`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`________________
`
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`________________
`
`CISCO SYSTEMS, INC.,
`
`Petitioner
`
`
`v.
`
`
`FOCAL IP, LLC,
`
`Patent Owner
`
`________________
`
`Case IPR2016-01254
`Patent Number: 8,457,113
`________________
`
`
`
`PATENT OWNER FOCAL IP, LLC’S RESPONSE TO PETITION
`FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case IPR2016-01254
`Patent 8,457,113
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Paper No. 25
`
`
`
`I. 
`
`II. 
`
`III. 
`
`A. 
`
`B. 
`
`IV. 
`
`A. 
`
`B. 
`
`C. 
`
`D. 
`
`V. 
`
`A. 
`
`B. 
`
`C. 
`
`VI. 
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`INTRODUCTION .................................................................................. 1
`
`SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT .............................................................. 1
`
`DISCUSSION OF THE PSTN AND OVERVIEW OF THE ’113
`PATENT ................................................................................................. 3
`
`Overview of the PSTN ........................................................................... 3
`
`The ’113 Patent ....................................................................................... 8
`
`The ’113 Patent Contains an Unmistakable Disclaimer of Subject Matter
`and Claim Scope for Call Controllers Connected to an Edge Switch or
`Edge Device. ......................................................................................... 10
`
`Disparaging the Prior Art is Sufficient to Disclaim Claim Scope. ....... 10
`
`Disclaimer in the ’113 Patent ............................................................... 13
`
`The Prosecution History Confirms and Reinforces the Disclaimer and
`Does Not Provide a Basis to Rescind the Plain Disclaimer from the
`Specification ......................................................................................... 19
`
`Scope of General Disclaimer ................................................................ 27
`
`CLAIM CONSTRUCTION .................................................................. 28
`
`Legal Standards for Claim Construction - Broadest Reasonable
`Interpretation (“BRI”) ........................................................................... 28
`
`“Switching Facility” ............................................................................. 29
`
`“Call Processing System” ..................................................................... 34
`
`SUMMARY OF THE REFERENCES ................................................. 34
`
`ii
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case IPR2016-01254
`Patent 8,457,113
`
`
`
`
`Paper No. 25
`
`State of the Art ...................................................................................... 34
`
`Summary of Burger .............................................................................. 35
`
`Summary of Archer .............................................................................. 38
`
`ARGUMENTS ...................................................................................... 40
`
`Burger and Archer Do Not Disclose That the Web-Enabled Processing
`System Establishes Voice Communication Between the Calling Party
`and the Called Party. ............................................................................. 40
`
`Burger Does Not Disclose Establishing Voice Communication
`Across Both the Circuit-Switched Network and the Packet
`Network .......................................................................................... 41
`
`Archer Does Not Disclose that the Web-Enabled Processing System
`Establishes Voice Communication ................................................ 44
`
`Petitioner Has Not Met Its Burden under Grounds 1 and 2 Because
`Burger and Alexander Do Not Show a Processing System Coupled to a
`Switching Facility ................................................................................. 48
`
`Petitioner’s Theory No. 1 ............................................................... 49
`
`Petitioner’s Theory No. 2 ............................................................... 51
`
`Petitioner’s Theory No. 3 ............................................................... 53
`
`Petitioner’s Theory No. 4 ............................................................... 53
`
`Petitioner’s Theory No. 5 ............................................................... 54
`
`Petitioner Has Not Met Its Burden under Grounds 3 and 4 Because
`Archer and Chang Do Not Show a Processing System Coupled to a
`Switching Facility ................................................................................. 57
`
`iii
`
`
`
`A. 
`
`B. 
`
`C. 
`
`VII. 
`
`A. 
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1. 
`
`
`2. 
`
`
`
`B. 
`
`
`1. 
`
`2. 
`
`3. 
`
`4. 
`
`5. 
`
`
`C. 
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case IPR2016-01254
`Patent 8,457,113
`
`
`
`
`Paper No. 25
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s Theory No. 1 ............................................................... 57
`
`Petitioner’s Theory No. 2 ............................................................... 59
`
`Petitioner’s Theory No. 3 ............................................................... 60
`
`Petitioner’s Theory No. 4 ............................................................... 61
`
`CONCLUSION ..................................................................................... 62 
`
`
`
`iv
`
`1. 
`
`2. 
`
`3. 
`
`4. 
`
`
`
`
`
`
`VIII. 
`
`

