`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`________________
`
`YMAX CORPORATION,
`
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`FOCAL IP, LLC,
`
`Patent Owner
`
`________________
`
`Case IPR2016-01258
`Patent Number: 7,764,777 B2
`________________
`
`
`
`
`
`PATENT OWNER FOCAL IP, LLC’S RESPONSE TO PETITION
`FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case IPR2016-01258
`Patent 7,764,777
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Paper No. 26
`
` I.
`
`II.
`
`III.
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`IV.
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`V.
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`D.
`
`VI.
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`INTRODUCTION .................................................................................. 1
`
`SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT .............................................................. 1
`
`DISCUSSION OF THE PSTN AND OVERVIEW OF THE ’777
`PATENT ................................................................................................. 4
`
`Overview of the PSTN...................................................................... 4
`
`The ’777 Patent ................................................................................ 9
`
`LEGAL STANDARDS .........................................................................10
`
`IPR Procedures ................................................................................10
`
`Anticipation .....................................................................................15
`
`Obviousness ....................................................................................16
`
`The ’777 Patent Contains an Unmistakable Disclaimer of Subject Matter
`and Claim Scope for Call Controllers Connected to an Edge Switch or
`Edge Device. ..........................................................................................17
`
`Disparaging the Prior Art is Sufficient to Disclaim Claim Scope. ....17
`
`Disclaimer in the ’777 Patent. ..........................................................21
`
`The Prosecution History Confirms and Reinforces the Disclaimer, and
`Does Not Provide a Basis to Rescind the Plain Disclaimer from the
`Specification. ...................................................................................27
`
`Scope of General Disclaimer ...........................................................35
`
`CLAIM CONSTRUCTION ...................................................................36
`
`ii
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case IPR2016-01258
`Patent 7,764,777
`
`
`
`
`Paper No. 26
`
`Legal Standards for Claim Construction - Broadest Reasonable
`Interpretation (“BRI”) ......................................................................36
`
`“Switching Facility” ........................................................................37
`
`“Controlling Device” .......................................................................42
`
`“Coupled To” / “In Communication With” ......................................43
`
`SUMMARY OF THE REFERENCES ...................................................46
`
`State of the Art ................................................................................46
`
`Summary of O’Neal.........................................................................50
`
`ARGUMENTS ......................................................................................55
`
`The Challenged Claims of Ground 1 Are Not Anticipated by
`O’Neal .............................................................................................56
`
`O’Neal Connects the First and Second Calls Independently of the
`Second Call Being Received ..............................................................56
`
`O’Neal Does Not Disclose a Controlling Device in Communication with
`a Switching Facility ...........................................................................60
`
`Claims 18 and 21 are Patentable over O’Neal ....................................62
`
`CONCLUSION .....................................................................................62
`
`
`
`iii
`
`
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`D.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`VII.
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`VIII.
`
`A.
`
`
`1.
`
`
`2.
`
`
`3.
`
`
`IX.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case IPR2016-01258
`Patent 7,764,777
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Paper No. 26
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`
`Cases:
`
`3D-Matrix, Ltd. v. Menicon Co.,
`Case IPR2014-00398, Paper 11 (PTAB Aug. 1, 2014) ..................................... 16
`
`
`Akamai Techs., Inc. v. Limelight Networks, Inc.,
`629 F.3d 1311 (Fed. Cir. 2010) ........................................................................ 20
`
`
`Akamai Techs., Inc. v. Limelight Networks, Inc.,
`419 F. App’x 989 (Fed. Cir. 2011) ................................................................... 20
`
`
`Akamai Techs., Inc. v. Limelight Networks, Inc.,
`805 F.3d 1368 (Fed. Cir. 2015) ........................................................................ 20
`
`
`Align Tech., Inc. v. ITC,
`771 F.3d 1317 (Fed. Cir. 2014) ........................................................................ 12
`
`
`Belden, Inc. v. Berk-Tek LLC,
`805 F.3d 1064 (Fed. Cir. 2015) ........................................................................ 11
`
`
`Bicon, Inc. v. Straumann Co.,
`441 F.3d 945 (Fed. Cir. 2006) .......................................................................... 39
`
`
`Biogen, Inc. v. Berlex Labs., Inc.,
`318 F.3d 1132 (Fed. Cir. 2003) ................................................................... 20-21
`
`
`Chi. Bd. Options Exch., Inc. v. Int’l Secs. Exch., LLC,
`677 F.3d 1361 (Fed. Cir. 2014) ............................................................. 18-19, 37
`
`
`City of Arlington v. FCC,
`133 Sup. Ct. 1863 (2013) ................................................................................. 13
`
`
`Cuozzo Speed Techs., Inc. v. Lee,
`136 S.Ct. 2131 (2016) ................................................................................. 11-12
`
`
`
`iv
`
`
`
`

