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 PRELIMINARY RESPONSE
`TO PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW
`
`
`
`
`
`

`
`Case IPR2016-001254
`Patent 8,457,113
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Paper No. 8
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
` I.
`
`II.
`
`INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................... 1
`
`SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT ....................................................................... 1
`
`III. DISCUSSION OF THE PSTN AND OVERVIEW OF THE ’113 PATENT .
`
` ......................................................................................................................... 2
`
`IV. LEGAL STANDARDS ................................................................................... 9
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`
`Standard for Review .............................................................................. 9
`
`Obviousness .........................................................................................10
`
`1.
`
`Claims Cannot be Found Obvious if an Element is Absent .....10
`
`
`C.
`
`D.
`BRI Cannot Be So Broad to Include Elements That Have Been
`Disclaimed or Disavowed ..............................................................................13
`
`V. GENERAL DISCLAIMER OF CONTROLLERS CONNECTED TO
`EDGE SWITCHES ..................................................................................................20
`
`A. Disparaging Statements in the ’113 Patent .........................................20
`
`B.
`Applicants’ Statements in the Prosecution History to Distinguish
`Over Schwab ..................................................................................................26
`
`
`2.
`to Combine or Modify Must Have Rational
`Reason
`Underpinning .......................................................................................10
`
`Broadest Reasonable Interpretation ....................................................11
`
`1.
`
`
`’777 Patent Prosecution - First Response to an Office Action .....
` ...................................................................................................26
`
`ii
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`
`Case IPR2016-001254
`Patent 8,457,113
`
`
`
`
`Paper No. 8
`
`
`
`2.
`
`
`’777 Patent Prosecution - Second Response to an Office Action
` ...................................................................................................28
`
`Scope of General Disclaimer ...............................................................32
`
`“Switching Facility” ............................................................................33
`
`“Call Processing System” ....................................................................39
`
`Summary of Burger .............................................................................40
`
`Summary of Archer .............................................................................43
`
`
`C.
`
`VI. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION ..........................................................................33
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`VII. SUMMARY OF PRIMARY REFERENCES ...............................................40
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`VIII. ARGUMENTS ..............................................................................................45
`
`A.
`
`
`Petitioner Has Not Met Its Burden Under Grounds 1 and 2 ...............46
`
`1.
`
`
`“Web-Enabled Processing System” / “Call Processing System”
` ...................................................................................................46
`
`2.
`Claim 65[c] and 38[c] – Processing System Coupled to a
`Switching Facility................................................................................48
`
`Petitioner has not Met Its Burden Under Grounds 3 and 4 .................58
`
`1.
`is
`Archer’s Alleged Web-Enabled Processing System
`Connected to the Circuit-Switched Networks through Edge Switches,
`a Configuration not Within the Scope of the ’113 Patent’s Claims ...58
`
`
`
`
`B.
`
`
`
`
`2.
`Archer Does not Show a Processing System Coupled to a
`Switching Facility................................................................................59
`
`
`IX. CONCLUSION ..............................................................................................65
`
`
`
`iii
`
`

