UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`CISCO SYSTEMS, INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`FOCAL IP, LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`Cases: IPR2016-01254 and IPR2016-01257
`Patent 8,457,113 B2
`____________
`
`Record of Oral Hearing
`Held: September 19, 2017
` ______________
`
`
`
`
`Before SALLY C. MEDLEY, JONI Y. CHANG, and BARBARA
`A. PARVIS, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`CISCO SYSTEMS, INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`FOCAL IP, LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`Cases: IPR2016-01254 and IPR2016-01257
`Patent 8,457,113 B2
`____________
`
`Record of Oral Hearing
`Held: September 19, 2017
` ______________
`
`
`
`
`Before SALLY C. MEDLEY, JONI Y. CHANG, and BARBARA
`A. PARVIS, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Cases: IPR2016-01254 and IPR2016-01257
`Patent 8,457,113 B2
`
`
`
`APPEARANCES:
`ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER:
`Wayne Stacy, Esquire
`Baker Botts, LLP
`101 California Street
`Suite 3600
`San Francisco, California 94111
`
`
`
`
`
`
`ON BEHALF OF THE PATENT OWNER:
`
`Tom C. Cecil, Esquire
`
`Brent N. Bumgardner, Esquire
`
`John Murphy, Esquire
`
`Nelson Bumgardner
`
`3131 West 7th Street
`
`Suite 300
`
`Fort Worth, Texas 76107
`
`
`The above-entitled matter came on for hearing Tuesday,
`
`September 19, 2017, commencing at 3:30 p.m. at the U.S. Patent and
`Trademark Office, 600 Dulany Street, Alexandria, Virginia.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`Cases: IPR2016-01254 and IPR2016-01257
`Patent 8,457,113 B2
`
`
`P R O C E E D I N G S
`JUDGE PARVIS: This is an oral argument in IPR 2016-01254
`
`and 01257. The challenged patent in these proceedings is U.S. Patent
`Number 8,457,113 B2.
`
`Each of petitioner Cisco Systems, Incorporated, and patent owner
`Focal IP, LLC, will have 30 minutes total to present its arguments.
`
`At this time I'd like counsel to introduce themselves, your partners,
`and guests starting with petitioner.
`
`MR. STACY: Wayne Stacy and Jay Schuller.
`
`JUDGE PARVIS: For the patent owner, is it the same?
`
`MR. BUMGARDNER: Yes. The same, Your Honor.
`
`JUDGE PARVIS: Thank you. So any time you are ready, counsel
`for petitioner, you may proceed.
`
`MR. STACY: Thank you. I'll reserve 15.
`
`So I wanted to -- with the shorter time, we agreed to try to
`minimize any duplications. So I'm going to focus on the issues that are
`mostly unique to the Cisco-only petitions. One of the first things I
`wanted to touch on was the disclaimer issue. Just two minutes on this. I
`wanted to show a couple of things that may have been lost during some
`of the presentations today.
`
`So looking at the '113 patent. The material that was presented by
`patent owner earlier seemed to confuse the concept of edge device and
`edge switch. And they ran the two things together time after time. And
`you see it in their construction.
`
`They are actually two very different things in the patent. And the
`material, if you recall, that patent owner went through and said, Here's
`
`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
`26
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`Cases: IPR2016-01254 and IPR2016-01257
`Patent 8,457,113 B2
`
`one, two, three, four, five, six different disparagements of edge switches
`and edge devices. And when you look at it, they always ran those
`together.
`
`The material they point to is in column two of the '113 patent or
`the equivalent. And the primary paragraph that patent owner relies on
`talks about edge devices over and over. You don't find a mention of edge
`switches. And in fact, it doesn't even talk about all edge devices. It talks
`about two specific types of edge devices. And I highlighted them there --
`it's not very pretty -- but edge devices, such as phones and PBXs.
`
`So what they're talking about there, they are disclaiming having the
`ability to on my phone dial star 81 or the PBX that a company might
`have, programming it in there. So it's a very specific edge device that
`they are attacking.
`
`And then when you look at the rest of the disclosure that they kind
`of don't really touch a lot, look at some of the other things that they're
`really disparaging.
