................................................................................... 1
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(1) ................................................................................................ 1
`37 CPR. § 42.8(b)(1) ................................................................................................ 1
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(2) ................................................................................................ 2
`37 CPR. § 42.8(b)(2) ................................................................................................ 2
`
`
`
`iv
`iV
`
`

`

`
`
`LISTING OF EXHIBITS1
`
`Exhibit No.
`
`Description
`
`1001
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,980,564 to Rodriguez et al.
`
`1002
`
`1003
`
`1004
`
`1005
`
`1006
`
`1007
`
`1008
`
`1009
`
`Excerpts from the Prosecution History for U.S. Patent No.
`6,980,564
`
`Declaration of Dr. Robert P. McNamara, Ph.D.
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,940,387 to Humpleman
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,362,908 to Kimbrough
`
`Definitions of “control,” “family,” “format,” and “interface,”
`Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary, Tenth Edition,
`Copyright 2001, pp. 252, 419, 458, and 609, respectively
`
`Plaintiff Spherix Incorporated’s Proposed Constructions for
`Identified Claim Terms, Spherix Incorporated v. Verizon
`Services Corp., et al., Civil Action No. 1:14-cv-721-GBL-TCB
`(E.D. Virginia), dated October 24, 2014
`
`Plaintiff Spherix Incorporated’s Complaint for Patent
`Infringement, Spherix Incorporated v. Verizon Services Corp., et
`al., Civil Action No. 1:14-cv-721-GBL-TCB (E.D. Virginia),
`dated June 11, 2014
`
`Plaintiff Spherix Incorporated’s Summons in a Civil Action and
`Proof of Service, Spherix Incorporated v. Verizon Services
`Corp., et al., Civil Action No. 1:14-cv-721-GBL-TCB (E.D.
`Virginia), dated June 11, 2014, and June 12, 2014, respectively
`
`
`
`
` Citations to patent publications are to column:line number of the patents.
`
` 1
`
`Citations to non-patent publications are to the page numbers of the exhibit.
`
`
`
`v
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 6,980,564
`
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`
`
`Verizon Services Corp., Verizon South Inc., Verizon Virginia LLC, Verizon
`
`Communications Inc., Verizon Federal Inc., Verizon Business Network Services
`
`Inc., and MCI Communications Services, Inc. (collectively, “Verizon” or
`
`“Petitioners”) request inter partes review (“IPR”) of claims 1-3 and 5-9 (“the
`
`challenged claims”) of U.S. Patent No. 6,980,564 (“the ’564 patent”) (Ex. 1001).
`
`This Petition establishes a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner will prevail with
`
`respect to at least one of the challenged claims, and thus, a trial for IPR should be
`
`instituted. This Petition also establishes by a preponderance of the evidence that
`
`the challenged claims are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 102. Consequently, the
`
`challenged claims should be canceled.
`
`II. MANDATORY NOTICES UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.8
`
`Real Party-in-Interest: Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(1), Petitioners
`
`identify Verizon Services Corp., Verizon South Inc., Verizon Virginia LLC,
`
`Verizon Communications Inc., Verizon Federal Inc., Verizon Business Network
`
`Services Inc., and MCI Communications Services, Inc. as the real parties-in-
`
`interest. Additionally, Petitioners, out of an abundance of caution in light of prior
`
`challenges to the named real parties-in-interest in separate and unrelated IPR
`
`petitions, identify each of Verizon Corporate Resources Group, LLC and Verizon
`
`Data Services LLC as a real party-in-interest for the IPR requested by this Petition
`
`
`
`1
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 6,980,564
`
`
`solely to the extent that Patent Owner contends that these separate legal entities
`
`should be named a real party-in-interest in the requested IPR, and Petitioners do so
`
`to avoid the potential expenditure of resources to resolve such a challenge. No
`
`related entity is funding, controlling, or otherwise has an opportunity to control or
`
`direct this Petition or any of the Petitioners’ participation in any resulting IPR.
`
`Also, Petitioners note that Verizon Communications Inc. has over 500 affiliated
`
`entities and each of these entities agrees to be estopped under the provisions of 35
`
`U.S.C. §§ 315 and/or 325 as a result of any final written decision in the requested
`
`IPR to the same extent that the Petitioners are estopped.
`
`Related Matters: Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(2), Petitioners identify the
`
`following related matter: The ’564 patent is involved in Spherix Incorporated v.