`
`Case IPR2016-001254
`Patent 8,457,113
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Paper No. 8
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`Cases:
`
`Apple Inc. v. Virnetx Inc.,
`Case IPR2014-00481, Paper No. 35, (PTAB August 24, 2015) ....................... 12
`
`
`Bicon, Inc. v. Straumann Co.,
`441 F.3d 945 (Fed. Cir. 2006) ........................................................................... 34
`
`
`CFMT, Inc. v. YieldUp Int’l Corp.,
`349 F.3d 1333 (Fed. Cir. 2003) ......................................................................... 10
`
`
`Chi. Bd. Options Exch., Inc. v. Int’l Secs. Exch., LLC,
`677 F.3d 1361 (Fed. Cir. 2014) .................................................................... 15-16
`
`
`Edmund Optics, Inc. v. Semrock, Inc.,
`Case IPR2014-00599, Paper 72 (PTAB September 16, 2015) ..................... 13-14
`
`
`GE Lighting Solutions, LLC v. AgiLight, Inc.,
`750 F.3d 1304 (Fed. Cir. 2014) ......................................................................... 15
`
`
`Google Inc., et al. v. Arendi S.A.R.L.,
`Case IPR 2014-00452, Paper 31, (PTAB August 18, 2015) ............................. 14
`
`
`Graham v. John Deere Co. of Kansas City,
`383 U.S. 1 (1966) ......................................................................................... 10, 62
`
`
`Honeywell Int’l, Inc. v. ITT Indus., Inc.,
`452 F.3d 1312 (Fed. Cir. 2006) .................................................................... 19-20
`
`
`Innogenetics, N.V. v. Abbott Labs.,
`512 F.3d 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2008) .................................................................... 10-11
`
`
`In re Baker Hughes, Inc.,
`215 F.3d 1297 (Fed. Cir. 2000) ......................................................................... 11
`
`
`
`iv
`
`

`
`Case IPR2016-001254
`Patent 8,457,113
`
`
`
`
`Paper No. 8
`
`
`
`In re Kahn,
`441 F.3d 977 (Fed. Cir. 2006) ...................................................................... 10-11
`
`
`In re Man Mach. Interface Techs. LLC,
`822 F.3d 1282 (Fed. Cir. 2016) ......................................................................... 13
`
`
`In re Rijckaert,
`9 F.3d 1531 (Fed. Cir. 1993) ............................................................................. 10
`
`
`In re Royka,
`490 F.2d 981 (C.C.P.A. 1974) ........................................................................... 10
`
`
`Kingston Tech. Co., Inc. v. Imation Corp.,
`Case IPR2015-00066, Paper 19 (PTAB March 24, 2016) ........................... 13-14
`
`
`KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc.,
`550 U.S. 398 (2007) ........................................................................................... 10
`
`
`LG Electronics., Inc. v. Advanced Micro Devices, Inc.,
`Case IPR2015-00324, Paper 39 (PTAB May 23, 2016) .............................. 13-14
`
`
`Microsoft Corp. v. Multi-Tech Sys., Inc.,
`357 F.3d 1340 (Fed. Cir. 2004) ......................................................................... 12
`
`
`Microsoft Corp. v. Proxyconn, Inc.,
`789 F.3d 1292 (Fed. Cir. 2015) .............................................................. 11-12, 14
`
`
`Phillips v. AWH Corp.,
`415 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005) ......................................................................... 13
`
`
`PPC Broadband, Inc. v. Corning Optical Commc’ns. RF, LLC,
`815 F.3d 747 (Fed. Cir. 2016) ........................................................................... 12
`
`
`Openwave Sys., Inc. v. Apple Inc.,
`808 F.3d 509 (Fed. Cir. 2015) ...................................................................... 17-19
`
`
`
`
`
`v
`
`

`
`Case IPR2016-001254
`Patent 8,457,113
`
`
`
`
`Paper No. 8
`
`
`Reckitt Benckiser Pharms., Inc. v. Teva Pharms. USA, Inc.,
`2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 84276 (D. Del. June 29, 2016) ............................... 15-16
`
`
`Saffran v. Johnson & Johnson,
`712 F.3d 549 (Fed. Cir. 2013) ........................................................................... 15
`
`
`SAS Institute, Inc. v. ComplementSoft, LLC,
`825 F.3d 1341 (Fed. Cir. 2016) ......................................................................... 12
`
`
`SciMed Life Sys., Inc. v. Advanced Cardiovascular Sys., Inc.,
`242 F.3d 1337 (Fed. Cir. 2001) .................................................................... 15-17
`
`
`Smith v. Snow,
`294 U.S. 1 (1935) ............................................................................................... 13
`
`
`Sony Corp. et al. v. Memory Integrity, LLC,
`Case IPR2015-00158, Paper 35 (PTAB May 19, 2016) ................................... 13
`
`
`Tempo Lighting, Inc. v. Tivoli, LLC,
`742 F. 3d 973 (Fed. Cir. 2014) .......................................................................... 12
`
`
`The Scotts Co. LLC v. Encap, LLC,
`Case IPR2013-00110, Paper 79 (PTAB June 24, 2014) .............................. 13-14
`
`
`TriVascular, Inc. v. Samuels,
`812 F. 3d 1056, 2016 U.S. App. LEXIS 1949 (Fed. Cir. 2016) ........................ 11
`
`
`Rules and Statutes:
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b) ............................................................................................. 11
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.108(c) ................................................................................................ 9
`
`35 U.S.C. § 103 ................................................................................................. 10, 45
`
`35 U.S.C. § 103(a) .................................................................................................. 10
`
`
`
`vi
`
`

