Henry Houh, Ph.D., Vol. II, 1/26/2017
`Apple Inc. v. Voip-Pal.Com, Inc.
`
` UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
` BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`APPLE INC., )
` )
` Petitioner, )
` ) Case No. IPR2016-01201
` vs. )
` ) U.S. Patent 8,542,815
`VOIP-PAL.COM, INC., )
` )
` Patent Owner. )
`
` DEPOSITION OF HENRY HOUH
` VOLUME II
` TAKEN ON BEHALF OF THE PATENT OWNER
` JANUARY 26, 2017
`
`ADVANCED DEPOSITIONS
`www.advanceddepositions.com | 855.811.3376
`
`129
`
`Voip-Pal Ex. 2044
`IPR2016-01201
`
`
`Apple Inc. v. Voip-Pal.Com, Inc.
`
` UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
` BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`APPLE INC., )
` )
` Petitioner, )
` ) Case No. IPR2016-01201
` vs. )
` ) U.S. Patent 8,542,815
`VOIP-PAL.COM, INC., )
` )
` Patent Owner. )
`
` DEPOSITION OF HENRY HOUH
` VOLUME II
` TAKEN ON BEHALF OF THE PATENT OWNER
` JANUARY 26, 2017
`
`ADVANCED DEPOSITIONS
`www.advanceddepositions.com | 855.811.3376
`
`129
`
`Voip-Pal Ex. 2044
`IPR2016-01201
`
`
`
`Henry Houh, Ph.D., Vol. II, 1/26/2017
`Apple Inc. v. Voip-Pal.Com, Inc.
`
` I N D E X
` WITNESS: PAGE
` HENRY HOUH
` EXAMINATION BY MR. THOMAS 133
`
` E X H I B I T S
`
` (No exhibits were marked.)
`
`ADVANCED DEPOSITIONS
`www.advanceddepositions.com | 855.811.3376
`
`130
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`
`56
`
`78
`
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`
`
`Henry Houh, Ph.D., Vol. II, 1/26/2017
`Apple Inc. v. Voip-Pal.Com, Inc.
`
` UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
` BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
` APPLE INC., )
` )
` Petitioner, )
` ) Case No. IPR2016-01201
` vs. )
` ) U.S. Patent 8,542,815
` VOIP-PAL.COM, INC., )
` )
` Patent Owner. )
`
` TELEPHONIC DEPOSITION OF HENRY HOUH,
`produced, sworn and examined on January 26, 2017, at
`the offices of Erise IP, P.A., 6201 College Boulevard,
`Suite 300, Overland Park, Kansas 66211, before Lauren
`N. Lawrence, RPR, KS CCR, and Notary Public within and
`for the State of Missouri, in a certain cause now
`pending in the United States Patent and Trademark
`Office before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board
`between APPLE INC., Petitioner, vs. VOIP-PAL.COM,
`INC., Patent Owner; on behalf of the Patent Owner.
`
`ADVANCED DEPOSITIONS
`www.advanceddepositions.com | 855.811.3376
`
`131
`
`1
`2
`
`34
`
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`
`
`Henry Houh, Ph.D., Vol. II, 1/26/2017
`Apple Inc. v. Voip-Pal.Com, Inc.
`
` A P P E A R A N C E S
`
`APPEARING FOR THE PETITIONER:
` Mr. Adam P. Seitz
` Mr. Paul R. Hart
` ERISE IP, P.A.