`

`Case IPR2016-01254
`Patent 8,457,113
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Paper No. 25
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`Cases:
`
`Akamai Techs., Inc. v. Limelight Networks, Inc.,
`629 F.3d 1311 (Fed. Cir. 2010) ........................................................................... 13
`
` 
`Akamai Techs., Inc. v. Limelight Networks, Inc.,
`419 F. App’x 989 (Fed. Cir. 2011) ..................................................................... 13
`
`
`Akamai Techs., Inc. v. Limelight Networks, Inc.,
`805 F.3d 1368 (Fed. Cir. 2015) ........................................................................... 13
`
`
`Ariosa Diagnostics v. Verinata Health, Inc.,
`805 F.3d 1359 (Fed. Cir. 2015) ........................................................................... 48
`
`
`Bicon, Inc. v. Straumann Co.,
`441 F.3d 945 (Fed. Cir. 2006) ............................................................................. 30
`
`
`Biogen, Inc. v. Berlex Labs., Inc.,
`318 F.3d 1132 (Fed. Cir. 2003) ........................................................................... 13
`
`
`Chi. Bd. Options Exch., Inc. v. Int’l Secs. Exch., LLC,
`677 F.3d 1361 (Fed. Cir. 2014) ...................................................................... 10-11
`
`
`Edmund Optics, Inc. v. Semrock, Inc.,
`Case IPR2014-00599, Paper 72 (PTAB Sept. 16, 2015) .................................... 10
`
`
`Epistar Corp. v. Int’l Trade Comm’n,
`556 F.3d 1321 (Fed. Cir. 2009) ........................................................................... 12
`
`
`GE Lighting Solutions, LLC v. AgiLight, Inc.,
`750 F.3d 1304 (Fed. Cir. 2014) ........................................................................... 28
`
` 
`Hakim v. Cannon Avent Grp., PLC,
`479 F.3d 1313 (Fed. Cir. 2007) ........................................................................... 25
`
`
`Honeywell Int’l, Inc. v. ITT Indus., Inc.,
`452 F.3d 1312 (Fed. Cir. 2006) ...................................................................... 12-13
`v
`
`
`
`

`

`Case IPR2016-01254
`Patent 8,457,113
`
`
`
`
`Paper No. 25
`
`
`
`In re Baker Hughes, Inc.,
`215 F.3d 1297 (Fed. Cir. 2000) ........................................................................... 29
`
`
`In re CSB-Sys. Int’l,
`832 F.3d 1335 (Fed. Cir. 2016) ........................................................................... 28
`
`
`In re Man Mach. Interface Techs. LLC,
`822 F.3d 1282 (Fed. Cir. 2016) ................................................................. 2, 11, 29
`
`
`Intelligent Bio-Systems, Inc. v. Illumina Cambridge, Ltd.,
`821 F.3d 1359 (Fed. Cir. 2016) ........................................................................... 48
`
`
`Kingston Tech. Co. v. Imation Corp.,
`Case IPR2015-00066, Paper 19 (PTAB March 24, 2016) .................................. 10
`
`
`LG Electronics., Inc. v. Advanced Micro Devices, Inc.,
`Case IPR2015-00324, Paper 39 (PTAB May 23, 2016) ..................................... 10
`
`
`Microsoft Corp. v. Proxyconn, Inc.,
`789 F.3d 1292 (Fed. Cir. 2015) ........................................................................... 29
`
`
`Openwave Sys., Inc. v. Apple Inc.,
`808 F.3d 509 (Fed. Cir. 2015) ............................................................................. 11
`
`
`Poly-America, L.P. v. API Indus., Inc.,
`839 F.3d 1131 (Fed. Cir. 2016) ........................................................................... 11
`
`
`PPC Broadband, Inc. v. Corning Optical Commc’ns. RF, LLC,
`815 F.3d 747 (Fed. Cir. 2016) ........................................................................ 28-29
`
`
`Saffran v. Johnson & Johnson,
`712 F.3d 549 (Fed. Cir. 2013) ............................................................................. 11
`
`
`SAS Institute, Inc. v. ComplementSoft, LLC,
`825 F.3d 1341 (Fed. Cir. 2016) ........................................................................... 28
`
`
`
`vi
`
`
`
`