`
`Case IPR2016-001254
`Patent 8,457,113
`
`
`
`
`Paper No. 8
`
`
`35 U.S.C. § 314(a) .................................................................................................... 9
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`vii
`
`

`
`Case IPR2016-001254
`Patent 8,457,113
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Paper No. 8
`
`LIST OF EXHIBITS
`
`Declaration of Regis J. “Bud” Bates (“BatesDec”)
`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 of U.S. Patent No. 7,764,777 (“’777ProsHist”)
`Harry Newton, Newton’s Telecom Dictionary, (23rd ed. 2007)
`
`viii
`
`
`2001
`2002
`2003
`2004
`2005
`2006
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`Petitioner filed this Petition seeking inter partes review of claims 38 and 65
`
`of the ’113 Patent (the “Challenged Claims”) based on four grounds. As set forth
`
`herein, the Challenged Claims are patentable over the references cited in the
`
`various Grounds because (i) the primary reference discloses a system whose
`
`configuration was expressly disclaimed by Applicants from the scope of their
`
`invention, and (ii) all references fail to disclose, alone or in combination, each
`
`element of the independent Challenged Claims. Further, Petitioner failed to meet
`
`its burden, by a preponderance of the evidence, that any of the Challenged Claims
`
`are obvious because the Petition does not demonstrate reasons, with rational
`
`underpinning, to combine the references.
`
`II.
`
`SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT
`After analyzing the claim language, specification, and prosecution history, a
`
`person of skill in the art (a “POSA”) would clearly understand that (i) Applicants
`
`disclaimed application of call control features through an edge switch or an edge
`
`device; and (ii) the Challenged Claims’ “call processing system” / “web-enabled
`
`processing system” is coupled to a “switching facility,” and that such “switching
`
`facility” cannot be edge switch or edge device. U.S. Pat. No. 6,353,660 to Burger
`
`(“Burger”) and U.S. Pat. No. 6,683,870 to Archer (“Archer”) are prior art
`
`references that discloses application of call processing features using an edge
`
`device, which is the configuration disclaimed by Applicants. Moreover, Burger,
`
`Archer, and the secondary references cited by Petitioner are devoid of any
`
`

`
`Case IPR2016-001254
`Patent 8,457,113
`
`
`
`
`Paper No. 8
`
`
`teaching, suggestion, or disclosure of the call processing system coupled to at least
`
`one “switching facility of the circuit-switched network” (Claim 38) or a “the web-
`
`enabled processing system designed to be coupled to at least one switching facility
`
`of the circuit-switched network” (Claim 65). Neither U.S. Patent No. 5,958,016 to
`
`Chang et al. (“Chang”) nor U.S. Patent No. 6,798,767 to Alexander (“Alexander”)
`
`cure the deficiencies of Burger and Archer for numerous reasons. Additionally,
`
`the Petitioner’s proposed obviousness combinations are deficient because
`
`Petitioner failed to articulate the requisite “how” or “why” a POSA would combine
`
`these references.
`
`III. DISCUSSION OF THE PSTN AND OVERVIEW OF THE ’113
`
`PATENT
`Before discussing ’113 Patent, a general description of the public telephone
`
`network is in order. The public telephone network is often associated with the
`
`acronym PSTN (Public Switched Telephone Network). While Petitioner and
`
`Patent Owner disagree over what is and is not included in the PSTN, there are
`
`areas of agreement. All parties seemingly agree that the core networks of
`
`“traditional” telecommunications companies (e.g., AT&T) used to route voice calls
`
`from one phone to another are part of the PSTN. For example, a voice call from a
`
`“wired” analog telephone in California on an AT&T network to another “wired”
`
`analog telephone in New York on a Verizon network will traverse the PSTN.
`
`EX2001 (“BatesDec”), ¶36.
`
`
`
`2
`
`