`

`Case IPR2016-01258
`Patent 7,764,777
`
`
`
`
`Paper No. 26
`
`
`Dell, Inc. v. Acceleron, LLC,
`818 F.3d 1293 (Fed. Cir. 2016) ................................................................... 12-13
`
`
`Edmund Optics, Inc. v. Semrock, Inc.,
`Case IPR2014-00599, Paper 72 (PTAB Sept. 16, 2015) ................................... 17
`
`
`Epistar Corp. v. Int’l Trade Comm’n,
`556 F.3d 1321 (Fed. Cir. 2009) ................................................................... 19-20
`
`
`Ethicon Endo-Surgery, Inc. v. Covidien LP,
`812 F.3d 1023 (Fed. Cir. 2016) ........................................................................ 14
`
`
`GE Lighting Solutions, LLC v. AgiLight, Inc.,
`750 F.3d 1304 (Fed. Cir. 2014) ........................................................................ 36
`
`
`Graham v. John Deere Co. of Kansas City,
`383 U.S. 1 (1966) ............................................................................................. 16
`
`
`Hakim v. Cannon Avent Group, PLC,
`479 F.3d 1313 (Fed. Cir. 2007) ........................................................................ 33
`
`
`Honeywell Int’l, Inc. v. ITT Indus., Inc.,
`452 F.3d 1312 (Fed. Cir. 2006) ................................................................... 19-21
`
`
`In re Arkley,
`455 F.2d 586 (CCPA 1972) .............................................................................. 16
`
`
`In re Baker Hughes, Inc.,
`215 F.3d 1297 (Fed. Cir. 2000) ........................................................................ 37
`
`
`In re CSB-Sys. Int’l,
`832 F.3d 1335 (Fed. Cir. 2016) ........................................................................ 36
`
`
`In re Kahn,
`441 F.3d 977 (Fed. Cir. 2006) ..................................................................... 15-16
`
`
`In re Magnum Oil Tools,
`829 F.3d 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2016) ................................................................... 13-14
`v
`
`
`
`

`

`Case IPR2016-01258
`Patent 7,764,777
`
`
`
`
`Paper No. 26
`
`
`
`In re Man Mach. Interface Techs. LLC,
`822 F.3d 1282 (Fed. Cir. 2016) ............................................................... 3, 18, 37
`
`
`In re Nuvasive, Inc.,
`841 F.3d 966 (Fed. Cir. 2016) ............................................................... 11-12, 15
`
`
`In re Robertson,
`169 F.3d 743 (Fed. Cir. 1999) .......................................................................... 16
`
`
`In re Van Os,
`844 F.3d 1359 (Fed. Cir. 2017) ........................................................................ 15
`
`
`Innogenetics, N.V. v. Abbott Labs.,
`512 F.3d 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2008) ................................................................... 16-17
`
`
`Kingston Tech. Co., Inc. v. Imation Corp.,
`Case IPR2015-00066, Paper 19 (PTAB March 24, 2016) ................................ 17
`
`
`KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc.,
`550 U.S. 398 (2007) ......................................................................................... 16
`
`
`LG Electronics., Inc. v. Advanced Micro Devices, Inc.,
`Case IPR2015-00324, Paper 39 (PTAB May 23, 2016).................................... 17
`
`
`Microsoft Corp. v. Proxyconn, Inc.,
`789 F.3d 1292 (Fed. Cir. 2015) ........................................................................ 37
`
`
`Net MoneyIN, Inc. v. VeriSign, Inc.,
`545 F.3d 1359 (Fed. Cir. 2008) ................................................................... 15-16
`
`
`Openwave Sys., Inc. v. Apple Inc.,
`808 F.3d 509 (Fed. Cir. 2015) .......................................................................... 18
`
`
`Poly-America, L.P. v. API Indus., Inc.,
`839 F.3d 1131 (Fed. Cir. 2016) ........................................................................ 18
`
`
`
`vi
`
`
`
`