`

`Case IPR2016-01254
`Patent 8,457,113
`
`
`
`
`Paper No. 25
`
`
`SciMed Life Sys., Inc. v. Advanced Cardiovascular Sys., Inc.,
`242 F.3d 1337 (Fed. Cir. 2001) ..................................................................... 10, 12
`
`
`Scotts Co. LLC v. Encap, LLC,
`Case IPR2013-00110, Paper 79 (PTAB June 24, 2014) ..................................... 10
`
`
`Sony Corp. v. Memory Integrity, LLC,
`Case IPR2015-00158, Paper 35 (PTAB May 19, 2016) ..................................... 10
`
`
`Telcordia Techs., Inc. v. Cisco Sys.,
`612 F.3d 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2010) ........................................................................... 13
`
`
`Trs. of Columbia Univ. v. Symantec Corp.,
`811 F.3d 1359 (Fed. Cir. 2016) ........................................................................... 11
`
`
`
`Statutes:
`
`35 U.S.C. § 103 ....................................................................................................... 40
`
`35 U.S.C. § 314(a) .................................................................................................... 1
`
`Regulations:
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.23(b) .......................................................................................... 47-48
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`vii
`
`

`

`Case IPR2016-01254
`Patent 8,457,113
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Paper No. 25
`
`7,764,777
`
`of U.S. Patent No.
`
`UPDATED LIST OF EXHIBITS
`
`Declaration of Regis J. “Bud” Bates filed with Preliminary
`Response
`Ray Horak, Communications Systems & Networks, (2nd ed. 2000)
`Ray Horak, Webster’s New World Telecom Dictionary (2008)
`Ray Horak, Telecommunications and Data Communications
`(2007)
`Prosecution History
`(“’777ProsHist”)
`Harry Newton, Newton’s Telecom Dictionary, (23rd ed. 2007)
`Declaration of John P. Murphy in Support of Unopposed Motion
`for Pro Hac Vice Admission
`Declaration of Hanna F. Madbak in Support of Unopposed Motion
`for Pro Hac Vice Admission
`Corrected Declaration of Hanna F. Madbak in Support of
`Unopposed Motion for Pro Hac Vice Admission
`Excerpts of Deposition Transcript of Dr. La Porta, Feb. 23, 2017,
`for IPR2016-01259, -01261, -01262, and 01263 (“La Porta Dep.”)
`Deposition Transcript of Mr. Willis, Mar. 1, 2017, for IPR2016-
`01254 and -01257. (“Willis Dep.”)
`Declaration of Regis J. “Bud” Bates in Support of Response
`(“BatesDec”)
`Excerpts of Petition filed in IPR2016-01261 (“-01261 Pet.”)
`Excerpts of Petition filed in IPR2016-01254 (“-01254 Pet.”)
`Excerpts of Petition filed in IPR2016-01260 (“-01260 Pet.”)
`Excerpts of Declaration of Dr. La Porta in support of the Petition,
`Ex. 1002 of IPR2016-01262 (“La Porta Dec. of IPR2016-01262”)
`Excerpts of Declaration of Mr. Willis in support of the Petition,
`Ex. 1002 of IPR2016-01254 (“Willis Dec. of IPR2016-01254”)
`Excerpts of Declaration of Dr. Lavian in support of the Petition,
`Ex. 1002 of IPR2016-01258 (“Lavian Dec. of IPR2016-01258”)
`Excerpts of Deposition Transcript of Dr. Lavian, March 29, 2017,
`for IPR2016-01256, -01258, and -01260 (“Lavian Dep.”)
`Excerpts of Declaration of Dr. Lavian in support of the Petition,
`Ex. 1002 of IPR2016-01256 (“Lavian Dec. of IPR2016-01256”)
`viii
`
`2001
`
`2002
`2003
`2004
`
`2005
`
`2006
`2007
`
`2008
`
`2009
`
`2020
`
`2021
`
`2022
`
`2023
`2024
`2025
`2026
`
`2027
`
`2028
`
`2029
`
`2030
`
`
`
`