`
`Case IPR2016-001254
`Patent 8,457,113
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Paper No. 8
`
`To connect phones in distant locations, the PSTN employs various
`
`equipment to route calls. This equipment includes switches and databases, and is
`
`arranged in a hierarchical fashion:
`
`3
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`
`Case IPR2016-001254
`Patent 8,457,113
`
`
`
`
`Paper No. 8
`
`
`BatesDec, ¶37. 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). As a point of reference, in 1984 (the
`
`year AT&T was broken up into the “Baby Bells”), there were 10 class 1 centers, 67
`
`class 2 centers, and 200 class 3 centers. Ray Horak, Communications Systems &
`Networks 159-61, (2nd ed. 2000) (Ex. 2002).
`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. Class 4
`
`centers are also referred to as toll centers, and tandem switches are also referred to
`
`as Class 4 switches or toll switches. As a point of reference, in 1984, there were
`
`approximately 940 tandem switches. Id.; BatesDec, ¶39.
`
`Tandem switches have been defined as:
`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); and
`
`
`
`4
`
`

`
`Case IPR2016-001254
`Patent 8,457,113
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Paper No. 8
`
`[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). The ’113 Patent refers to a “PSTN tandem switch” as “exchanges that
`
`direct telephone calls (or other traffic) to central offices [] or to other tandem
`
`switches.” ’113 Patent, 4:47-49; BatesDec, ¶40.
`
`As stated above, tandem switches serve to interconnect Class 5 offices that
`
`contain edge switches. Edge switches are sometimes referred to as central offices
`
`(“COs”), and vice versa. In 1984, there were thousands of COs containing edge
`
`switches in the U.S. 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; and
`. . . 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, ¶41.
`
`
`
`5
`
`

`
`Case IPR2016-001254
`Patent 8,457,113
`
`
`
`
`Paper No. 8
`
`
`These dictionary definitions are consistent with the disclosures of tandem switches
`
`and edge switches in the ’113 Patent:
`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.
`
`
`
`
`
`’113 Patent, 1:45-51 and Fig. 2. The most salient points regarding tandem
`
`switches and edge switches, as confirmed by both extrinsic and intrinsic evidence,
`
`are (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
`
`
`
`6
`
`

`
`Case IPR2016-001254
`Patent 8,457,113
`
`
`
`
`Paper No. 8
`
`
`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, ¶42.
`
`In the PSTN, before one subscriber is able to have a voice communication
`
`with another subscriber, the call must be “set up.” Setting-up a call refers to the
`
`exchange of control signaling that causes the establishment of a path over which
`
`voice data can flow. In the PSTN, voice paths are established on demand, as
`
`needed, in order to conserve resources. BatesDec, ¶43.
`
`At the time of the inventions, the PSTN utilized the Signaling System 7
`
`(“SS7”) protocol to set up calls. 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, ¶44.
`
`Generally, the ’113 Patent relates to the provision of call control features in
`
`a public telephone network. Call forwarding (e.g., transferring a voice call
`
`originally directed to 703-555-1212 to an alternate telephone number) is an
`
`exemplary call control feature. The ’113 Patent discloses a Tandem Access
`
`Controller (“TAC”) that implements call control features. The TAC is a
`
`combination of computing hardware and software
`
`that
`
`is appropriately
`
`programmed to process calls. ’113 Patent, 4:35-39. BatesDec, ¶45.
`
`The Background section acknowledges that, at the time of the invention,
`
`various devices existed to provide call control features. One novel and important
`7
`
`
`
`

