Filed: May 24, 2016
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`
`UNIFIED PATENTS INC.,
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`VOIP-PAL.COM INC.,
`Patent Owner
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01082
`Patent No. 8,542,815
`Producing Routing Messages for Voice Over IP Communications
`
`
`
`DECLARATION OF MICHAEL CALOYANNIDES
`
`Page 1 of 84
`
`Unified Patents Exhibit 1002
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`
`UNIFIED PATENTS INC.,
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`VOIP-PAL.COM INC.,
`Patent Owner
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01082
`Patent No. 8,542,815
`Producing Routing Messages for Voice Over IP Communications
`
`
`
`DECLARATION OF MICHAEL CALOYANNIDES
`
`Page 1 of 84
`
`Unified Patents Exhibit 1002
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01082
`U.S. Patent 8,542,815
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`I.
`
`Introduction ...................................................................................................... 1
`
`II.
`
`Qualifications ................................................................................................... 3
`
`III. Materials Reviewed ......................................................................................... 5
`
`IV. Overview of the Related Technologly, the ’815 Patent, and the
`Prosecution History ......................................................................................... 6
`
`V.
`
`Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art ................................................................ 12
`
`VI. Claim Construction ........................................................................................ 12
`
`VII. Certain References Disclose or Suggest all of the Elements Claimed in
`the ’815 Patent. .............................................................................................. 16
`
`A. Ground 1: Turner anticipates claims 1, 2, 7, 27, 28, 29, 34, 54,
`72, 73, 74, 92, 93 and 111 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) ......................... 16
`
`B.
`
`Ground 2: Kaczmarczyk in view of Turner renders claims 1, 2,
`7, 27, 28, 29, 34, 54, 72, 73, 74, 92, 93 and 111 obvious under
`35 U.S.C. § 103(a) ............................................................................... 22
`
`VIII. Conclusion ..................................................................................................... 29
`
`
`
`Page 2 of 84
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01082
`U.S. Patent 8,542,815
`
`
`
`I.
`
`I, Michael Caloyannides, declare as follows:
`
`Introduction
`
`1.
`
`I have been retained by Unified Patents Inc. (“Unified” or
`
`“Petitioner”) as an independent expert consultant in this proceeding before the
`
`United States Patent and Trademark Office. Although I am being compensated at
`
`my hourly rate for the time I spend on this matter, no part of my compensation
`
`depends on the outcome of this proceeding, and I have no other interest in this
`
`proceeding.
`
`2.
`
`I understand that this proceeding involves U.S. Patent No. 8,542,815
`
`(“the ’815 patent”) (attached as EX1001 to Unified’s petition). I understand the
`
`application for the ’815 patent was filed on October 26, 2012, as U.S. Patent
`
`Application No. 13/662,213 having a priority date of May 10, 2002, and the patent
`
`issued on January 28, 2014.
`
`3.
`
`I have been asked to consider whether one of ordinary skill in the art
`
`of the ’815 patent would understand that certain references disclose or suggest the
`
`features recited in the claims of the ’815 patent, or that the features would have
`
`been obvious based on the combination of the references. My opinions are set forth
`
`below. While I discuss certain prior art challenges specifically, I note that I
`
`reviewed a number of additional prior art references that also seemed to anticipate,
`
`disclose, and render obvious the claims of the ’815 patent.
`
`
`
`Page 3 of 84
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01082
`U.S. Patent 8,542,815
`I have been advised that a patent claim may be anticipated if each and
`
`4.
`
`every element as set forth in the claim is found, either expressly or inherently
`
`described, in a single prior art reference. I have also been advised that the prior art
`
`elements must be arranged as required by the patent claim, but that the prior art
`
`need not use identical terminology as the patent claim.
`
`5.
`
`I have been advised that a patent claim may be obvious if the
`
`differences between the subject matter of the claim and the prior art are such that
`
`the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention
`
`was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art. I have also been advised that
`
`several factual inquiries underlie a determination of obviousness. These inquiries
`
`include the scope and content of the prior art, the level of ordinary skill in the field
`
`of the invention, the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art,
`
`and any objective evidence of non-obviousness.