`

`Case IPR2016-01254
`Patent 8,457,113
`
`
`
`
`Paper No. 25
`
`
`
`2046
`2050
`2051
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,381,323 to Schwab, et al. (“Schwab”)
`U.S. Patent No. 6,353,660 to Burger et al. (“Burger”)
`U.S. Patent No. 6,798,767 to Alexander et al. (“Alexander”)
`
`
`ix
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`On December 28, 2016, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (the “Board”)
`instituted an inter partes review (the “IPR”) trial, pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 314(a), as
`to Claims 38 and 65 of U.S. Patent No. 8,457,113 (the “Challenged Claims” and the
`“’113 Patent,” respectively) that the Challenged Claims were obvious on various
`grounds. See Decision Granting Institution of Inter Partes Review, Dec. 28, 2016,
`Paper No. 15 (the “Institution Decision”).
`
`II.
`
`SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT
`The Board’s institution decision was erroneous because it failed to give effect
`to the ’113 Patent’s disclaimer of subject matter and claim scope that is plain and
`unmistakable from the face of the ’113 Patent itself. The Board’s claim
`constructions have the effect of expanding the scope of the claims to cover known
`prior art network configurations that the patent specification thoroughly criticizes,
`distinguishes, and disclaims. Where a disclaimer of claim scope is apparent on the
`face of the patent, it is inappropriate to rely on after-the-fact statements made during
`prosecution as a basis for ignoring the disclaimer in the specification and for
`broadening the scope of the claims to encompass the disclaimed subject matter. It
`is particularly inappropriate here, where the entirety of the prosecution history
`reinforces the disclaimer from the specification.
`The ’113 Patent specification is clear that the inventive concept of the ’113
`Patent relates to modifying a known telecommunications network configuration in a
`way that relocates call control operations away from “edge” devices and switches.
`
`

`

`Case IPR2016-01254
`Patent 8,457,113
`
`
`
`
`Paper No. 25
`
`
`This is accomplished in the ’113 Patent by connecting the Tandem Access Controller
`(“TAC”) to a PSTN tandem switch, rather than edge switches and edge devices.
`When a patent specification criticizes or disparages the prior art in this manner, and
`discloses that the invention modifies the prior art to overcome technical limitations
`in the art, the law states that the patent has disclaimed or disavowed claim coverage
`for the disparaged prior art configurations. See Section IV, infra (collecting and
`discussing Federal Circuit cases).
`In light of the clarity of the ’113 Patent specification, Patent Owner
`respectfully contends that the Board’s claim constructions in the Institution Decision
`are erroneous. Simply stated: “[t]he broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim
`term cannot be so broad as to include a configuration expressly disclaimed in the
`specification.” In re Man Mach. Interface Techs. LLC, 822 F.3d 1282, 1286 (Fed.
`Cir. 2016) (emphasis added).
`Based on proper constructions, the Challenged Claims are patentable over the
`prior art. With respect to the particular prior art references at issue here, Burger,
`Archer, and the secondary references cited by Petitioner are devoid of any teaching,
`suggestion, or disclosure of “the call processing system coupled to at least one
`switching facility of the circuit-switched network” (Claim 38) or “the web-enabled
`processing system designed to be coupled to at least one switching facility of the
`circuit-switched network” (Claim 65). Neither Alexander nor Chang cures the
`deficiencies of Burger and Archer for numerous reasons.
`
`
`
`2
`
`

`

`Case IPR2016-01254
`Patent 8,457,113
`
`
`
`
`Paper No. 25
`
`
`In addition to the foregoing, neither Burger nor Archer discloses the limitation
`
`found in Challenged Claims 38 and 65 of “[a] method performed by a web-enabled
`processing system . . . , the method comprising the steps of: . . . establishing the
`voice communication between the calling party and the called party after the call has
`been completed, across both the circuit-switched network and the packet network”
`because these claims require calls to be initiated using the PSTN and then established
`across a packet switched network. This argument was not presented in Patent
`Owner’s Preliminary Response (Paper No. 8) in this matter.
`
`III. DISCUSSION OF THE PSTN AND OVERVIEW OF THE ’113
`
`PATENT
`A. Overview of the PSTN
`The PSTN employs various equipment to route calls. This equipment
`includes switches and databases, and is arranged in a hierarchical fashion:
`
`
`
`3
`
`