`
`Case IPR2016-001254
`Patent 8,457,113
`
`
`
`
`Paper No. 8
`
`
`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 central office. ’113 Patent 1:51-
`
`67; 2:40-44. These prior art edge devices receive a call on one line, dial out on
`
`another line, and connect the two lines together at an edge switch. BatesDec, ¶46.
`
`By contrast, the ’113 Patent discloses connecting the TAC to a tandem
`switch (hence the name Tandem Access Controller). 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 which
`
`would a perform call control feature, the TAC processes the call at a tandem switch
`
`before it is ever routed to the destination CO. BatesDec, ¶47.
`
`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 Patent 2:17-21
`
`(discussing this scenario). BatesDec, ¶48.
`
`In a call forwarding scenario using the present invention, the TAC intercepts
`
`the call at the Class 4 level before it reaches the destination CO edge switch. As a
`
`result, the call from called party to the calling party is processed by the TAC
`
`before it reaches the CO associated with the called number. The TAC then
`
`initiates call signaling to set up the call to the forwarding number, and connects the
`8
`
`
`
`

`
`Case IPR2016-001254
`Patent 8,457,113
`
`
`
`
`Paper No. 8
`
`
`original call to the one arranged by the TAC. This process is invisible to the called
`
`and calling parties, and incurs less tolls than the prior art solutions discussed in the
`
`’113 Patent. ’113 Patent, 4:55-5:3. BatesDec, ¶49.
`
`Another advantage regarding the TAC’s placement at a tandem switch
`
`concerns call quality. Running an analog voice signal from an edge switch to an
`
`edge device over copper wire degrades the quality of the signal (an edge device is a
`
`device connected to an edge switch, typically on a customer’s premises, such as a
`private branch exchange (PBX) or a generic telephone – see ’113 Patent, 5:4-6).
`
`The prior art call forwarding solution suffers from this degradation twice: once
`
`from the calling party’s call to the controller connected to the CO, and once from
`
`the controller’s call to the forwarding number. On the other hand, 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 local loops that carry a call from a CO to a phone). ’113
`
`Patent, 1:59-65; 2:41-51; BatesDec, ¶50.
`
`IV. LEGAL STANDARDS
`
`Standard for Review
`A.
`The Board may grant a petition for inter partes review only where “the
`
`information presented in the petition . . . shows that there is a reasonable likelihood
`
`that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged
`
`in the petition.” 35 U.S.C. § 314(a); 37 C.F.R. § 42.108(c).
`
`
`
`9
`
`

`
`Case IPR2016-001254
`Patent 8,457,113
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Paper No. 8
`
`B. Obviousness
`Section 103 of the Patent Act provides that “[a] patent may not be obtained .
`
`. . if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented 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 to which said
`
`subject matter pertains.” 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). The obviousness analysis requires a
`
`number of threshold inquiries. The level of a POSA must be established, the scope
`
`and content of the prior art must be determined, and any differences between the
`prior art and the claims at issue must be ascertained. Graham v. John Deere Co. of
`Kansas City, 383 U.S. 1, 17-18 (1966).
`
` Claims Cannot be Found Obvious if an Element is Absent
`1.
`If a single element of the claim is absent from the prior art, the claims cannot
`be considered obvious. See CFMT, Inc. v. YieldUp Int’l Corp., 349 F.3d 1333,
`
`1342 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (“[O]bviousness requires a suggestion of all limitations in a
`
`claim.”) (citing In re Royka, 490 F.2d 981, 985 (C.C.P.A. 1974)); In re Rijckaert, 9
`
`F.3d 1531, 1534 (Fed. Cir. 1993) (reversing obviousness rejection where prior art
`
`did not teach or suggest all claim limitations).
`
`Reason to Combine or Modify Must Have Rational
`2.
`Underpinning
`
`The conclusion of obviousness based on a combination of references must
`be supported with explicit analysis of a reason to combine those references. KSR
`Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007). The Federal Circuit has stated
`
`
`
`10
`
`