`
`6.
`
`I have been advised that objective evidence of non-obviousness,
`
`known as “secondary considerations of non-obviousness,” may
`
`include
`
`commercial success, satisfaction of a long-felt but unsolved need, failure of others,
`
`copying, skepticism or disbelief before the invention, and unexpected results. I am
`
`not aware of any such objective evidence of non-obviousness of the subject matter
`
`claimed in the ’815 patent at this time.
`
`
`
`Page 4 of 84
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01082
`U.S. Patent 8,542,815
`In addition, I have been advised that the law requires a “common
`
`7.
`
`sense” approach of examining whether the claimed invention is obvious to a
`
`person skilled in the art. For example, I have been advised that combining familiar
`
`elements according to known methods is likely to be obvious when it does no more
`
`than yield predictable results.
`
`II. Qualifications
`
`8.
`
`I am an Adjunct Professor of Computer Science at Johns Hopkins
`
`University and, until recently when I retired, George Washington University,
`
`teaching courses in Network and Data Communications, Internet Communications,
`
`and IP Networks. I also worked in both Government and private industry for over
`
`forty years in senior technologist positions such as a chief scientist, senior fellow
`
`and senior consultant for emerging technologies in computer networks and
`
`telecommunications.
`
`9.
`
`I received a Ph.D. in Electrical Engineering, Applied Mathematics and
`
`Philosophy from the California Institute of Technology in 1972. I also hold an M.S.
`
`in Electrical Engineering (1968) and a B.Sc. in Science with honors (1967), both
`
`awarded by the California Institute of Technology.
`
`10. After graduation, I was employed for approximately 15 years at the
`
`highest technical ranks (Member of Technical Staff, Level 7) by the Rockwell
`
`International Corporation, where, among other projects that I lead, I lead various
`
`
`
`Page 5 of 84
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01082
`U.S. Patent 8,542,815
`efforts in multiple aspects of telecommunications, both wireline and wireless,
`
`including uninterceptable communications for the US Government, digitized voice
`
`and data communications, communications over digital networks, communications
`
`to/from submarines, encrypted communications, and others. During that time I was
`
`also awarded a US patent on a high speed modem. For the next 14 years I was
`
`hired as Chief Scientist for classified Research and Development at a civilian
`
`agency of the US government. In that capacity, I lead multiple classified efforts in
`
`telecommunications, notably including voice over the emerging Internet, using the
`
`Internet Protocol as well as other protocols, covert communications, encryption,
`
`steganographic communications, and other efforts. It was at that time that the
`
`commercial sector was barely beginning to investigate the possibility of what has
`
`since become known as VoIP, with such initial efforts as the one by VocalTec and
`
`others. In that capacity, while leading R&D efforts at the civilian agency of the US
`
`Government I was awarded the coveted Scientist of the Year Award, five separate
`
`Exceptional Accomplishment Awards, a Meritorious Officer Award, and other
`
`distinctions.
`
`11. After the Cold War ended and the existential threats to the US
`
`basically went away, I then returned to the commercial Sector as Senior Fellow
`
`(the highest technical position) at Mitretek System, a spinoff from the Mitre
`
`Corporation, where I lead efforts in telecommunications and other areas for
`
`
`
`Page 6 of 84
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01082
`U.S. Patent 8,542,815
`approximately 8 years, followed by a few years as Chief Scientist of Ideal
`
`Innovations, Inc., a company with “boots on the ground” in Iraq during the peak of
`
`the Iraq wars. Following that, I was hired at the top technical level at TASC Corp,
`
`a think-tank for the Intelligence Community, where I again worked on numerous
`
`efforts that involved VoIP and other packetized data systems.
`
`12.
`
`In addition to my role as a senior employee in technology, I have also
`
`consulted in connection of with a major patent dispute on VoIP between two very
`
`large national telecommunications companies. It is important to make a distinction
`
`between “voice over THE Internet” and “voice using the Internet Protocol over
`
`private circuits”.