`
`Again, from column 2, in other words, past systems for
`provisioning, meaning addition, modification, or control of telephone
`features, require the subscriber to make the feature selection through the
`telephone business office. Central office workers would then implement
`the provisioning under request of the business office.
`
`So this is when I wanted a specific T1 line. I wanted something
`turned on. I'd pick up the phone, I call, and they'd provision it from the
`headquarters. That's the kind of thing that they were attacking and
`disparaging here. This isn't about switches -- edge switches versus -- or I
`should leave it at edge switches.
`
`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
`26
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`Cases: IPR2016-01254 and IPR2016-01257
`Patent 8,457,113 B2
`
`And when they come down to the initial solution, what do they
`
`describe as their solution after laying out these problems?
`
`The solution, very broadly, a system for allowing a subscriber to
`remotely control features is described herein along with various
`telephone features that may be programmed into the system.
`
`That's their grand solution.
`
`And in the summary of the invention portion, they keep going on.
`Notice this piece of the disparagement has nothing to do with edge
`switches. It's a direct third-party control means the ability to provision
`the third-party features is directly available to a subscriber, eliminating
`the need to go through the telephone company -- telco -- business office.
`That relates back to the disparagement above it about having to call in
`and ask somebody, can you give me access to these types of features.
`
`But then right under that, notice this is what all of the law talks
`about having multiple embodiments. And the reason you've got cases
`like fast cath that say even if you have a single embodiment, that's not a
`disclaimer. The federal circuit's been very clear.
`
`And right under this solution, look what they talk about. In one
`embodiment the system includes -- you can see that embodiment, and
`then right underneath that, in another embodiment -- in this other
`embodiment, that's the first time you get this tandem access controller.
`
`So there is no disclaimer. There are multiple embodiments. And
`that was the question that had come up earlier.
`
`The disparagement is not about edge switches. The disparagement
`that's here, the only thing that could be there, is on an actual phone or on
`an actual PBX or having to call in to the business office. That term is not
`
`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
`26
`
`
`
`5
`
`
`
`Cases: IPR2016-01254 and IPR2016-01257
`Patent 8,457,113 B2
`
`to be confused with central office. And if I have to call in, that's not
`good.
`Those types of things have some disparagement. It has nothing to
`
`do with what they're trying to do because their construction eliminates
`edge switches and edge devices. And you have to look at those two
`words very differently because an edge device -- their expert defined it,
`they've got it in the patents -- it's a phone. Something that the subscriber
`uses, that I would use. An edge switch is something in the PSTN.
`
`So as you look through their testimony and think about it, make
`sure you keep those two terms clear.
`
`The last piece -- I'll add on this and I'll move on -- claim
`construction, is this same concept shows up in their claims. They didn't
`stop with the specification. So when you look at claim 7 of the '113
`patent, it talks about this coupled to the switching facility, which is a
`PSTN tandem switch with telecommunications network. You wouldn't
`need to define it with a clause if that's what you clearly disavowed.
`
`And then claim 22, wherein the communications network
`comprises a network of switching facilities performing a Class 4
`switching function. Class 4 switching function is tandem, at least in the
`old world.
`
`So their claims, their spec, all make the big distinction between
`switching facility and tandem and this whole disavowal doesn't really
`hold together when you look at all of the record.
`
`So with regard to the prior art, I'm going to focus on Burger. I
`think that's the one reference we haven't talked about today. So to set the
`context for how we're going to address Burger.
`
`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
`26
`
`
`
`6
`
`
`
`Cases: IPR2016-01254 and IPR2016-01257
`Patent 8,457,113 B2
`
`So you'll recognize this picture as Figure 1 from the shared
`
`specification for the '113 patent in this particular instance. And what
`we're going to focus on for Burger is a call from a subscriber, hooked to
`the PSTN, over to through a packet network through an IP network. So
`let me show you how this call goes.