` 6201 College Boulevard
` Suite 300
` Overland Park, Kansas 66211
` 913.777.5600
` adam.seitz@eriseip.com
` paul.hart@eriseip.com
`APPEARING TELEPHONICALLY FOR THE PATENT OWNER:
` Mr. Ryan L. Thomas
` Mr. David A. Gileff
` VOIP-PAL.COM
` 2740 E 1700 N
` Layton, Utah 84040
` 435.630.6005
` thomasattorney711@gmail.com
` Mr. Kerry Taylor
` KNOBBE, MARTENS, OLSON & BEAR, LLP
` 2040 Main Street, 14th Floor
` Irvine, California 92614
` 858.707.4000
` kerry.taylor@knobbe.com
`
`Court Reporter:
`Lauren N. Lawrence, RPR, KS CCR
`Missouri Notary Public
`Midwest Litigation Services
`1301 Oak Street, Suite B
`Kansas City, Missouri 64106
`816-221-1160
`1-800-280-3376
`
`ADVANCED DEPOSITIONS
`www.advanceddepositions.com | 855.811.3376
`
`132
`
`1
`
`23
`
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`
`
`Henry Houh, Ph.D., Vol. II, 1/26/2017
`Apple Inc. v. Voip-Pal.Com, Inc.
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
` IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED by and between
`counsel for the Petitioner and counsel for the
`Patent Owner that this deposition may be taken in
`shorthand by Lauren N. Lawrence, a Registered
`Professional Reporter and Missouri Notary Public, and
`afterwards transcribed into typewriting; and the
`signature of the witness is expressly reserved.
` * * * * *
` (Deposition commenced at 10:01 a.m.)
` HENRY HOUH,
`having been first duly sworn and examined on behalf of
` the Petitioner, testified as follows:
` EXAMINATION
`BY MR. THOMAS:
` Q. Good morning, Dr. Houh. Yesterday you
`testified about what happens in Figure 6 of the
`Chu '366 patent. And as I recall, you used the
`example of 202 as you walked us through that.
` Do you recall that?
` A. 202? Oh, an extension.
` Q. Yes. That was -- that was the number that
`you used as -- the extension number that you used as
`an example.
` A. Sure.
` Q. If you would, please, turn to Figure 6 of
`133
`
`ADVANCED DEPOSITIONS
`www.advanceddepositions.com | 855.811.3376
`
`
`
`Henry Houh, Ph.D., Vol. II, 1/26/2017
`Apple Inc. v. Voip-Pal.Com, Inc.
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`Chu '366. And, if you could walk us through another
`example, suppose someone dials the extension 101.
`Could you walk through Figure 6 and tell me what would
`happen with 101?
` A. Well, to my understanding, many PBX
`systems -- many people avoid extensions starting with
`one because there -- in a PBX system, there --
`there -- and I'm just speaking generally here, just to
`tell you -- talk about extension numbering --
` Q. Right.
` A. -- in PBX systems.
` Because one can often be confused for the
`national dial digit. And even though most --
` Q. Yes.
` A. -- many PBXs require a user to dial nine
`before they dial one, it's still somewhat confusing at
`times. So -- so having said that, you know, in -- in
`this particular example, something starting with a
`one -- let's look at -- let's look at the description
`of Figure 6. So I'm just trying to flip through the
`'366 patent to look for the description of Figure 6.
` Q. Thank you.
` A. So as I stated before, I'm going to direct
`you to the '366 patent at column 10. We'll just look
`at line --
`
`134
`
`ADVANCED DEPOSITIONS
`www.advanceddepositions.com | 855.811.3376
`
`
`
`Henry Houh, Ph.D., Vol. II, 1/26/2017
`Apple Inc. v. Voip-Pal.Com, Inc.
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
` Q. Okay.
` A. -- starting at line 4. And as I stated,
`dial plans typically would not -- may not -- I mean,
`some may. Some may not. But when we built our PBX
`system at the company, I was at -- I believe everyone
`had a 2- -- 200 extension -- that is 200, 201, 202 --
`partly for the reason of -- of avoiding certain
`confusion.
` For example, you wouldn't want to have 900
`extensions, if nine is the line to get out. And that
`could be reassigned, but you wouldn't want to assign
`anyone with the extension 911, for example. And so
`there are --
` Q. Right.
` A. -- lots of things that are -- are --
`generally, when people operate these systems, they try
`to avoid certain things that could be considered
`ambiguous. So in this --
` Q. Would that be true of 411 as well, for
`example? I'm just trying to think of a -- something
`else. 411, which is the local telephone directory in
`many areas -- so a 911, 411, 101.
` Are there others that would be problematic?