`
`13. My curriculum vitae, which includes a more detailed explanation of
`
`my background, experience, and publications, is attached as Appendix A.
`
`14.
`
`I am not an attorney and offer no legal opinions, but in the course of
`
`my work, I have had experience studying and analyzing patents and patent claims
`
`from the perspective of a hypothetical person skilled in the art. I have previously
`
`served as a technical expert in both litigations and inter partes review proceedings
`
`involving telecom and IT technology patents.
`
`III. Materials Reviewed
`
`15.
`
`In forming my opinions, I reviewed, among other things, the ’815
`
`Patent, the prosecution history of the ’815 patent, and the following:
`
`
`
`Page 7 of 84
`
`
`
`Description
`Exhibit
`EX1001 U.S. Patent No. 8,542,815 B2 to Perreault et al.
`
`EX1003 U.S. Patent No. 7,218,722 B1 to Turner et al. “Turner”
`
`IPR2016-01082
`
`U.S. Patent 8,542,815
`
`EX1004 U.S. Patent No. 6,961,334 B1 to Casirner M. Kaczmarczyk
`(“Kac:marczyk’
`Prosecution Histo
`
`for U.S. Patent No. 8,542,815
`
`EX1005
`
`
`
`EXl006 U.S. Patent No. 8,594,298
`
`EXl007
`
`Livengood, Daniel, et al. “Public Switched Telephone Networks: A
`Network Analysis of Emerging Networks. Massachusetts Institute
`of Technolo , submitted Ma 16, 2006, u . 5-6.
`
`EX1008 Hallock, Joe, “A Brief History of VoIP: Document One — The Past,”
`Evolution and Trends in Digital Media Technologies — COM 538,
`Universi of Washin on, November 26, 2004, o . 7.
`
`IV. Overview of the Related Technology,
`Prosecution History
`
`the ’8l5 Patent, and the
`
`16.
`
`Technology Background
`
`17.
`
`Legacy telephony, also known as
`
`switched circuit
`
`technology,
`
`basically amounted to physically connecting (“switching”) wires from the calling
`
`party to the called party. That was a very uneconomical scheme because the wires
`
`carried no information for the vast majority of the time, such as when there was no
`
`call between the two parties concerned, or even during a call when one of both
`
`parties were not talking.
`
`18.
`
`The first “fix” was to multiplex multiple different subscribers’ signals
`
`over the same charmel (wired or not) using frequency division multiplexing (FDM),
`
`time division multiplexing (TDM), or, later on in some wireless channels, code
`
`division multiple access (CDMA). This
`
`still did not solve the entire problem
`
`of uneconomical use of the telecom wiring infrastructure, especially at an era when
`
`Page 8 of 84
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01082
`U.S. Patent 8,542,815
`a parallel network was evolving and being deployed worldwide for data transfers;
`
`that network used a communications protocol called the Internet Protocol. Some
`
`early efforts ensured that digitized voice was transmitted into packets that used that
`
`Internet Protocol. Using this new technology, one no longer needed two physical
`
`networks, one for voice telephony and one for data. Voice could be digitized and
`
`packetized and routed from across the Internet Network almost for free, regardless
`
`of the distance between the two communicating ends. This resulted in a revolution
`
`of telephony; many legacy telcos (telephone companies had the choice to either go
`
`bankrupt or join this revolutionary new means of voice communications (voice
`
`over the Internet protocol or VoIP)), as many individuals were foregoing legacy
`
`telcos in favor of essentially free telephony using the Internet. One technological
`
`problem still remained, however: how to interconnect the VoIP telephony to the
`
`legacy PSTN (public switched telephone network), what fees to charge and to
`
`whom, and how to address issues of reliability; the legacy PSTN had earned a
`
`reputation of 99.999% reliability that the Internet could not match.