`
`It starts with your person 20, here, making the call to the central
`office. Then that call goes to the PSTN tandem switch. From there to
`the tandem access controller, and if you notice that double-headed line
`from the tandem access controller to the web. So there's your packet
`network with the web. So I've come from my circuit switch network, I'm
`in my packet network, and then I go from -- through the web out to my
`called party, the subscriber there on the end. And if you look at Figure 2,
`it shows VoIP expressly on there in a slightly different arrangement.
`
`But notice the flow here. I go from my caller to my central office
`to my Class 4 type switch, then out to the controller, through the packet
`network, the web, and out to my IP phone or my IP device.
`
`Now I'm going to show you Burger Figure 2. So if you look at
`Burger Figure 2 in the bottom right-hand corner, we have a caller 88.
`Just a standard phone. The call goes out to a central office. You see that
`central office is 92. And this is important to know where we're going
`inside. The cloud here is the entire PSTN. So, you know, you're seeing a
`few switches in there, but the cloud is the PSTN.
`
`I connect the call from my local office 92 up to another switch in
`the PSTN, telco 94. It goes from telco 94 to the ESP. That's the
`controller. It goes from my ESP to the packet-based network. From the
`packet-based network to my packet-based receiver, my IP phone, my
`
`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
`26
`
`
`
`7
`
`
`
`Cases: IPR2016-01254 and IPR2016-01257
`Patent 8,457,113 B2
`
`computer, whatever is on that side.
`
`You are going to notice those two flows look almost identical. The
`key here is telco 94. Patent owner has refused to acknowledge what that
`switch really is. I think in the Cisco -- I guess the initial decisions on
`Cisco, the board pointed out that the art that patent owner was relying on
`was from 1984, pre-breakup of AT&T, when everything was a strict
`pyramid. And that's not how the system works. In fact, it's not how the
`system worked then.
`
`The phrase "central office," patent owner tries to use it
`interchangeably with edge switch. Central office is actually a building.
`You see them around in rural America. There was one next door to
`where I live on a farm. Brick building, no windows. And what does it
`have in it? It always has a Class 5 switch in it, and it may have a Class 4
`switch in it, or it may have a hybrid switch in it.
`
`But what you see here very clearly that Burger was showing 92 as
`an edge switch and 94 as a tandem switch. Now, 94 also -- that building
`may also have edge functionality as it hooks over to path 132 to that
`modem. But 94 is both a tandem and an edge. It could be two separate
`switches in the same physical building, or it could be a hybrid. But what
`we're looking at is the functionality implemented in this call. And what
`we're interested in is the call from the PSTN device, the caller with the
`standard phone over to the packet-based subscriber. I think 86 is the
`whole box. So that's what we're looking at.
`
`So look again at what Burger Figure 1 shows. The exact same
`thing. I've got a phone going to an edge device. They call that one the
`CO. Goes from the CO to another switch that's got Class 4 functionality.
`
`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
`26
`
`
`
`8
`
`
`
`Cases: IPR2016-01254 and IPR2016-01257
`Patent 8,457,113 B2
`
`Goes from the Class 4 switch into the controller, which is the ESP. From
`the ESP to the packet-based network, which is the web. And from the
`web into 26. Almost identical. In fact, they are identical.
`
`So the question may come up, you know, as a CO, only an edge
`switch. And first, we see definitely it's not from Burger, but there's
`plenty of other art in the record. Chang is a great example on that.
`
`So Chang -- notice labels various central offices, but notice the
`numbers on it: 11E, 11T, edge or tandem. So Chang is actually
`expressly showing that a central office can have tandem functionalities.
`
`And if you look at Chang, this is column 7, it talks about each
`central office type provides switch network connections and then
`specifically calls out 11T as tandem switching offices.
`
`So every time patent owner stands up and says central office is
`only an edge switch, it's just not correct. It may be an edge switch, but it
`may be a lot more. But a central office is a building. You have to look at
`the functionality. And the functionality in Burger shows it to be a tandem
`switch.
` Why does that matter? Well, first of all, if the Board
`reverses its initial claim -- or stands on its initial claim construction, none
`of it matters. They don't dispute the switching facility limitation. So
`what matters is if the Board reverses its initial claim construction. And in
`this particular instance Burger shows the controller hooked to a tandem
`switch.