` A. I mean, it depends -- I think it really
`depends on a number of issues. You know, this is
`
`135
`
`ADVANCED DEPOSITIONS
`www.advanceddepositions.com | 855.811.3376
`
`
`
`Henry Houh, Ph.D., Vol. II, 1/26/2017
`Apple Inc. v. Voip-Pal.Com, Inc.
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`speaking not within this context, but when we were
`building the system, there was -- I don't remember if
`we had the date [phonetic] or the product manager just
`knew, but I still don't remember which way it went,
`but if one dialed 9-911, obviously that would be a
`91- -- if nine was the extension to get an outside
`line, but I don't remember what happened if someone
`dialed 911 without the nine. And I think it was
`the --
` Q. Okay.
` A. -- fact that, you know, if an outside user
`came into the system and had to have an emergency and
`dialed 911, you actually wanted the system to connect
`to 911 even though the real way to dial 911 is to dial
`9-911, for example.
` Q. Right.
` A. So it goes to the heart of this familiar
`dialing interface as we've been talking about, but
`there are, you know, in -- in the system of the -- of
`the '366, if we want to take it literally, with the
`description here, if you look at Figure [[sic]] 10,
`line 4 --
` Q. Yes.
` A. -- it -- it says that if it "does not
`detect an NDD prefix in step 166" -- so if you happen
`136
`
`ADVANCED DEPOSITIONS
`www.advanceddepositions.com | 855.811.3376
`
`
`
`Henry Houh, Ph.D., Vol. II, 1/26/2017
`Apple Inc. v. Voip-Pal.Com, Inc.
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`to be in the U.S., it -- where the -- the national
`dial dig- -- the NDD prefix is one, you know, you dial
`one and then a ten-digit number. That would
`traditionally --
` Q. Yes.
` A. -- signal the telephone switch, that what
`follows is a long-distance, ten-digit number. In
`this -- if it does not detect it, "the engine 102 next
`determines whether the entered telephone number is
`equal in length to the national length of the country
`set as the call origin location in step 172." And so
`in the case of --
` Q. Yes.
` A. -- 101, the number is not equal to the
`length of the national dial digit, so -- so it
`presumably would then drop down through no to 172,
`176, and then, again, "Send Number As Is." So there's
`enough description here in line [[sic]] 10 where
`the -- the -- the Chu '366 inventors sought to -- to
`check against the national dial digit, even if you --
`you have extensions with one.
` So I think if you combine this with all the
`teachings that are -- are therein, that even when
`one -- a simple 101, it does drop through to --
`eventually to box 178, "Send Number As Is." But, you
`137
`
`ADVANCED DEPOSITIONS
`www.advanceddepositions.com | 855.811.3376
`
`
`
`Henry Houh, Ph.D., Vol. II, 1/26/2017
`Apple Inc. v. Voip-Pal.Com, Inc.
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`know, I understand that, you know, there are systems
`where -- you know, and -- and certainly the
`combination, the 101, works fine in -- in this
`combination of '36- --
` Q. So -- so step 166 would succeed, again,
`dropping down -- so you hit step 166 -- because 101
`starts with the national dialing digit, wouldn't it
`move then to the yes, 168 --
` A. Well --
` Q. -- and then strip that --
` A. If --
` Q. I'm just trying to --
` A. -- if you look at the -- the citation that
`I just read to you in column 10 of --
` Q. Yes.
` A. -- the '366, starting at line 4 --
` Q. Right.
` A. -- the figure --
` Q. Yes.
` A. Certainly, the figure says "NDD Prefix,"
`but there's more description of what that test
`actually is. And the test in line 10 -- column 10,
`starting at line 4, is that the -- if -- oh -- if
`it -- if it -- okay. But it still teaches that you --
`the number really has to -- if you start with a one
`
`138
`
`ADVANCED DEPOSITIONS
`www.advanceddepositions.com | 855.811.3376
`
`
`
`Henry Houh, Ph.D., Vol. II, 1/26/2017
`Apple Inc. v. Voip-Pal.Com, Inc.