`

`Case IPR2016-01254
`Patent 8,457,113
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Paper No. 25
`
`
`BatesDec, ¶36 (Ex. 2022). Notably, the same hierarchical levels/equipment may be
`referred to by a variety of names. In both examples above, the class 4 level refers to
`both a “toll center” and a “tandem switch.” This understanding is important because
`the ’113 Patent and prior art references sometimes use different terminology to refer
`to the same hierarchical level. Id.
`At the top of the hierarchy are regional toll centers (class 1 offices). These
`offices are interconnected with sectional toll centers (class 2 offices), which in turn
`connect to primary centers (class 3 offices). Class 4 and 5 levels comprise the rest
`of the hierarchy and are of particular relevance to the ’113 Patent. Class 4 centers
`contain tandem switches. Id. Class 4 centers are also referred to as toll centers, and
`tandem switches are also referred to as Class 4 switches or toll switches.
`Tandem switches have been defined as:
`
`
`
`4
`
`

`

`Case IPR2016-01254
`Patent 8,457,113
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Paper No. 25
`
`High-capacity switch[es] positioned in the physical core, or backbone,
`of [the PSTN], where [they] serve to interconnect edge switches, or
`Central Office (CO) switches.
`Ray Horak, Webster’s New World Telecom Dictionary (2008), 474 (“Telecom.
`Dict.”) (Ex. 2003). They have also been described as:
`[N]etwork switches that serve in partnership with lesser switches,
`linking them together. In other words and in the classic sense, tandem
`switches serve no end users directly; rather, they serve to interconnect
`switches over dedicated
`interoffice
`trunks,
`forming a
`fully
`interconnected and toll-free metropolitan calling area in the process.
`Ray Horak, Telecommunications and Data Communications (2007), 212 (Ex. 2004).
`Accordingly, the ’113 Patent refers to “PSTN tandem switches” as “exchanges that
`direct telephone calls (or other traffic) to central offices [] or to other tandem
`switches.” ’113 Pat., 4:47-49; BatesDec, ¶37. These “PSTN tandem switches” are
`in the PSTN. Id. (citing Lavian Dec. of IPR2016-01258 (Ex. 2028), ¶¶39-45).
`Class 5 offices contain edge switches and are interconnected by tandem
`switches. BatesDec, ¶38. Edge switches are sometimes referred to as central offices
`(“COs”). Id. Central offices have been defined as:
`[Offices] which serve end users through local loop connections [local
`loops are the actual copper wires that run from a customer’s premises
`to the central office].
`Ex2002 at 159. They have also been described as:
`5
`
`
`
`