`
`So quickly, I'll move on to talk about the only other real complaint
`they have. The only complaint they have about Burger is the call
`connection limitation: Is there a call connected?
`
`JUDGE PARVIS: You are at about 15 minutes.
`
`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
`26
`
`
`
`9
`
`
`
`Cases: IPR2016-01254 and IPR2016-01257
`Patent 8,457,113 B2
`
`MR. STACY: And it's an interesting argument on their side,
`
`looking at Burger, the description of Figure 2 shows expressly that
`Burger's Figure 2 is for communications from a PSTN to Internet or
`Internet to PSTN device. So it's specifically addressing communications
`across both types of networks. And it shouldn't be surprising from the
`actual Figure 2, I mean the point is to make a call from that phone over to
`that other device.
`
`And then sticking with Burger, you can see in the actual figures the
`call connection across from PSTN to an IP is clearly described in several
`places. 218 connect the caller and subscriber for two-way
`communication upon authorization.
`
`And then patent owner, I think maybe accidently, clips too much
`out of their -- one of their demonstrative or one of their pieces of their
`brief, they -- instead of representing all of Figure 220, they clip the top
`piece and say there's no call connection. But this is a conditional piece
`up top. And then if you see down at the bottom of 220, upon subscriber
`authorization, the ESP connects the caller and subscriber for two-way
`communication.
`
`So it's absolutely connected. In fact, Burger discloses two
`different methods of connecting across both networks. One is a one-way
`procedure, which is a call screening; and the other one is the one we
`agree about, the two-way connection. And they just seem to ignore that
`one. But there's a one-way and a two-way.
`
`The last thing I'll leave you with Burger, and then I'll reserve the
`rest of the time, is that patent owner seems to focus or believe that Burger
`is just one embodiment, and that's call screening. But that's not true.
`
`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
`26
`
`
`
`10
`
`
`
`Cases: IPR2016-01254 and IPR2016-01257
`Patent 8,457,113 B2
`
`Burger has several different embodiments.
`
`What it is showing is a call control feature that sets between a
`PSTN network and an IP network. It's setting in the middle to achieve
`the goal that patent owner said right in its summary of invention it
`wanted to do, which was allow remote control of call features. And it
`happens that that remote control is hooked directly to a tandem switch as
`illustrated in Burger. It doesn't have to be. It's only necessary if the
`Board reverses its initial claim construction.
`
`With that, I'll reserve the rest of my time. Thank you.
`
`JUDGE PARVIS: Thank you.
`
`MR. CECIL: Just a quick point about claim construction. So in
`column 1 of the '113 patent, which I pulled up because petitioner was
`discussing it in his presentation. In column 1, lines 59 to 67, we talk
`about an edge switch, and we say why an edge switch is problematic, that
`when the problem with these devices, because they are connected
`through an edge switch, transmission losses and impairments occur.
`
`Then in column 2, lines 40 through 55, we talk about edge devices.
`And in that instance we do first say that phones and PBXs are examples
`of edge devices. But then we talk generally about edge devices -- before
`Mr. Stacy said it was six, but it's seven -- we have seven critical
`statements about edge devices.
`
`Furthermore, in column 5, we say the TAC is connected inside the
`PSTN in the sense that it is not an edge device such as a PBX or a central
`office switch.
`
`What's the central office switch in this scenario? Well, we look
`back at column 1. We say the problem was that optional features were
`
`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
`26
`
`
`
`11
`
`
`
`Cases: IPR2016-01254 and IPR2016-01257
`Patent 8,457,113 B2
`
`provided by a local self-service telephone company through the edge
`switch at the central office. So in this instance the central office switch is
`an edge switch.
`
`We're critical of both the edge switch and the edge device. We
`make both those statements repeatedly about how those were wrong in
`the patent.
`
`MR. BUMGARDNER: Your Honor, I'm going to try to be quick
`here. I just heard that telco 94 is both a tandem and an edge switch or
`just a building. That is pure attorney argument. It is not found in the
`petition, in any of the grounds that they have challenged. It's not there. I
`would challenge him to come back up here and show us where in the
`grounds of the petition for the limitation call processing system coupled
`to a switching facility that they have this. It's not in there. And so this is
`what we've been dealing with. Just new argument after new argument.