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`and you didn't dial a full ten-digit number, it's
`checking whether --
` Q. Yes.
` A. -- the telephone number is equal in length
`to the national length of the country.
` So if you dialed -- if you didn't have --
`if you didn't have a full national number that made
`sense -- i.e., if you had a number starting with one
`and you had already collected all the digits and
`you -- and you knew that it wasn't 11 digits long, it
`would not make sense to -- for the answer to be yes,
`to -- to complete the call as if the number were a
`full, you know, 11 -- one plus ten-digit national
`number.
` So, certainly, anyone -- one of ordinary
`skill in the art, this would teach that person that a
`101 would not succeed as you -- I think you implied in
`your question. But it would go to the N- -- the no
`branch, NDD prefix, as I stated earlier, so that it
`would be no. I mean, there is a prefix, but the
`number doesn't make sense as a national dial --
`national number. The one plus ten-digit number for
`the U.S., for example.
` And so 101 certainly would not be thought
`of as -- as even a national number. So, I mean, I --
`139
`
`ADVANCED DEPOSITIONS
`www.advanceddepositions.com | 855.811.3376
`
`
`
`Henry Houh, Ph.D., Vol. II, 1/26/2017
`Apple Inc. v. Voip-Pal.Com, Inc.
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`I don't think that's necessarily -- you know, as I
`stated, people may want to avoid 100-type
`extensions for -- for similar reasons or for other
`reasons as well.
` But the fact that -- that -- that -- that
`the other extension assignments can work fine, I don't
`think it -- you know, as I've talked about, the other
`combinations work. And even the 100 extension in this
`particular case, this would teach one of ordinary
`skill in the art that a 101 is certainly not a
`national dial digit and wouldn't go through that path
`of yes to the right of 166.
` Q. Okay. So is Figure 6 only intended to be
`used for PSTN numbers and not for PBX extensions,
`or -- or is that a special case?
` MR. HART: Object to form.
` A. Well, I -- I think in the combination of
`the Chu '366 and the Chu '684, you know, in that case
`there -- there are PBX numbers -- PBX internal numbers
`and on-net numbers that are outside of a particular
`PBX and calls to the PSTN.
` And so, certainly, in the combination of
`these two, one of ordinary skill in the art -- it --
`it -- it's the combination of the two that, as I've
`said, the algorithm in step -- in Figure 6 and the
`
`140
`
`ADVANCED DEPOSITIONS
`www.advanceddepositions.com | 855.811.3376
`
`
`
`Henry Houh, Ph.D., Vol. II, 1/26/2017
`Apple Inc. v. Voip-Pal.Com, Inc.
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`descriptions therein, you know, as -- as it's
`described in -- in the Chu '366 patent, certainly, can
`be used for the reformatting of a number before the
`step 608 in the Chu '684 patent.
` And so whether or not the individual one is
`intended for PBX use, it's -- it's not -- the Chu '366
`by itself is directed towards just number reformatting
`of these types of -- of numbers, but it has these
`customized rules and checks for minimum local number
`length down at the bottom. And I believe -- let me
`find a reference. I think -- because they do talk
`about 411, 911, I believe, in the '366, if I can find
`you the citation.
` Q. (By Mr. Thomas) I -- I think it's on
`column 10, perhaps, a little further down. 29
`through -- oh, let's see -- 40 -- 41. See if that's
`the one that you're thinking of.
` A. Yes. That's at least part of what I was
`thinking about. Thank you.
` So, for example, you want those
`three-digit -- 411s, 911s to fall through. And so
`they would fall through as a placed call at 190 as
`well. And -- and so --
` Q. What -- how about -- sorry. Sorry. Please
`go ahead.
`
`141
`
`ADVANCED DEPOSITIONS
`www.advanceddepositions.com | 855.811.3376
`
`
`
`Henry Houh, Ph.D., Vol. II, 1/26/2017
`Apple Inc. v. Voip-Pal.Com, Inc.