`
`19. The reliability issue took care of itself as customers simply learned to
`
`accept a reliability that was lower than 99.999% and also because the Internet
`
`reliability increased substantially. The charging and billing issues were business
`
`issues and not technological issues per se, although they did have some
`
`technological aspects behind the business agreements. The ’815 patent is in the
`
`
`
`Page 9 of 84
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01082
`U.S. Patent 8,542,815
`realm of how to interconnect private and public telephone networks, given that
`
`either of both can be circuit-switched or packet switched networks.
`
`20. The ’815 Patent
`
`21. After reviewing the ’815 patent, I note that it is directed to a process
`
`and apparatus for facilitating communication between callers and callees in a
`
`system that generates routing messages identifying private network addresses or
`
`public network gateways. EX1001 at Abstract. The ’815 patent describes the
`
`general process for the invention as involving (1) receiving a callee identifier [such
`
`as a dialed number] from a calling subscriber, (2) classifying the call as a public
`
`network or private network call using criteria associated with the calling subscriber,
`
`and (3) producing a routing message identifying either a private network address or
`
`a public network gateway. EX1001 at 14:24-35.
`
`22.
`
`Independent claim 1 is representative of the independent claims, and
`
`reads:
`
`A process for operating a call routing controller to facilitate communication
`between callers and callees in a system comprising a plurality of nodes with
`which callers and callees are associated, the process comprising:
`in response to initiation of a call by a calling subscriber, receiving a caller
`identifier and a callee identifier;
`locating a caller dialing profile comprising a username associated with the
`caller and a plurality of calling attributes associated with the caller;
`determining a match when at least one of said calling attributes matches at
`least a portion of said callee identifier;
`
`
`
`Page 10 of 84
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01082
`U.S. Patent 8,542,815
`classifying the call as a public network call when said match meets public
`network classification criteria and classifying the call as a private
`network call when said match meets private network classification
`criteria;
`when the call is classified as a private network call, producing a private
`network routing message for receipt by a call controller, said private
`network routing message identifying an address, on the private network,
`associated with the callee;
`when the call is classified as a public network call, producing a public
`network routing message for receipt by the call controller, said public
`network routing message identifying a gateway to the public network.
`
`23. The ’815 patent alleges that the invention relates to voice over IP
`
`(“VoIP”) communication, id. at 12-13, though the independent claims are not so
`
`limited. The ’815 patent suggests that it uniquely fills gaps in bridging
`
`communication between private networks (such as VoIP networks) and public
`
`networks such as Public Switched Telephone Networks (“PSTN”). The ’815 patent
`
`states:
`
`Existing VoIP systems do not allow for high availability and
`resiliency in delivering Voice Over IP based Session Initiation
`Protocol (SIP) Protocol service over a geographically dispersed area
`such as a city, region or continent. Most resiliency originates from the
`provision of IP based telephone services to one location or a small
`number of locations such as a single office or network of branch
`offices.
`
`Id. at 1:40-46.
`
`24.
`
` It is important not to equate “private” with VoIP and “public” with
`
`the PSTN. One can have a private non-VoIP network, such as legacy old PBXs,
`
`and one can also have VoIP networks that are very public and national in scope
`
`
`
`Page 11 of 84
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01082
`U.S. Patent 8,542,815
`and reach. Technologies that enable interconnection between public and private
`
`communication networks were well-known in the art. The claimed “public network”
`
`includes, for example, a PSTN, which has existed in evolving forms for over a
`
`century since the invention of the telephone in 1876.1 It also includes some very
`
`public networks that use VoIP, and these are increasingly common as legacy
`
`telephone companies migrate to VoIP telephony for cost-cutting reasons to avail
`
`themselves of the Internet infrastructure. The claimed “private network” includes
`
`private phone networks or
`
`Internet Protocol networks
`
`that use VoIP
`
`communication protocols. These networks have existed for at least two decades
`
`and at least a decade prior to the ’815 patent priority date.2 Moreover, systems
`
`connecting VoIP private networks and PSTN public networks existed before
`
`the ’815 patent. For example, U.S. Patent No. 8,594,298 to Klein et al. (“Klein,”
`
`attached as EX1006) discloses such a system. Klein, which was filed on February
`
`
`1 EX1007: Livengood, Daniel, et al. “Public Switched Telephone Networks: A
`
`Network Analysis of Emerging Networks. Massachusetts Institute of Technology,
`
`submitted May 16, 2006, pg. 5-6.