`
`Verizon Services Corp., Verizon South Inc., Verizon Virginia LLC, Verizon
`
`Communications Inc., Verizon Federal Inc., Verizon Business Network Services
`
`Inc., MCI Communications Services, Inc., Civil Action No. 1:14-cv-721-GBL-
`
`TCB (E.D. Virginia), filed June 11, 2014 (“the Spherix litigation”).
`
`Counsel and Service Information: Lead counsel is Dinesh N. Melwani (Reg.
`
`No. 60,670), Bookoff McAndrews, PLLC, 2401 Pennsylvania Ave., NW, Suite
`
`450, Washington, DC, 20037, Telephone: 202.808.3550, Fax: 202.450.5538,
`
`E-mail: dmelwani@bookoffmcandrews.com. Back-up counsel are Roland G.
`
`McAndrews (Reg. No. 41,450), Bookoff McAndrews, PLLC, 2401 Pennsylvania
`
`
`
`2
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 6,980,564
`
`
`Ave., NW, Suite 450, Washington, DC, 20037, Telephone: 202.808.3550, Fax:
`
`202.450.5538, E-mail: rmcandrews@bookoffmcandrews.com, and Aaron M.
`
`Johnson (Reg. No. 66,945), Bookoff McAndrews, PLLC, 2401 Pennsylvania Ave.,
`
`NW, Suite 450, Washington, DC, 20037, Telephone: 202.808.3550, Fax:
`
`202.450.5538, E-mail: ajohnson@bookoffmcandrews.com.
`
`Powers of Attorney are submitted with this Petition. Please direct all
`
`correspondence to lead and back-up counsel at the addresses above. Petitioners
`
`consent to electronic service at the email addresses above.
`
`III. NOTICE OF FEES PAID UNDER 37 C.F.R. §§ 42.15(a) and 42.103
`
`Petitioners submit the required fees with this Petition. Please charge any
`
`additional fees required for this proceeding to Deposit Account No. 50-5906.
`
`IV. SERVICE OF PETITION UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.105(a)
`
`Proof of service of this Petition is provided in the attached Certificate of
`
`Service.
`
`V. GROUNDS FOR STANDING UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(a)
`
`
`Petitioner certifies that the ’564 patent is available for IPR, and that
`
`Petitioners are not barred or estopped from requesting such review of the ’564
`
`patent on the grounds identified in this Petition. This Petition is being filed within
`
`one year of the June 12, 2014, service of a complaint that was filed against Verizon
`
`on June 11, 2014, in the Spherix litigation. Ex. 1008 at 1, 18; Ex. 1009 at 2.
`
`
`
`3
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 6,980,564
`
`
`VI. CHALLENGE AND RELIEF REQUESTED UNDER 37 C.F.R.
`§ 42.104(b)(1)-(3)
`
`
`
`Claims 1-3 and 5-9 of the ’564 patent are unpatentable and should be
`
`cancelled in view of the following prior art references and grounds:
`
`Reference 1: U.S. Patent No. 5,940,387 to Humpleman (“Humpleman”)
`
`(Ex. 1004). Humpleman issued August 17, 1999, and thus, Humpleman is prior art
`
`against the ’564 patent under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b).
`
`Reference 2: U.S. Patent No. 6,362,908 to Kimbrough et al. (“Kimbrough”)
`
`(Ex. 1005). Kimbrough was filed on December 2, 1998, and issued March 26,
`
`2002, and thus, Kimbrough is prior art against the ’564 patent under 35 U.S.C.
`
`§ 102(e).
`
`Ground 1: Claims 1-3 and 5-9 are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b)
`
`as anticipated by Humpleman.
`
`Ground 2: Claims 1-3 and 5-9 are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e)
`
`as anticipated by Kimbrough.
`
`The proposed grounds present distinct bases for unpatentability and are
`
`being presented to show the breadth of the challenged claims. A statement of non-
`
`redundancy is provided below. Infra Section IX(B)(1). Petitioner thus requests
`
`institution on all proposed grounds.
`
`An explanation of how these claims are unpatentable under the identified
`
`grounds is provided below, along with additional explanation and support for each
`
`
`
`4
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 6,980,564
`
`
`ground in Ex. 1003, the Declaration of Dr. Robert P. McNamara, Ph.D.
`
`(“McNamara Declaration”), referenced throughout this Petition.
`
`VII. BACKGROUND
`
`The ’564 patent issued from U.S. Patent Application No. 09/884,684, filed
`
`on June 19, 2001. Ex. 1001 at 1. The ’564 patent claims priority as a continuation
`
`of U.S. Patent Application No. 09/753,014, which was filed on January 2, 2001,
`
`and abandoned on December 27, 2004, for failure to respond to a First Action on
`
`the Merits. Id.