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
` A. So, you know, there's enough in Figure 6,
`as we talked about, these three digit numbers would --
`would go to "Send Number As Is," 178 and then fall
`through to 190, "Place Call." And as I stated
`earlier, that -- that "Place Call" is really feeding
`the numbers into the step 608 of the Chu '684 patent.
` Q. Okay. So steps 176 and 178 in this, they
`would handle the special numbers such as 411, 911.
`Is -- is that a correct characterization?
` A. I mean, you know, as I described earlier,
`the three -- the numbers -- you know, if you look at
`the description of 176, in that paragraph you spoke
`about, column 10 in '366 at line 37, it says here,
`"Accordingly, in step 176, engine 102 detects whether
`the number length of the entered telephone number is
`less than the minimum local length for the country or
`area designated by the call origin location. If so,
`engine 102 sends that number as" in -- "as is in
`step 178, and the call is placed in step 190."
` And -- and that's right after describing
`411 and 911 in the same paragraph. I guess, I should
`have started --
` Q. Right.
` A. -- four lines up.
` But -- but that's where 411 and 911 and any
`142
`
`ADVANCED DEPOSITIONS
`www.advanceddepositions.com | 855.811.3376
`
`
`
`Henry Houh, Ph.D., Vol. II, 1/26/2017
`Apple Inc. v. Voip-Pal.Com, Inc.
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`other three- or four- or five-digit numbers that are
`less than the minimum local length of telephone
`numbers for -- in the U.S. would be seven digits. And
`so six-digit numbers would fall through that way.
`Five-digit numbers would fall through that way.
`Four-, three-, even two-digit numbers would go through
`the route --
` Q. Thank --
` A. -- 176 and 178.
` Q. Thank you.
` Could you please turn to Table 1 that
`starts in column 6 and continues to the top of
`column 7 in Chu '366?
` A. Yes, I see it.
` Q. Okay. Could you please refer to the entry
`for Germany, and the country code for Germany in that
`table, I believe, is 49, and the IDD prefix is 00.
` A. I see that.
` Q. So if we return to Figure 6, assuming that
`the -- the settings are set for the country of Germany
`and the user has dialed an extension 2-002, how would
`that be handled in Figure 6?
` A. Well, I mean, let me just say this:
` You're talking about all sorts of
`variations and all sorts of country codes, and it --
`143
`
`ADVANCED DEPOSITIONS
`www.advanceddepositions.com | 855.811.3376
`
`
`
`Henry Houh, Ph.D., Vol. II, 1/26/2017
`Apple Inc. v. Voip-Pal.Com, Inc.
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`it does say in Germany that the minimum local length
`is 4. And so in -- in that particular case, it -- you
`know, in that particular case, one of ordinary skill
`in the art would want to figure out how to resolve
`certain of these situations, and -- and it appears
`that that particular number would be considered a
`local call, in which case other steps in Figure 6
`would happen. But that doesn't mean this combination
`doesn't work. It works totally fine within boundaries
`of -- of understanding these kinds of issues.
` And so if one were a PBX manufacturer in
`Germany, one would probably limit the extensions to
`three-digit extensions or have another dial plan. For
`example, forcing one to dial a certain way for
`internal calls versus external calls, such as what
`many PBXs do, which requires one to dial nine. But
`one may require someone to dial eight before dialing
`an internal extension, for example. That happens to
`be that four-digit thing.
` So there -- it's the combination --
`remember, it's the combination of the Chu '684 with
`the -- with the Chu '366. And the one who
`understands -- the person of ordinary skill in the art
`understands what's required in PBXs and in local
`dial- -- dialing. And so they would be able to
`
`144
`
`ADVANCED DEPOSITIONS
`www.advanceddepositions.com | 855.811.3376
`
`
`
`Henry Houh, Ph.D., Vol. II, 1/26/2017
`Apple Inc. v. Voip-Pal.Com, Inc.
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`combine these in a way that can work.
` Q. I appreciate that, and -- and I understand
`that your addressing the combination. I'm trying to
`simply understand the role that Chu '366 plays in that
`combination relative to the circumstances that I've
`suggested.