`
`Now, what Burger shows clearly -- and this is our expert's
`declaration in the 1254 case at page 37, paragraph 69. It clearly shows
`ESP 60, which is what they say is the call processing system connected
`via line 100 to telco's central office.
`
`Here is Cisco's allegations about Burger from the petition. Let's
`take a look at that first sentence. This is on page 35 of the petition: As a
`result Burger ESP 60 and its processing unit 62 would necessarily be
`coupled to switching facilities in the form of tandem switches, SCPs, and
`STPs in the PSTN through circuit switch interface 64, link 100, and
`central office 94.
` So what they're saying here is there's a indirect
`connection between ESP 60 in a tandem switch, and as shown in the
`drawing and as they admitted right here in the petition, it goes through a
`
`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
`26
`
`
`
`12
`
`
`
`Cases: IPR2016-01254 and IPR2016-01257
`Patent 8,457,113 B2
`
`central office switch. So for him to come up here and say, Aw, it's a
`hybrid switch. Aw, it's a building. Aw, it's really a tandem switch. None
`of that's in the petition. It's just not there. It's completely new.
`
`So let's talk about ESP 60. At Burger column 4, line 35 through
`41, it says that Burger uses DID lines to connect over line 100. And our
`expert says here on page 37 of his declaration: Preferably interconnection
`100 is the T1 line that carries DID, direct inward dial lines. That's a
`quote out of Burger.
`
`A POSA would understand that Burger teaches its purported
`controller as a direct connection to an edge switch. Further, a POSA
`would understand that Burger's use of a T1 line carrying DID lines to
`indicate a connection between an edge device and an edge switch. We
`laid it right out there in the response. This was never rebutted.
`
`Furthermore, Burger says that the preferred embodiment for the
`interface that ESP 60 uses to connect to the circuit switch network is
`TDMA circuit switch interface, right here, box 64. Burger says that a
`preferred embodiment of that is a natural microsystems AGT1 interface.
`That's Burger column 4, lines 5 through 9. And as our expert said, that a
`POSA would understand that this natural microsystem AGT1 interface is
`number 1. A PC circuit card that interfaces one T1 carrying 24 channels
`with a PC. Number 2 was designed to place and receive calls and
`perform voice functions. And Number 3 is an edge device designed to
`connect to a rented or a leased line from a local exchange carrier and
`interface with a telephony company's edge switch/central office. And 4 is
`not designed to interface or connect to a tandem switch.
`
`Again, right there in our response, completely unrebutted in their
`
`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
`26
`
`
`
`13
`
`
`
`Cases: IPR2016-01254 and IPR2016-01257
`Patent 8,457,113 B2
`
`reply. They don't address either one of these passages from Burger. But
`yet they did appear today to start telling you all this different stuff. It's
`not in their petition. It's not in their reply. So this is what we've been
`dealing with in this case.
`
`So quite clearly ESP 60 is connected to a central office. That is
`their own allegation from the petition, and that is what our expert has
`opined on that has gone unrebutted.
`
`Now, they have five theories for Burger alone as to how a call-
`processing system coupled to a switching facility is satisfied. The first
`one is really kind of interesting because they say Berger's ESP 60 is both
`the call processing system and the switching facility. But yet these two
`things have to be coupled together.
`
`And so under their theory, I guess it's coupled to itself. That really
`doesn't make a lot of sense to us, but they didn't address that in their reply
`either.
`
`Furthermore, ESP 60 is connected to circuit switch network via
`central office 94. That is the disclaimed configuration.
`
`Their second theory, on page 33 of the 1254 petition, says that
`Berger's central office 94 is the switching facility. Again, that is the
`disclaimed configuration.
`
`The third theory, on page 34 and 35 of the petition, is the one I just
`showed you, where they say it's indirectly connected to a tandem switch
`through the central office. Again, that's the disclaimed configuration.