`

`Case IPR2016-01254
`Patent 8,457,113
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Paper No. 25
`
`. . . a CO traditionally houses one or more voice-optimized circuit
`switches to interconnect subscriber lines within a local area known as
`the carrier serving area (CSA) and to connect subscriber local loops to
`network trunks.
`Ex2003 at 102; BatesDec, ¶38. The ’113 Patent’s description of edge switches is
`consistent with the above:
`The [PSTN] consists of a plurality of edge switches connected to
`telephones on one side and to a network of tandem switches on the
`other. The tandem switch network allows connectivity between all of
`the edge switches, and a signaling system is used by the PSTN to allow
`calling and to transmit both calling and called party identity.
`
`6
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case IPR2016-01254
`Patent 8,457,113
`
`
`
`
`Paper No. 25
`
`
`’113 Pat., 1:45-51 and Fig. 2; BatesDec, ¶38. The extrinsic and intrinsic evidence
`confirm that (1) edge switches are connected directly to subscribers or edge devices
`via end-lines (i.e., there are copper wires (or other media) that run directly between
`the edge switches and subscribers); and (2) tandem switches are not directly
`connected to subscribers or edge devices, but are instead connected to edge switches
`and other tandem switches. BatesDec, ¶38; Lavian Dec. of IPR2016-1256 (Ex.
`2030), ¶¶105-106; Lavian Dep. (Ex. 2029) at 31:5-32:16.
`Petitioners largely agree with how a tandem switch functions in the PSTN. In
`a Related IPR, Petitioner BHN states, “[t]he PSTN consists of switches known as
`tandem switches or class 4 switches (switching facilities in the claims) which serve
`to interconnect between different geographical regions and edge switches or class 5
`switches, which connect to end-user devices, like telephones, within a local
`geographic area.” -01261 Pet. (Ex. 2023) at 29 (emphasis added). In a different
`Related IPR, Petitioner Cisco states, “[c]lass 3 switches are also known as tandem
`
`switches and generally provide long distance calling links by interconnecting
`between edge switches and other tandem switches.” -01254 Pet. (Ex. 2024) at 7
`(emphasis added). In yet another Related IPR, Petitioner YMax states that “[w]hen
`a telephone call is placed on the PSTN, the call typically travels from the caller’s
`phone to the edge switch in the caller’s local central office. Unless the recipient is
`in the same geographical area and directly connected to the same central office, the
`
`call is then typically routed to one or more tandem switches (in sequence), until it
`reaches the edge switch that is directly connected to the recipient’s phone, and
`7
`
`
`
`

`

`Case IPR2016-01254
`Patent 8,457,113
`
`
`
`
`Paper No. 25
`
`
`finally to the recipient’s phone.” -01260 Pet. (Ex. 2025) at 13 (emphasis added);
`BatesDec, ¶39; Lavian Dec. of IPR2016-1256 (Ex. 2030), ¶¶41-43; Lavian Dep. (Ex.
`2029) at 23:11-25:11.
`At the time of the invention, the PSTN utilized the Signaling System 7 (“SS7”)
`protocol to set up calls.1 SS7 signaling flows between one CO and another, including
`all switches in between (e.g., tandem switches). SS7 signaling does not flow past
`COs to edge devices, as edge devices are not equipped to process and respond to
`SS7 signaling. BatesDec, ¶40.
`
`B.
`The ’113 Patent
`Generally, the ’113 Patent relates to the provision of call control features in
`the PSTN. The Background section acknowledges that, at the time of the invention,
`various devices existed to provide call control features. One novel and important
`aspect of the ’113 Patent concerns where in the PSTN such call control features are
`implemented. As discussed in more detail below, the ’113 Patent expressly
`recognizes that prior art call control devices were attached to an edge device (e.g.,
`phones and PBXs) or an edge switch located in a CO. ’113 Pat., 1:52-67 and 2:40-
`54. These prior art edge devices received and answered a call on one line, then
`dialed out on another line, and then connected the two lines together. BatesDec, ¶42.
`
`
`1 “Setting up” calls refers to the exchange of control signaling that causes the
`establishment of a path over which voice data can flow. BatesDec, ¶40.
`8
`
`
`
`

`

`Case IPR2016-01254
`Patent 8,457,113
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Paper No. 25
`
`By contrast, the ’113 Patent discloses connecting the TAC to a tandem switch
`(hence the name Tandem Access Controller). Id., ¶43. This arrangement allows
`calls to be intercepted and processed before they are handed off to the CO (edge
`switch) associated with the called party. Stated differently, instead of a call being
`passed to a destination CO, then on to a controller connected to the CO that would
`perform a call control feature, the TAC processes the call at a tandem switch before
`it is ever routed to the destination CO. Further, the TAC “is not an edge device such
`as a PBX or central office (CO) switch . . . .” ’113 Pat., 5:4-6; BatesDec, ¶43.
`This novel arrangement has several advantages. The first advantage concerns
`costs. Calls coming into and out of controllers connected to COs incurred charges
`for each incoming and outgoing call. See ’113 Pat., 2:17-22 (discussing this
`scenario); BatesDec, ¶44. Using a TAC instead avoids these costs. See ’113 Pat,
`4:55-5:3; BatesDec, ¶44.
`Another advantage regarding the TAC’s placement at a tandem switch
`concerns call quality. See ’113 Pat., 5:4-7; BatesDec, ¶45. Handling calls at the
`tandem level maintains the quality of the call, as it is processed within the PSTN,
`where the signal may be in digital form and/or carried over high-quality lines (as
`compared to the end lines that carry a call from a CO to a phone). ’113 Pat., 1:59-
`2:623, 2:40-54; BatesDec, ¶45.
`
`
`
`9
`
`