`
`A.
`
`The Disclosure of the ’564 Patent
`
`The “Background of the Invention” section of the ’564 patent discusses how
`
`different network services, such as cable television and telephone services,
`
`“traditionally have been developed for use over different types of networks.” Id.
`
`at 1:22-24. The background section goes on to state that these different types of
`
`networks caused the network service industry to develop network access
`
`equipment, commonly known as “Data Communications Equipment” or “DCEs”
`
`that connect only a particular type of network to a network device, e.g., a telephone
`
`or television. Id. at 1:29-45.
`
`The background of the ’564 patent further states that there was a trend
`
`toward providing a single service via multiple network types. See id. at 1:61-63.
`
`For example, telephone services could be provided via the public service telephone
`
`
`
`5
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 6,980,564
`
`
`network (“PSTN”) or via a broadband network. See id. This would require that “a
`
`single DCE for use with the telephone services must be produced for use with each
`
`network/medium type. For example, a separate telephony DCE must be developed
`
`for use with each of cable networks, fiber optic networks, wireless networks, etc.”
`
`Id. at 1:66-2:6. The background concludes by stating that such duplication of
`
`devices is inefficient and costly. Id. at 1:61-2:9.
`
`Fig. 1 of the ’564 patent depicts an access system 18 providing a local
`
`network device 12 access to
`
`the
`
`Internet 16 or other
`
`networks via a medium 22.
`
`See id. at 4:9-14, Fig. 1. The
`
`local network device 12 may
`
`be, e.g., a computer system, an
`
`Internet
`
`Protocol
`
`(IP)
`
`telephone, or other network appliance. See id. at 4:8-9. The medium 22 may be a
`
`broadband medium, such as fiber optic technology, cable technology, or digital
`
`subscriber line technology. See id. at 2:40-43, 4:17-28. In one example, the access
`
`system 18 and local network devices 12 are shown in Fig. 1 as being located at a
`
`customer’s premises, such as in a single office. Id. at 4:14-16, 3:30-33. However,
`
`the ’564 patent also discloses use of the network “external to the user’s premises.”
`
`
`
`6
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 6,980,564
`
`
`Id. at 7:59-62.
`
`The
`
`’564 patent
`
`discloses separating the
`
`access system 18 into
`
`two units: the network
`
`interface unit
`
`(“NIU”)
`
`and service delivery unit (“SDU”), which may be physically separated from each
`
`other within access system 18 (shown in Fig. 2 with phantom lines). See id. at
`
`2:52-53, 4:45-52, Fig. 2. In a typical implementation, the NIU 26 connects with
`
`the network medium 22, the NIU 26 and SDU 28 are connected to each other via
`
`some interface 30, and the SDU 28 connects with local network user device(s) 12
`
`or functions itself as “data termination equipment.” See id. at 2:57-60, Fig. 2. The
`
`’564 patent states that such an arrangement can permit a single NIU to connect to
`
`multiple SDUs without requiring a customized access system device. See id. at
`
`8:52-56, 8:60-63, Fig. 6.
`
`The network interface unit may contain a medium module 32 and interface
`
`module 30. See id. at 4:62-5:9, Fig. 3. The medium module 32 is configured to
`
`“process data for transmission between the given medium and the service delivery
`
`unit.” Id. at 9:7-25, Fig. 3. The Fig. 3 interface module 30 is configured to
`
`“receive messages transmitted between the medium module and the service
`
`
`
`7
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 6,980,564
`
`
`delivery unit, . . . [and] translate messages from the second format to the first
`
`format.” Id.
`
`An example implementation of Fig. 3 is shown in Fig. 7 of the ’564 patent,
`
`
`
`reproduced below.
`
`
`
`In particular, Fig. 7 shows two example NIUs, namely the Cable Network
`
`Interface Module 26A and the Fiber Network Interface Module 26B, connected to
`
`a service delivery unit 28. Id. at 7:31-33. Within NIU 26A, a tuner 40 and a Data
`
`Over Cable Service Interface Specification (DOCSIS) module 42 act as the
`
`medium module 32. Id. at 7:53-56. The interface 30 “shown schematically in
`
`
`
`8
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 6,980,564
`
`
`FIG. 7 can be similar to any one of those shown in FIGS. 3-5.” Id. at 7:37-39. The
`
`interface module 30 “must be preprogrammed to be usable with one or more
`
`different format types of [NIUs] 26 and [SDUs] 28.” Id. at 6:20-22. For example,
`
`the interface module 30 “may be preprogrammed to convert messages to/from [an
`
`NIU] 26 for a cable network, and messages to/from [an SDU] 28 providing
`
`telephone services.” Id. at 6:23-26. Thus, the interface module 30 in Fig. 7 may
`
`convert messages from the DOCSIS-compatible cable network format of the
`
`DOCSIS module 42 to a format compatible with the [SDU] 28, such as an IP
`
`telephony format compatible with the IP Telephony Module 50, or an Ethernet
`
`format compatible with the Ethernet module 48.