` The -- is it a characteristic of the
`reformatting step in your proposed combination --
`let's go to the combination now -- of '366 and
`Chu '684 to not change private numbers but to leave
`them unchanged?
` MR. HART: Object to form.
` A. I'm sorry. I -- I couldn't quite
`understand your -- the whole question there.
`Actually, I think I missed it -- the middle part of
`it. It -- I heard you, but I --
` Q. (By Mr. Thomas) Okay. Yeah. Let me try
`it again.
` Is it a characteristic of the reformatting
`step in the proposed combination of Chu '366 and Chu
`'684 to not change private numbers but to leave them
`unchanged?
` A. I mean, that was -- for the private
`numbers -- for example, extension 202 -- that was an
`example of a way that it could still dial with 202
`
`145
`
`ADVANCED DEPOSITIONS
`www.advanceddepositions.com | 855.811.3376
`
`
`
`Henry Houh, Ph.D., Vol. II, 1/26/2017
`Apple Inc. v. Voip-Pal.Com, Inc.
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`with a three-digit extension in the U.S. I mean, I
`was thinking of the U.S. in that case, certainly,
`where the -- the extension length was less than the
`minimum local number length. And so, certainly, if
`one -- if one dialed 202 in the system of -- of the
`Chu '684, in just the Chu '684, and it was a valid
`local extension, one would expect that the phone 202
`would ring with respect to dialing that number.
` And even in the combination, as I stated,
`the 202 dialing falls through and is used to dial
`directly. So even in the combination, it would -- it
`would ring in the case of extension 202 where that's
`less than the minimum local dialing length for that
`country.
` Q. You just mentioned, and as I recall, you
`mentioned yesterday that, in some systems, a prefix
`digit, like nine, is used to distinguish PSTN numbers
`from private numbers. Is -- is the use of a prefix
`digit a solution to allow PBX extensions to pass
`through the reformatting step unchanged without having
`them corrupted or turned into inappropriate numbers or
`being misinterpreted as PSTN numbers?
` MR. HART: Object to form.
` A. In -- in the -- in the early days of PBX --
`I'm speaking generally now -- the outside -- in a PBX
`146
`
`ADVANCED DEPOSITIONS
`www.advanceddepositions.com | 855.811.3376
`
`
`
`Henry Houh, Ph.D., Vol. II, 1/26/2017
`Apple Inc. v. Voip-Pal.Com, Inc.
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`system, there are a small number of outside lines that
`amount to a large number of internal phone -- phones.
`And so that -- it's a way of -- I mean, one thing that
`happens is that, you know, every -- everybody in an
`office isn't talking on a phone all the time, and so
`every person doesn't need to have a line dedicated to
`their phone. And so it was a way of -- it was a way
`of saving costs because every phone line that one has
`into an office typically costs some amount of money
`per month. And so if one had 50 people in an office,
`one didn't need to buy 50 phone lines, but buying a
`PBX allowed that office to share maybe ten outside
`lines with the 50 people internally.
` And the -- the -- I think part of the
`reason that -- that there was this nine -- dial nine
`first was that a nine told the PBX system to seize an
`outside line and connect -- and -- and in the early
`days of PBXs, dialing nine would actually connect that
`user's phone directly to the outside line, as if
`someone -- as if a phone on the outside line connected
`directly had been picked up, and -- and one would then
`get the dial tone pass from the central office to the
`PBX extension, when one dialed nine. And so there was
`a lot of reasons for that.
` So, say, the 11th person wanted to dial an
`147
`
`ADVANCED DEPOSITIONS
`www.advanceddepositions.com | 855.811.3376
`
`
`
`Henry Houh, Ph.D., Vol. II, 1/26/2017
`Apple Inc. v. Voip-Pal.Com, Inc.
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`outside phone, but there were already ten -- ten phone
`lines in use. Then when one dialed nine, the PBX
`could signal the phone that it was busy. You know, so
`you'd get a busy signal because there wasn't -- there
`weren't any lines available.