`

`Case IPR2016-01254
`Patent 8,457,113
`
`
`
`
`Paper No. 25
`
`
`IV. The ’113 Patent Contains an Unmistakable Disclaimer of Subject
`Matter and Claim Scope for Call Controllers Connected to an Edge Switch or
`Edge Device.
`A. Disparaging the Prior Art is Sufficient to Disclaim Claim Scope.
`The PTAB follows Federal Circuit authority and legal standards when
`determining whether a patentee has made a disclaimer (or disavowal) of subject
`matter or claim scope. See, e.g., Sony Corp. v. Memory Integrity, LLC, Case
`IPR2015-00158, Paper 35 (PTAB May 19, 2016); Scotts Co. v. Encap, LLC, Case
`IPR2013-00110, Paper 79 (PTAB June 24, 2014); LG Electronics., Inc. v. Advanced
`Micro Devices, Inc., Case IPR2015-00324, Paper 39 (PTAB May 23, 2016);
`Kingston Tech. Co. v. Imation Corp., Case IPR2015-00066, Paper 19 (PTAB March
`24, 2016); Edmund Optics, Inc. v. Semrock, Inc., Case IPR2014-00599, Paper 72
`(PTAB Sept. 16, 2015).
`Under the applicable Federal Circuit authority, a disclaimer of claim scope
`that is plainly set forth in the patent specification trumps all other evidence—even
`unambiguous claim language that has a broader ordinary meaning. “Where the
`specification makes clear that the invention does not include a particular feature, that
`feature is deemed to be outside the reach of the claims of the patent, even though the
`
`language of the claims, read without reference to the specification, might be
`considered broad enough to encompass the feature in question.” Chi. Bd. Options
`Exch., Inc. v. Int’l Secs. Exch., LLC, 677 F.3d 1361, 1372 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (emphasis
`added); see also SciMed Life Sys., Inc. v. Advanced Cardiovascular Sys., Inc., 242
`F.3d 1337, 1341 (Fed. Cir. 2001).
`
`
`
`10
`
`

`

`Case IPR2016-01254
`Patent 8,457,113
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Paper No. 25
`
`“While disavowal must be clear and unequivocal, it need not be explicit.”
`Poly-America, L.P. v. API Indus., Inc., 839 F.3d 1131, 1136 (Fed. Cir. 2016); see
`also Trs. of Columbia Univ. v. Symantec Corp., 811 F.3d 1359, 1363-64 (Fed. Cir.
`2016); Saffran v. Johnson & Johnson, 712 F.3d 549, 559 (Fed. Cir. 2013)
`(“applicants rarely submit affirmative disclaimers along the lines of ‘I hereby
`disclaim the following . . .’”).
`Where the patent specification discloses certain prior art configurations,
`criticizes or disparages those configurations, and discloses modifications to the prior
`art configurations to overcome technical deficiencies of the prior art, the Federal
`Circuit has held that the patent specification amounts to a disclaimer or disavowal
`of claim coverage for the prior art configuration. See, e.g. In re Man Mach. Interface
`Tech’s, 822 F.3d 1282, 1286 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (finding disclaimer and rejecting a
`broader claim construction based on statements in the specification disparaging and
`distinguishing the prior art); Openwave Sys., Inc. v. Apple Inc., 808 F.3d 509, 514
`(Fed. Cir. 2015) (finding disclaimer where the specification was “rife with remarks
`that disparage and, therefore, disclaim mobile devices that incorporate computer
`modules” and holding that a disclaimer clearly set forth in the specification “is
`regarded as dispositive”) (emphasis added); Chi. Bd. Options, 677 F.3d at 1372
`(affirming a finding of disavowal based on disparagement of the prior art in the
`patent specification, distinguishing the prior art from the invention, and holding that
`“[t]here is no other way to interpret the listing in the specification of the many
`reasons why manual and partially automated exchanges cannot sustain the growing
`11
`
`
`
`