`
`Independent claim 1 of the ’564 patent reads in full:
`
`1. A network interface unit comprising:
`
`an interface for connecting a service delivery unit
`
`to a given medium, wherein the service delivery unit is
`
`any one type in a family of different types of service
`
`delivery units, each type of service delivery unit in the
`
`family providing a network service that is different than
`
`the network service provided by the other types of
`
`service delivery units in the family, the service delivery
`
`unit processing messages received in a first format;
`
`a medium module configured to process data for
`
`transmission between the given medium and the service
`
`
`
`9
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 6,980,564
`
`
`delivery unit, the medium module transmitting messages
`
`toward the service delivery unit in a second format; and
`
`an
`
`interface module configured
`
`to
`
`receive
`
`messages transmitted between the medium module and
`
`the service delivery unit, the interface module being
`
`configured to translate messages from the second format
`
`to the first format.
`
`Id. at 12:7-25.
`
`
`
`
`
`Claims 2-10 depend from claim 1. The ’564 patent includes two additional
`
`independent claims, claims 11 and 20. Independent claim 11 is directed to an SDU
`
`for providing network services, and independent claim 20 is directed to a modular
`
`data communications equipment system including a family of different types of
`
`NIUs and a family of different types of SDUs. Thus, the ’564 patent includes a
`
`claim set directed to the NIU (claims 1-10), a claim set directed to the SDU (claims
`
`11-19), and a claim set directed to a combination system of NIUs and SDUs
`
`(claims 20-27).
`
`B.
`
`The Prosecution History of the ’564 patent
`
`As originally filed, the ’564 patent included 27 claims. See Ex. 1002 at 23-
`
`28. Original application claim 1, which recited a network interface unit for
`
`connecting a service delivery unit to a given medium, is reproduced below:
`
`1.
`
` A network interface unit for connecting a service
`
`delivery unit to a given medium, the service delivery unit
`
`
`
`10
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 6,980,564
`
`
`being any one type in a family of different types of
`
`service delivery units, each type of service delivery unit
`
`in the family providing a network service that is different
`
`than the network service provided by the other types of
`
`service delivery units in the family, the service delivery
`
`unit processing messages received in a first format, the
`
`network interface unit comprising:
`
`a medium module configured to process data for
`
`transmission between the given medium and the service
`
`delivery unit, the medium module transmitting messages
`
`toward the service delivery unit in a second format; and
`
`an
`
`interface module configured
`
`to
`
`receive
`
`messages transmitted between the medium module and
`
`the service delivery unit, the interface module being
`
`configured to translate messages from the second format
`
`to the first format.
`
`
`Id. at 23.
`
`
`On October 7, 2004, a non-final office action was issued rejecting claims
`
`1-27. Id. at 53-66. In the action, claims 1-4, 6-14, 16-22, and 24-27 were rejected
`
`under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by U.S. Patent No. 5,251,207 to
`
`Absensour et al. Id. at 55-62. Claims 5, 15, and 23 were rejected under 35 U.S.C.
`
`§ 103(a) as being obvious over Abensour. Id. at 62-63.
`
`
`
`11
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 6,980,564
`
`
`On January 7, 2005, the patentee filed an amendment under 37 C.F.R.
`
`§ 1.111 to amend independent claim 1 as follows:
`
`
`Id. at 80.
`
`In accompanying “Remarks,” the applicant stated that the amendments to
`
`claim 1 “move elements from the preamble into the body of the claim.
`
`Specifically, the body of claim 1 now recites, ‘wherein the storage [sic] delivery
`
`unit is any one in a family of different types of service delivery units, each type of
`
`service delivery unit in the family providing a network service that is different than
`
`the network service provided by the other types of service delivery units in the
`
`family . . . .’” Id. at 86. The applicant also argued that
`
`Abensour does not teach that the service delivery unit is
`
`one type in a family of different types of service delivery
`
`units because Abensour only teaches one type of service
`
`
`
`12
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 6,980,564
`
`
`delivery unit. Likewise, because Abensour only teaches
`
`one type of service delivery unit, there is no teaching or
`
`suggestion that each type of service delivery unit
`
`provides a network service that is different than the
`
`network service provided by the other types of service
`
`delivery units in the family, as recited in the claim. To
`
`this extent, there are multiple claim elements which are
`
`not taught or suggested by Abensour. Since there are
`
`claim elements which are not taught or suggested by
`
`Abensour, the claim is not anticipated.