` So, you know, when -- when one creates a
`dial plan as a user, one would not create ambiguous
`dial plans -- or dial plan numbers so that, you know,
`maybe the same number could be misinterpreted as
`two -- two different things. And so people -- people
`know this and PBX manufacturers know this as well.
`And so I think in our phone system that we built, I
`don't think -- I think we could change the -- the
`outside line prefix, but it was not to any digit
`necessarily. And, you know, people need some options
`or would like options, but they don't always need it
`for total flexibility.
` And, I believe, the internal dialing
`extensions could also be in a range too. I think two,
`three, or four digits or start with a two, three,
`four, or something like that, but not with a nine or
`an eight or a one or -- I -- I don't remember exactly
`what we had, but, certainly, PBX manufacturers don't
`want to allow customers to create ambiguous numbers
`that could be either outside or inside, and the phone
`148
`
`ADVANCED DEPOSITIONS
`www.advanceddepositions.com | 855.811.3376
`
`
`
`Henry Houh, Ph.D., Vol. II, 1/26/2017
`Apple Inc. v. Voip-Pal.Com, Inc.
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`system can't tell.
` So people actually do build systems that
`work, and one of ordinary skill in the art, even
`looking at a combination of the two, would build a
`system that could work for, you know, Germany versus
`the U.S. And maybe they have different software loads
`so -- to deal with, you know, the different number of
`local dial digits, for example.
` So I mean, people are -- people of ordinary
`skill in the art have normal creativity in -- in that
`they -- they -- they have the experience as I've
`outlined in my declaration, and they would be able to
`build a system that would work in -- in Germany and
`for the U.S., for example.
` Q. (By Mr. Thomas) So that I understand
`clearly that explanation, could we look at Figure 6 in
`Chen and try to work a -- an extension through that?
`Are you there? I don't want to ask the question
`before --
` A. Yes, I'm here.
` Q. Okay, great.
` So with Figure 6 of Chen, what would happen
`if we used an extension 202? I think you indicated
`that typically two was an available number. What
`would happen with 202 in Chen?
`
`149
`
`ADVANCED DEPOSITIONS
`www.advanceddepositions.com | 855.811.3376
`
`
`
`Henry Houh, Ph.D., Vol. II, 1/26/2017
`Apple Inc. v. Voip-Pal.Com, Inc.
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
` MR. HART: Object to form.
` A. So if you look at the system of -- sorry --
`Figure 6 the Chen '919 Application Publication, there
`is a -- a scenario where very small numbers -- I'm
`looking at 605 -- let me look at 605. I'm looking for
`the description of 605 in -- in the specification.
` Q. (By Mr. Thomas) Let's see.
` A. So I'm looking at paragraph 37, so that --
`to make sure I understand. I'm also looking for the
`definition of IDD prefix A --
` Q. Okay.
` A. -- which I have in my mind, but I want to
`find the -- the section that -- that does talk about
`it.
` Q. Is that a -- paragraph 11, is that -- I'm
`just trying to find it. That's what it appears to me
`to be; is that correct?
` A. Let me take a look at 11. Thank you for
`the pointer.
` Well, I was specifically looking for what
`it meant with suffix -- suffix A, but let me just tell
`you how one of ordinary skill in the art would read
`this --
` Q. Okay.
` A. -- which is that -- that step in 30 --
`
`150
`
`ADVANCED DEPOSITIONS
`www.advanceddepositions.com | 855.811.3376
`
`
`
`Henry Houh, Ph.D., Vol. II, 1/26/2017
`Apple Inc. v. Voip-Pal.Com, Inc.
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`paragraph 36 of the Chen. 36?
` Q. Yes.
` A. Oh, it's the NDD I'm looking for or
`step 605.
` Q. Okay.
` A. It's paragraph 38.
` Q. Okay.
` A. So, basically, it's -- it's is -- is the
`dialing number a valid full international number at
`602? If not, it -- it -- if it's less than the
`length, it gets discarded here, and then that's the
`length of the IDD prefix, itself. Does the NDD prefix
`match? And in 202, the -- the prefix length in -- in
`that case would be a one. So it's -- the 202 is not
`less than the length. And is it the national dialing
`digit prefix here? And let's see 606.