`

`Case IPR2016-01254
`Patent 8,457,113
`
`
`
`
`Paper No. 25
`
`
`demands of the market.”); Honeywell Int’l, Inc. v. ITT Indus., Inc., 452 F.3d 1312,
`1315-16 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (reversing a district court’s refusal to find disclaimer
`because the specification contained statements disparaging the prior art that
`amounted to a disclaimer); SciMed Life Sys., Inc., 242 F.3d 1337 (Fed. Cir. 2001),
`(affirming a finding of disclaimer based on statements in the specification
`disparaging and distinguishing the prior art).
`In another Petitioner’s Reply to POPR, the petitioner argues that “[d]isavowal
`does not arise merely by criticizing a particular embodiment that is encompassed in
`the plain meaning of the prior art.” See IPR2016-01262, Paper No. 17 at 2 (citing
`Epistar Corp. v. Int’l Trade Comm’n, 556 F.3d 1321, 1335 (Fed. Cir. 2009)).
`Epistar, however, does not undercut or contradict any of the cases cited in the
`previous paragraph. In Epistar, the patent specification criticized a specific prior art
`configuration “that is not relevant to the ’718 patent [the patent-in-suit]” because the
`patent did not modify the prior art configuration to arrive at the invention. Epistar,
`566 F.3d at 1335. The Federal Circuit in Epistar merely held that the particular
`patent specification involved did not amount to a disavowal because the art being
`criticized was not even relevant to the invention, the art was not criticized strongly
`enough to amount to a disavowal, the patentee did not modify this art to arrive at the
`invention, and the patentee did not clearly distinguish the invention from this art.
`See id. Thus, Epistar is a fact-bound decision that is entirely consistent with the
`legal standards set forth in the cases cited in the previous paragraph.
`
`
`
`12
`
`

`

`Case IPR2016-01254
`Patent 8,457,113
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Paper No. 25
`
`Moreover, where a disclaimer or disavowal of subject matter is plain from the
`four corners of the patent, statements or evidence from the prosecution history
`cannot broaden the scope of the claims to cover the disclaimed subject matter. See,
`e.g. Akamai Techs., Inc. v. Limelight Networks, Inc., 629 F.3d 1311, 1328 (Fed. Cir.
`2010), vacated on other grounds, 419 F. App’x 989 (Fed. Cir. 2011), reinstatement
`confirmed, 805 F.3d 1368, 1381-82 (Fed. Cir. 2015); Telcordia Techs., Inc. v. Cisco
`Sys., 612 F.3d 1365, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2010); Honeywell, 452 F.3d 1312, 1319 (Fed.
`Cir. 2006); Biogen, Inc. v. Berlex Labs., Inc., 318 F.3d 1132, 1140 (Fed. Cir. 2003).
`In each of these four cases, the Federal Circuit found plain evidence of disclaimer
`on the face of the patent, and refused to even consider evidence from the prosecution
`history that was offered to contradict the disclaimer and broaden the scope of the
`claims.
`
`B. Disclaimer in the ’113 Patent
`Applicants’ disparaging statements begin in the Background of the Invention
`section of the ’113 Patent. In discussing various prior art systems and their perceived
`disadvantages, Applicants specifically disparage the application of call control
`features at an edge switch:
`There are also edge devices in each of the public telephone company’s
`central offices which provide local control, but offer an extremely
`limited number of features and do not provide true 3rd-party call
`control.
`’113 Pat., 1:37-40; and
`
`
`
`13
`
`

`

`Case IPR2016-01254
`Patent 8,457,113
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Paper No. 25
`
`In the past, numerous devices have been built that allow the connection
`of two lines together at an edge switch. These devices can be used to
`add features to a telephone network by receiving a call on one line and
`then dialing out on another line. The problem with these devices is that,
`because they are connected through an edge switch, transmission losses
`and impairments occur, degrading the overall connection. In addition,
`signali