`
`Id.
`
`Regarding the single-reference 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejections of claims 5, 15
`
`and 23, the Applicant argued that “the Patent Office asserts that the motivation to
`
`modify Abensour is ‘to take advantage of widely available and use [sic]
`
`technology.’ This assertion lacks any supporting evidence, and as such, the
`
`motivation to modify Abensour is improper . . . the Patent Office has not
`
`established prima facie obviousness.” Id. at 87.
`
`On June 7, 2005, a final office action was issued rejecting claims 1-27. Id.
`
`at 90-103. Again, claims 1-4, 6-14, 16-22, and 24-27 were rejected under 35
`
`U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by Abensour. Claims 5, 15 and 23 were again
`
`rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Abensour. In the
`
`“Response to Arguments” section, the examiner stated that, “Abensour teaches at
`
`least two types of delivery units the SMDS element 24 and FR element 22 (see
`
`
`
`13
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 6,980,564
`
`
`figure 4). FR element 22 for delivering frames having variable size or length and
`
`SMDS element 24 for delivering packets having fixed size (see col. 1 lines 44-62).
`
`Therefore, Abensour teaches the service delivery unit is one type in a family of
`
`different types of service delivery units.” Id. at 100.
`
`On August 8, 2005, the patentee filed an Amendment After Final
`
`summarizing an interview that took place on August 2, 2005, correcting
`
`typographical errors and arguing that the final rejection was given improperly. Id.
`
`at 115-123. The patentee stated that, in the interview,
`
`[a]pplicant contrasted the service delivery units, which
`
`amount to customer premises equipment, from the Frame
`
`Relay 24 and the switched multimegabit data service
`
`(SMDS) 22 of Abensour, which are both network
`
`elements outside of
`
`the customer premises… The
`
`Examiner requested clarification as to the formats recited
`
`in the claims, especially as related to the embodiment of
`
`Figure 3. As indicated above, in the embodiment of
`
`Figure 3, the first format of claim 1 corresponds to the
`
`SDU format of Figure 3, and the second format of claim
`
`1 corresponds to the NIU format of Figure 3. Both
`
`formats are used by the network interface unit of claim 1.
`
`
`Id. at 121-122.
`
`Regarding the single-reference 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection, the applicant
`
`stated, “[f]irst, the Patent Office must articulate a motivation to modify the
`
`
`
`14
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 6,980,564
`
`
`reference, and second, the Patent Office must support the articulated motivation
`
`with actual evidence.” Id. at 122.
`
`On August 19, 2005, a Notice of Allowance was issued by the examiner
`
`allowing claims 1-27 without any reasons for allowance. Id. at 126. Subsequently,
`
`the issue fee was paid by the patentee. Id. at 136.
`
`VIII. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION (37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(3))
`
`In an IPR, claim terms should be given their broadest reasonable
`
`interpretation (“BRI”) in view of the specification in which they appear. 37 C.F.R.
`
`§ 42.100(b). Claim terms also are “generally given their ordinary and customary
`
`meaning,” which is the meaning that the term would have to a person of ordinary
`
`skill in the art.2 See In re Translogic Tech., Inc., 504 F.3d 1249, 1257 (Fed. Cir.
`
`2007) (quoting Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1312, 1313 (Fed. Cir. 2005)
`
`(en banc)). Petitioners propose constructions for certain claim terms below, but all
`
`of the claim terms in the ’564 patent should be given their plain and ordinary
`
`
`
`
` A person of ordinary skill in the art would have had an undergraduate degree in
`
` 2
`
`electrical engineering, computer science, or a related discipline, or would have
`
`become proficient in the art by self-study to a level equivalent to such a formal
`
`degree. In addition, the person would have two or three years of experience in
`
`developing products for telecommunications networks. Ex. 1003 at ¶¶ 15-17.
`
`
`
`15
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 6,980,564
`
`
`meaning under the BRI standard.3
`
`
`
`The broadest reasonable interpretation of claim terms is not necessarily the
`
`construction appropriate for claim construction proceedings in district court. See,
`
`e.g., In re Trans Texas Holdings Corp. 498 F.3d 1290 (Fed. Cir. 2007). Thus, the
`
`claim constructions presented in this Petition, including where Petitioners do not
`
`propose an e