`
`The fourth theory that they have on page 53 of the petition in the
`1254 case is this let's unplug ESP 60 from the central office and plug it
`into a tandem switch.
`
`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
`26
`
`
`
`14
`
`
`
`Cases: IPR2016-01254 and IPR2016-01257
`Patent 8,457,113 B2
`
`So I'd like to point you to our expert's declaration, which is on
`
`page 52 of Exhibit 2002 in the 1254 proceeding. And our expert squarely
`contradicts this theory. He says a person -- petitioner says that a person
`of ordinary skill would have found it obvious to couple Berger's ESP 60
`to SCP switching facilities through SS7 signaling channels in order to
`route calls over the PSTN.
`
`This theory, however, fails because a POSA would understand that
`ESP 60 does not support SS7 signaling. ESP 60 is clearly disclosed as an
`edge device connected to an edge switch in the form of central office 94.
`ESP 60 -- I'm sorry.
`
`And then he goes through the exemplary connection of the DID
`lines as being indicative of an edge switch connection to an edge device.
`And he says: This is standard voice traffic that does not involve SS7
`signaling. ESP would not work if coupled to a tandem switch because it
`would not understand SS7 signaling. A POSA would therefore not be
`motivated to connect ESP 60 to the alleged switching facilities through
`SS7 signaling channels. So that's laid out quite clearly in our response.
`I'm not sure they even address that theory.
`
`The fifth theory is they say that you should couple Burger's ESP 60
`to Alexander. This is another obviousness combination. Let me just find
`Alexander. So what the petitioners are saying is, if you don't think that
`Burger shows a call-processing system coupled to a switching facility,
`then you've got a call-processing system that's call manager 26.
`
`The page I'm referencing is page 39 of the petition in the 1254
`case. They say Alexander's got a call-processing system, and here are
`some candidate switching facilities which you could take Burger's ESP
`
`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
`26
`
`
`
`15
`
`
`
`Cases: IPR2016-01254 and IPR2016-01257
`Patent 8,457,113 B2
`
`60, replace call manager 26A with ESP 60, and then all of a sudden it's
`going to be connected to the switching facilities in Alexander.
`
`So there's problems with this. First of all, you will note that the
`box with the dotted line here is the PSTN. So the first alleged switching
`facilities, the gateways and the PBX, are nothing more than edge devices
`that quite clearly connect to the central office within the PSTN. So
`again, that's the disclaimed prior art configuration.
`
`Then they say, well, if it's not the gateway or the PBX, we'll try the
`Dallas central office as being the candidate for the switching facility.
`Well, that's a disclaimed configuration as well. There are other
`arguments as to why these combinations don't work, but I just wanted to
`focus on the diagram here.
`
`Then they say, well, if it's not the central office or the gateway or
`the PBX, let's try the long-distance network. Well, the problem with that,
`as you see, is the call manager has to go through gateway PBX and
`central office before it ever reaches the long-distance network. So again,
`that is the prior art configuration that we talked about in the background
`of the patent, and that was disclaimed.
`
`So I'll just point out that these allegations regarding Alexander are
`rebutted by our expert. This is page 54 of Exhibit 2022. He starts there,
`and he talks about their allegations. Let me see if I can find it here. The
`last sentence here I want to focus on. They say that these connections
`between ESP 60 and these alleged switching facilities in Alexander
`would be made using SS7 signaling. And he responds: Moreover, to the
`extent petitioner claims that such connection could be facilitated using
`SS7, there is no disclosure that ESP 60 is equipped to send, receive, or
`
`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
`26
`
`
`
`16
`
`
`
`Cases: IPR2016-01254 and IPR2016-01257
`Patent 8,457,113 B2
`
`comprehend SS7 signaling.
`
`I'm pretty sure they didn't rebut this part of our response either. So
`we have tackled all of their obviousness combinations head on. Our
`expert has addressed all of them.
`
`And as we have shown you through our motion to strike, when we
`got their reply they changed all these theories. And it's not fair to us
`because we've only had the chance to address what is in the petition.