`
`Case IPR2016-001254
`Patent 8,457,113
`
`
`
`
`Paper No. 8
`
`
`that such reasons must be more than “mere conclusory statements; instead, there
`
`must be some articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning to support the
`legal conclusion of obviousness.” In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988 (Fed. Cir. 2006);
`
`accord Innogenetics, N.V. v. Abbott Labs., 512 F.3d 1363, 1374 (Fed. Cir. 2008)
`
`(agreeing with the district court’s reasoning that “some kind of motivation must be
`
`shown from some source, so that the jury can understand why a person of ordinary
`
`skill would have thought of either combining two or more references or modifying
`
`one to achieve the patented method.”).
`
`C. Broadest Reasonable Interpretation
`The Board interprets claims in an unexpired patent using the broadest
`
`reasonable interpretation (BRI) in light of the specification of the patent in which
`
`they appear. 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b). “Under a broadest reasonable interpretation,
`
`words of the claim must be given their plain meaning, unless such meaning is
`inconsistent with the specification and prosecution history.” TriVascular, Inc. v.
`
`Samuels, 812 F. 3d 1056, 1062, 2016 U.S. App. LEXIS 1949, *7 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
`
`Under this standard, “claims should always be read in light of the specification and
`teachings in the underlying patent claim.” Microsoft Corp. v. Proxyconn, Inc., 789
`
`F.3d 1292, 1298 (Fed. Cir. 2015). “[T]he Board’s construction ‘cannot be
`
`divorced from the specification and the record evidence,’ and ‘must be consistent
`with the one that those skilled in the art would reach.’” Id. The construction must
`
`be “reasonable in light of the totality of the written description.” In re Baker
`Hughes, Inc., 215 F.3d 1297, 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2000).
`11
`
`
`
`

`
`Case IPR2016-001254
`Patent 8,457,113
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Paper No. 8
`
`It is important to note that there are practical limits to how “broad” an
`interpretation may be. “Above all, [it] must be reasonable in light of the claims
`and specification.” PPC Broadband, Inc. v. Corning Optical Commc’ns. RF, LLC,
`
`815 F.3d 747, 755 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (emphasis in original); see also SAS Institute,
`Inc. v. ComplementSoft, LLC, 825 F.3d 1341, 1348 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (“While we
`
`have endorsed the Board’s use of the broadest reasonable interpretation standard in
`
`IPR proceedings, we also take case to not read ‘reasonable’ out of the standard.”).
`
`The Federal Circuit has indicated that the prosecution history may be an
`
`important component of intrinsic evidence in construing claims, even when a
`
`broadest reasonable construction standard applies. Apple Inc. v. Virnetx Inc.,
`IPR2014-00481, Paper No. 35 (citing Tempo Lighting, Inc. v. Tivoli, LLC, 742 F.
`
`3d 973, 977 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (“In claim construction, this court gives primacy to
`
`the language of the claims, followed by the specification. Additionally, the
`
`prosecution history, while not literally within the patent document, serves as
`
`intrinsic evidence for purposes of claim construction. This remains true in
`
`construing patent claims before the PTO.”)); see also Microsoft Corp. v.
`Proxyconn, Inc., 789 F.3d 1292, 1298 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (“The PTO should also
`
`consult the patent’s prosecution history in proceedings in which the patent has
`
`been brought back to the agency for a second review.”) (citing Tempo Lighting,
`742 F.3d at 977); Microsoft Corp. v. Multi-Tech Sys., Inc., 357 F.3d 1340, 1349
`
`(Fed. Cir. 2004).
`
`
`
`12
`
`