`
`2 EX1008: Hallock, Joe, “A Brief History of VoIP: Document One - The Past,”
`
`Evolution and Trends in Digital Media Technologies - COM 538, University of
`
`Washington, November 26, 2004, pg. 7.
`
`
`
`Page 12 of 84
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01082
`U.S. Patent 8,542,815
`20, 2004, and published on September 15, 2005, and discloses connecting PSTN
`
`103 to PBX 104C (Private Branch Exchange) FIGS. 1, 14. Thus, these types of
`
`networks existed long before the ’815 patent, providing motivation to interconnect
`
`individual users through the various methods of known communication networks.
`
`25. Other facets of the ’815 patent, such as caller profiles and “attributes”
`
`associated with callers, are at least as old as the decades-old VoIP technology.
`
`Indeed, the ’815 patent specification concedes that “attributes” contained in caller
`
`profiles include standard information such as location codes, country codes, and
`
`international dialing digits. EX1001 at 18:1-54. In other words, technologies
`
`utilizing the claimed types of information were well-known prior to the application
`
`for the ’815 patent and its priority date. In fact, Signaling System 7 (SS7) has
`
`included a number of attributes into PSTN telephony long before VoIP became
`
`popular; these attributes included CallerID, call-forwarding, etc.
`
`26. Thus, technologies that enable communication between and within
`
`private and public communication networks were well-known prior to the
`
`application for the ’815 patent and its priority date.
`
`27. During prosecution, I understand that in March 2013, the Examiner
`
`rejected the original fifty nine claims under 35 U.S.C. § 102. EX1005 at 154-178. I
`
`understand that in response, the Applicant amended all of the pending independent
`
`claims to incorporate multiple dependent claims, cancelled the incorporated
`
`
`
`Page 13 of 84
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01082
`U.S. Patent 8,542,815
`dependent claims, and added 58 new claims to the remaining claims. Id. at 95-136.
`
`I understand that the Examiner conducted a search confined to specific
`
`terminology or specific patent subclasses, id. at 88 (Ref. Nos. S1-S13), and in July
`
`2013, the Examiner mailed a Notice of Allowance including an Examiner’s
`
`Amendment that narrowed the scope of the independent claims. Id. at 54-81. In
`
`that paper, I understand that the Examiner specifically stated that the allowable
`
`subject matter in the independent claims was “matching one of calling attributes,
`
`retrieved from a calling party’s profile, with at least a portion of a callee identifier,
`
`and based on the match [identifying] a public or private network for call routing.”
`
`Id. at 80. I also understand that the “allowable subject matter” was first added to
`
`the independent claims in the Examiner’s Amendment. Id. at 54-81.
`
`V.
`
`Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art
`
`28.
`
`In my opinion, a person of ordinary skill in the art (POSA) of the ’815
`
`patent before November 2, 2006, would have (i) a B.S. degree in computer
`
`engineering, electrical engineering, computer science, or equivalent field, plus t
`
`and (ii) approximately two years of experience or research on switched circuit
`
`telephony and packetized telephony such as VoIP.
`
`VI. Claim Construction
`
`29.
`
`I have been advised that the first step of assessing the validity of a
`
`patent claim is to interpret or construe the meaning of the claim.
`
`
`
`Page 14 of 84
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01082
`U.S. Patent 8,542,815
`I have been further advised that in post-grant review proceedings
`
`30.
`
`before the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, a patent claim receives the broadest
`
`reasonable construction in light of the specification of the patent in which it
`
`appears. I have also been advised that this means the claim terms are given their
`
`ordinary and customary meaning as would be understood by one of ordinary skill
`
`in the art unless that meaning is inconsistent with the specification of the patent.