`
`Lastly, I would note that Cisco also relies on Archer. Here is page
`58 of our expert's declaration in the 2022 proceeding. You've heard it
`from me, but here it is from our expert. A POSA would not believe that
`simply unplugging the alleged call-processing system in Archer from the
`lines that run between converters 126, 132A, and an edge switch, then
`reconnecting these elements to a different switch in the PSTN -- for
`example, a tandem switch -- would be a successful endeavor.
`
`Notably, while call signaling such as SS7 is used, for the PSTN
`setup calls, call signaling like SS7 does not pass beyond an edge switch
`to an edge device like converters 126 and 132.
`
`There's no reason for one to believe that Archer's converters would
`understand SS7 or other signaling necessary to communicate with an
`SCP or an STP.
`
`So I'm going to pass this over to Mr. Murphy, but I would just
`encourage the Board to really look at what's been alleged in the petition,
`carefully consider our response, and you will see that most of the
`allegations that we rebut from the petition, they then change them in the
`reply, and it's really been a moving target, but we have squarely
`addressed the allegations in the petition.
`
`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
`26
`
`
`
`17
`
`
`
`Cases: IPR2016-01254 and IPR2016-01257
`Patent 8,457,113 B2
`
`MR. MURPHY: Thank you, Your Honors. May it please the
`
`Board. This is John Murphy presenting patent owner's case on the
`motion to amend. Here we are presenting a motion to amend for a
`proposed substitute claim 1A4 on the '113 case, which is the 1257 case.
`
`Here I've underlined some language regarding the call-possessing
`claim presented against Cisco. It requires initiating a second call request
`without answering the first incoming call. Answering the first incoming
`call with the tandem access controller when the second call is answered.
`This is the call processing step that we added to this claim.
`
`In addition, as all the other amended claims have, we've also
`included explicitly the disclaimer into this claim requiring
`communications between the tandem switch and the (unintelligible).
`
`And I'd also just to like to make a note for the record, again, the
`prima facie case that we provided, where we believe we carried the
`burden of proof regarding the motion to amend, went completely
`unrebutted by petitioner as to everything except for the prior art. The
`only prior art arguments that they raise are for Archer, Burger, LaPeer,
`and Lewis.
`
`And again, they knew the right way to do it and the wrong way to
`do it. The right way to do invalidity is to go on a claim-by-claim basis
`and make a coherent invalidity argument. They failed to do so. For
`those reasons alone we believe our motion to amend should succeed
`because these claims are patentable, and they never properly rebutted
`that.
`Turning to Burger, I'd also like to focus on this language here on
`
`the value answering the first incoming call as a requirement of the claim.
`
`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
`26
`
`
`
`18
`
`
`
`Cases: IPR2016-01254 and IPR2016-01257
`Patent 8,457,113 B2
`
`Turning to the Burger column 4, lines 24 through 27. Burger
`
`teaches a caller places a call to a subscriber using a public telephone
`number that terminates an ESP. Here Burger explicitly teaches the call is
`answered as required without answering the first call before placing the
`second call.
`
`There's a further disclosure of Burger answering the first call at
`column 7, lines 26 through 31. Step 210, ESP 60 provides an
`introductory message to the caller in communication with the ESP and
`prompts the caller to leave a message. Again, this is another situation
`similar to Archer where they report a tandem access controller has
`answered the first call. The caller is able to then enter digits or leave a
`message with the tandem access controller. Burger explicitly teaches
`answering the first call before it even contemplates placing a second call,
`which doesn't come close to being in the claim language
`
`Further, regarding the disclaimer argument, we've got to have
`annotated Figure 2 of Burger. Mr. Bumgardner's already covered a lot of
`this ground. But I would like to focus the Board's attention to telco 94,
`which they're alleging to be a tandem switch, which is connected to ESP,
`which they are alleging to be the purported TAC.
`
`What they are alleging to be the tandem switch, telco central office
`line 4, that is a direct connection to an end-user line. You can tell. That's
`a copper wire connection. Just like your telephone and your modem at
`your house, they share one telephone line. They connect over one line,
`102. They connect directly to an edge switch. There's no way a copper
`wire line that goes to
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