` And so this -- this number -- this number
`is -- is not the -- like a 202 would fall through down
`to, I think, step 608 in this case, but we're not
`looking at the combination of Chu '684 and -- and
`Chu -- sorry, and this Chen reference.
` And in that combination, while the local
`numbers, as we talked about, I think, yesterday -- did
`we talk about falling through to step 608? I believe
`we did. And, clearly, you would only generate this
`
`151
`
`ADVANCED DEPOSITIONS
`www.advanceddepositions.com | 855.811.3376
`
`
`
`Henry Houh, Ph.D., Vol. II, 1/26/2017
`Apple Inc. v. Voip-Pal.Com, Inc.
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`phone number by inserting the country code and area
`code if the remaining digits actually matched the --
`the length of the local dialing plan. And so,
`clearly, 202 in the U.S. doesn't. And so one of
`ordinary skill in the art -- in combination, this is a
`very simple combination to make -- in this case, would
`understand that combining the -- the Chen reference
`with the Chu '684, there are cases that are -- that
`are these private numbers and could then preserve the
`private number to -- to the system in step 608 because
`it knows that doing what simply -- sorry -- there are
`now two step 608s that are very confusing. The
`step 608 in Chen is different than the step 608 in
`Chu '684. And so it's the step 608 where -- in -- in
`the '684 which rece- -- let me just refer back to that
`again. In column 8 on the Chu '684, at line 65 --
` Q. Uh-huh.
` A. -- it's -- it's -- that's a step 608.
`"After receiving all the dialed digits from the
`phone 101, server 110 consults its dial plan to
`determine whether the call is local to another on-net
`phone or to a phone that is on the PSTN."
` And that's the step, taking this output of
`Figure 6, as this described, but with -- with taking
`the -- the -- the upper algorithm, and then
`
`152
`
`ADVANCED DEPOSITIONS
`www.advanceddepositions.com | 855.811.3376
`
`
`
`Henry Houh, Ph.D., Vol. II, 1/26/2017
`Apple Inc. v. Voip-Pal.Com, Inc.
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`recognizing that -- that the PBX numbers in the
`combination are less than the length of the local dial
`plan requirement. Like, seven digits in the U.S.,
`that -- that would be a private PBX number and treat
`it so in the combination.
` So that's a very straightforward step that
`one of ordinary skill in the art would be able to make
`and would make in making the combination so that this
`combination object to form Chu '684 and Chen would
`work for both private numbers and local numbers and
`international numbers, for example.
` Q. Okay. So just so that I'm clear, Chen by
`itself, doesn't deal with that. It would only be in
`combination with '684 -- Chu '684 that -- that that
`would work; is that correct?
` A. Well, that is the combination that I've
`discussed in my petition, in -- in my declaration and
`as is discussed in the petition, that is the -- the
`combination that renders the challenged claims
`obvious. So it is the combination of both, and the
`combination can be readily made by one of ordinary
`skill in the art. There are -- there are -- it's
`entirely predictable it would happen when one -- one
`of ordinary skill in the art would make that
`combination, and it -- it works just fine. And it
`
`153
`
`ADVANCED DEPOSITIONS
`www.advanceddepositions.com | 855.811.3376
`
`
`
`Henry Houh, Ph.D., Vol. II, 1/26/2017
`Apple Inc. v. Voip-Pal.Com, Inc.
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`wouldn't require undue experimentation to get it to
`work because it's known that a private numbering plan
`might be three extensions, and is a local -- a local
`number might be seven digits. I -- I think I said
`"three extensions," but I meant three digits for a
`local dialing plan and, for example, in the U.S.,
`seven digits for a local phone number.
` Q. Speaking to the combination of Chu '684 and
`Chen, is it a characteristic of the reformatting step
`in the proposed combination to not change private
`numbers, but to leave them basically as is, unchanged?
` MR. HART: Object to form.
` A. I mean, you know,
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