`
`31.
`
`I have also been advised that some claim terms are “means-plus-
`
`function” terms that invoke 35 U.S.C. § 112, 6th paragraph. I understand that the
`
`broadest reasonable construction of claim terms under 35 U.S.C. § 112, 6th
`
`paragraph is based on corresponding structure in the ’815 patent specification.
`
`32.
`
`I have reviewed the construction provided by the petitioner in its
`
`petition for inter partes review of the ’815 patent that accompanies my declaration.
`
`Mindful that the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office applies the broadest reasonable
`
`interpretation of claim terms, Unified proposes the following constructions:
`
` Unified proposes that the term “caller dialing profile” in claims 1, 27,
`
`28, 54, 73, 74, and 93 means “information associated with a caller.”
`
` Unified proposes that the term “calling attributes” in claims 1, 27, 28,
`
`54, 73, 74, and 93 means “information associated with a user, calls
`
`placed by the user, or calls directed toward the user.”
`
`
`
`Page 15 of 84
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01082
`U.S. Patent 8,542,815
` Unified identifies the term “means for receiving” in claim 28 as a
`
`means-plus-function term, and states that the specification provides
`
`the following structure to provide the claimed “receiving” function: a
`
`call controller circuit 100 that receives messages (such as an SIP
`
`message) via an input 108.
`
` Unified identifies the term “means for locating a caller dialing profile”
`
`in claim 28 as a means-plus-function term, and states that the
`
`specification provides the following structure to provide the claimed
`
`“locating a caller dialing profile” function: RC processor circuit (200).
`
` Unified identifies the term “means for determining a match” in claim
`
`28 as a means-plus-function term, and states that the specification
`
`provides the following structure to provide the claimed “determining a
`
`match” function: Processor 202 of RC processor circuit 200.
`
` Unified identifies the term “means for classifying the call” in claim 28
`
`as a means-plus-function term, and states that the specification
`
`provides the following structure to provide the claimed “classifying
`
`the call” function: Processor 202 of RC processor circuit 200.
`
` Unified identifies the term “means for producing a [public/private]
`
`network routing message” in claims 28 and 93 as a means-plus-
`
`function term, and states that the specification provides the following
`
`
`
`Page 16 of 84
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01082
`U.S. Patent 8,542,815
`structure to provide the claimed “producing a [public/private] network
`
`routing message” function: Processor 202 of the RC processing circuit
`
`200.
`
` Unified identifies the term “means for accessing a database” in claim
`
`93 as a means-plus-function term, and states that the specification
`
`provides the following structure to provide the claimed “accessing a
`
`database” function: RC processing circuit 200.
`
` Unified identifies the term “means for formatting said callee identifier”
`
`in claim 34 as a means-plus-function term, and states that the
`
`following structure to provide the claimed “accessing a database”
`
`function: Processor 202 of the RC processing circuit 200.
`
` Unified identifies the term “means for causing the private network
`
`routing message or the public network message to be communicated
`
`to a call controller” in claim 111 as a means-plus-function term, and
`
`states that the specification provides the following structure to provide
`
`the claimed “causing the…message to be communicated” function:
`
`Processor 202 of the RC processing circuit 200.
`
`33.
`
`In my opinion, these constructions are consistent with how one of
`
`ordinary skill in the art at the time the patent was filed would have understood the
`
`claim terms. The adoption of the constructions, or any other proper construction
`
`
`
`Page 17 of 84
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01082
`U.S. Patent 8,542,815
`under the broadest reasonable construction of each term, would not change my
`
`opinions set forth below.
`
`VII. Certain References Disclose or Suggest all of the Elements Claimed in
`the ’815 Patent.
`
`34.
`
`In my opinion, claims 1, 2, 7, 27, 28, 29, 34, 54, 72, 73, 74, 92, 93 and
`
`111 are anticipated under § 102(e) by U.S. Patent No. 7,218,722 B1 to Turner et al.