`
`Case IPR2016-001254
`Patent 8,457,113
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Paper No. 8
`
`Additionally, the Federal Circuit has found it reasonable to infer that the
`
`Patent Office would not have issued an invalid patent—particularly in cases
`
`involving prior art that the Patent Office expressly considered during original
`
`examination. See Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1327 (Fed. Cir. 2005)
`
`(“[W]e have looked to whether it is reasonable to infer that the PTO would not
`
`have issued an invalid patent, and that the ambiguity in the claim language should
`
`therefore be resolved in a manner that would preserve the patent’s validity.”)
`Under Phillips and Supreme Court jurisprudence, an issued patent is entitled to an
`
`interpretation that preserves its validity: “In such circumstances, if the claim were
`
`fairly susceptible of two constructions, that should be adopted which will secure to
`
`the patentee his actual invention, rather than to adopt a construction fatal to the
`grant.” Smith v. Snow, 294 U.S. 1, 14 (1935).
`
`D. BRI Cannot Be So Broad to Include Elements That Have Been
`
`Disclaimed or Disavowed
`The Federal Circuit has held that “[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). The PTAB follows Federal Circuit authority regarding
`
`disclaimer (or disavowal) when analyzing claims in an IPR context using the BRI
`standard. See, e.g., Sony Corp. et al. v. Memory Integrity, LLC, Case IPR2015-
`
`00158, Paper 35 (PTAB May 19, 2016); The Scotts Co. LLC v. Encap, LLC, Case
`
`IPR2013-00110, Paper 79 (PTAB June 24, 2014) (applying Federal Circuit
`
`
`
`13
`
`

`
`Case IPR2016-001254
`Patent 8,457,113
`
`
`
`
`Paper No. 8
`
`
`authority regarding disclaimer, and finding disclaimer based on statements made
`during prosecution, in the context of a BRI analysis); LG Electronics., Inc. v.
`Advanced Micro Devices, Inc., Case IPR2015-00324, Paper 39 (PTAB May 23,
`
`2016); Kingston Tech. Co., Inc. v. Imation Corp., Case IPR2015-00066, Paper 19
`(PTAB March 24, 2016); Edmund Optics, Inc. v. Semrock, Inc., Case IPR2014-
`
`00599, Paper 72 (PTAB September 16, 2015).
`
`Although the disclaimers at issue in this case are fully supported by the
`
`specification alone, the prosecution history also evidences the disclaimers. With
`
`respect to disclaimers made in by an applicant in the prosecution history, the Final
`
`Written Decision in the matter of Google Inc., et al. v. Arendi S.A.R.L., Case IPR
`
`2014-00452, Paper 31, pp. 16-20 (PTAB August 18, 2015), is instructive. There,
`
`the PTAB performed claim construction using the BRI standard. Patent Owner
`
`argued that the prosecution history of the claim term at issue presented a case of
`
`“clear disavowal.” Petitioner argued that the PTAB should not consider
`prosecution history when construing claims in an inter parties review. Citing to
`
`Microsoft Corp. v. Proxyconn, Inc., 789 F.3d 1292, 1298 (Fed. Cir. 2015), the
`
`PTAB acknowledged that “the Federal Circuit has admonished that ‘[t]he PTO
`
`should also consult the patent’s prosecution history in proceedings in which the
`
`patent has been brought back to the agency for a second review.’” Accordingly, the
`
`PTAB analyzed the prosecution history to determine whether the Patent Owner’s
`
`disclaimed subject matter.
`
`
`
`14
`
`

`
`Case IPR2016-001254
`Patent 8,457,113
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Paper No. 8
`
`Turning to Federal Circuit authority concerning disclaimer, claim terms are
`
`given their plain meaning unless the specification or prosecution history evidences
`that the patentee acted as his own lexicographer or disavowed claim scope. GE
`
`Lighting Solutions, LLC v. AgiLight, Inc., 750 F.3d 1304, 1309 (Fed. Cir. 2014).
`
`The standard for finding disavowal requires that either the specification or
`
`prosecution history indicate that the invention does not include a particular feature.
`
`Id. “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,