`
`(“Turner”).
`
`35.
`
`In my opinion, claims 1, 2, 7, 27, 28, 29, 34, 54, 72, 73, 74, 92, 93 and
`
`111 are obvious under § 103(a) over U.S. Patent No. 6,961,334 B1 to Caisimer M.
`
`Kaczmarczyk (“Kaczmarczyk”) in view of Turner.
`
`A. Ground 1: Turner anticipates claims 1, 2, 7, 27, 28, 29, 34, 54, 72,
`73, 74, 92, 93 and 111 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b)
`36. Turner discloses a computerized method and system for routing calls
`
`between parties at different locations. EX1003, Abstract. Calling and called parties
`
`can be located on private networks such as Internet Protocol networks connected to
`
`a gateway, or on public networks such as a PSTN. Id., FIG. 1.
`
`
`
`Page 18 of 84
`
`
`
`CIRCUIT
`
`SWITCNED TRUNKS
`
`IPR20l6-01082
`
`U.S. Patent 8,542,815
`
`Private
`
`Network
`
`
`
`SIGNALING
`
`SYSTEM 7
`
`D RECTORY PORTABILITY DOMAIN DIRECTORY PORTABILITY
`SERVER
`SERVER
`NAME
`SERVER
`SERVER
`
`SERVER
`
`37. A call agent receives a ca e a o ess om an IP gateway associated
`
`with a caller, after the caller dials a number of a callee. Id. at 9:13-22. The
`
`addresses of the caller and callee are cross-translated and reformatted to be
`
`analyzed and compared. EX1003 at 9:22-30.
`
`38.
`
`The call agent then sends a query to a directory server for a caller
`
`profile that is associated with the caller, and the directory server retrieves the
`
`caller’s profile. Id. at 22:9—15, FIG. 6, 602-606. The cal1er’s profile includes
`
`information including, for example, an ID or customer address, preferences, user
`
`profile data. Id. at FIG. 3.
`
`Page 19 of 84
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01082
`U.S. Patent 8,542,815
`
`39. The user profile and linked network address object (data structure)
`
`include information associated with the caller such as a customer address (CA) and
`
`network address (NA). Id. at 7:29-61. The network address and customer address
`
`include information such as a telephone number or number indicative of a location
`
`of the caller. Id. at 9:13-36, 10:25-53. For example, the CA and NA are indicative
`
`of a network in which the caller is located, a gateway associated with the caller,
`
`and/or a location of the caller. Id. The NA can be updated to reflect a current
`
`location if the caller roams to a new location. Id. at 22:2-8. This means the data
`
`stored and accessed by the Directory Server for a caller includes data associated
`
`with the caller (caller attributes) such as addresses and preferences.
`
`40. After retrieving the caller’s profile, the call agent determines whether
`
`the called party is within the same gateway as the caller. EX1003 at 9:24-36.
`
`Turner’s example discusses translating a called CA number to a NA, such as by
`
`translating “2002” to “313-555-2002.” Id. The translated NA is then compared to
`
`the caller number (313-555-2001), and the call agent determines that the matching
`
`
`
`Page 20 of 84
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01082
`U.S. Patent 8,542,815
`numbers (“333-555”) indicate that the caller and callee are within the same
`
`gateway. Id.
`
`41. Another example from Turner discusses that a caller may dial a
`
`number (3001), and that the call agent may assign the NA identifying the caller as
`
`“313-555-2002.” EX1003 at 10:25-48. The call agent then queries the Directory
`
`Server, which retrieves a user profile for the caller and translates the dialed number
`
`(3001) to a NA for the callee—in this example it is “709-555.” Id. Based on the
`
`NA, the call agent recognizes the network locations of the caller and callee and
`
`recognizes that the called party is within the private network but is located on a
`
`different gateway. Id. The call agent, therefore, determines matches between the
`
`numbers in the callee and caller information, as well as locations of the numbers
`
`based on stored information associated with the caller and callee numbers (e.g.,
`
`attributes).
`
`42. Based on the analysis of the NA and/or CA of the caller and the callee,
`
`as well as stored information associated with the NA and CA, the call agent of
`
`Turner determines whether the callee is within the same gateway as the caller and
`
`can be processed internally, such as a private network call. The call agent also
`
`determines whether the call is directed toward a callee
`
`on another gateway, such as a public network call.
`
`EX1003 at 9:30-36, FIG. 4A (portion reproduced to
`
`
`
`Page 21 of 84
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01082
`U.S. Patent 8,542,815
`the right). Thus, the call agent of Turner classifies the call as a private network call
`
`or a public network call.
`
`43.
`
`In addition to the analysis of the CA and NA, the Directory Server
`
`analyzes the called address to identify codes or digits that are associated with the
`
`caller as being numbers for “private trunk network access” or “escape to the PSTN.”
`
`EX1003 at 12:44-67. If the Directory Server recognizes such a code/digit, it returns
`
`the caller and callee numbers to the call agent, and the call agent recognizes the
`
`code/digit. Id. Then, the call agent sends a request to the appropriate gateway to
`
`route the call. Id.
`
`44. Once the call is classified as a public network call (e.g., internal
`
`gateway or IP network call) or a public network (e.g., PTSN) call, the call agent
`
`composes and sends gateway instructions to route the private network or public
`
`network call. EX1003 at 9:57-63, 10:12-22, 12:44-67, FIGS. 4B, 4C (reproduced
`
`below).
`
`
`
`Page 22 of 84
`
`
`
`Ffitfl SYEP I16
`
`-I78
`
` MATCHING
`
`IPR20l6-01082
`
`U.S. Patent 8,542,815
`
`..a Network
`
`@ Call
`_
`_
`... ‘@> "°
`°
`E ______________
`Bowun MAME SERVER
`~ sewn A oueav
`I
`‘
`TO Dowun
`I
`.
`.
`um: sznven
`.
`
`K ,3‘
`
`.
`
`,
`
`I
`.
`we .
`.
`
`I
`,
`
`.
`.....
`
`mmsum:
`PROTOCOL
`romvemzl
`ADDRESS
`
`I
`
`:
`
`188
`
`SEND SETUP
`
`IIBT RUCTDNS
`IO GAIEWAV I
`
`100
`
`
`
`
`
`I.
`-
`
`II
`
`_ _ _ ' ' _ > ’ ' ' ‘ _ _ _ _
`
`FIG- 43
`
`Public
`
`SEND
`
`up
`
`..3c.m.b..$a.
`(PSTN)
`4
`Network
`CaH
`
`
`
`| M cnrwlw
`\
`'
`K-— 194
`exrmmr PSIN
`-3: rs an
`uesrmanou
`
`we —
`
`\ ves
`urnv omen
`NETWORKS no
`oer RESPONSE
`,2.
`
`‘E5
`I
`'
`
`
`
`N
`
`o
`
`we-
`
`on
`\\/N0
`
`
`
`FIG. 40
`
`45.
`
`If the call can be processed internally and thus is classified as a
`
`private network call, the call agent sends setup instructions to the gateway, id. at
`
`FIG. 4B step 186, by composing a local IP address where the callee is located. Id.
`
`at 10:12-22- The call agent then sends the setup instructions to the gateway to route
`
`the call to the callee in the internal network. Id.
`
`46.
`
`If the call is classified as a public network call, such as a call that will
`
`be routed through the PSTN or to a PSTN destination, then the call agent sends
`
`instructions to the trunk gateway to set up the call using the PSTN. EX1003 at
`
`9:57-63, 12:44-67, FIG- 4C step 193.
`
`Page 23 of 84
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01082
`U.S. Patent 8,542,815
`I read, assisted in drafting, and agree with the claim chart in Appendix
`
`47.
`
`B (as included in the petition), and as further explained in Appendix B, it is my
`
`opinion that Turner discloses every element of claims 1, 2, 7, 27, 28, 29, 34, 54, 72,
`
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