`

`Case IPR2016-01258
`Patent 7,764,777
`
`
`
`
`Paper No. 26
`
`
`Power Integrations, Inc. v. Lee,
`797 F.3d 1318 (Fed. Cir. 2015) ........................................................................ 11
`
`
`PPC Broadband, Inc. v. Corning Optical Commc’ns. RF, LLC,
`815 F.3d 747 (Fed. Cir. 2016) .......................................................................... 37
`
`
`Saffran v. Johnson & Johnson,
`712 F.3d 549 (Fed. Cir. 2013) .......................................................................... 18
`
`
`SAS Institute, Inc. v. ComplementSoft, LLC,
`825 F.3d 1341 (Fed. Cir. 2016) ........................................................................ 37
`
`
`SciMed Life Sys., Inc. v. Advanced Cardiovascular Sys., Inc.,
`242 F.3d 1337 (Fed. Cir. 2001) ............................................................. 18-19, 37
`
`
`Scotts Co. LLC v. Encap, LLC,
`Case IPR2013-00110, Paper 79 (PTAB June 24, 2014).................................... 17
`
`
`Sony Corp. v. Memory Integrity, LLC,
`Case IPR2015-00158, Paper 35 (PTAB May 19, 2016).................................... 17
`
`Synopsis, Inc. v. Mentor Graphics Corp.,
`814 F.3d 1309 (Fed. Cir. 2016) ........................................................................ 15
`
`
`Telcordia Techs., Inc. v. Cisco Sys.,
`612 F.3d 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2010) ................................................................... 20-21
`
`
`Trs. of Columbia Univ. v. Symantec Corp.,
`811 F.3d 1359 (Fed. Cir. 2016) ........................................................................ 18
`
`
`Statutes:
`
` 5
`
` U.SC. § 552(a) .................................................................................................. 12
`
` U.S.C. § 554(a) ................................................................................................. 11
`
` 5
`
` U.S.C. § 554(b) ................................................................................................. 11
`
`
`
`vii
`
` 5
`
`
`
`

`

`Case IPR2016-01258
`Patent 7,764,777
`
`
`
`
`Paper No. 26
`
`
`5 U.S.C. § 554(c) ................................................................................................. 11
`
` U.S.C. § 556 ..................................................................................................... 11
`
` U.S.C. § 556(d) ................................................................................................. 11
`
` 5
`
` 5
`
` 5
`
` U.S.C. § 556(e) ................................................................................................. 13
`
` U.S.C. § 557(c)(3)(A) ....................................................................................... 15
`
` 5
`
` U.SC. § 706(2)(D) ............................................................................................ 12
`
`
`35 U.S.C. § 103 ................................................................................................... 15
`
`35 U.S.C. § 314 ................................................................................................... 14
`
`35 U.S.C. § 314(a) ............................................................................................1, 14
`
`35 U.S.C. § 316 ................................................................................................... 14
`
`35 U.S.C. §316(e) ................................................................................................ 13
`
`35 U.S.C. §318 .................................................................................................... 14
`
`35 U.S.C. §318(a) ................................................................................................ 15
`
`Regulations:
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.4(a) .............................................................................................. 14
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.23(b) ............................................................................................ 12
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b) .......................................................................................... 36
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.108(c)........................................................................................... 14
`
`viii
`
`
`
`
`
` 5
`
`

`

`Case IPR2016-01258
`Patent 7,764,777
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Paper No. 26
`
`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.”)
`Excerpts of 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”)
`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”)
`ix
`
`2001
`
`2002
`2003
`2004
`
`2005
`
`2006
`2007
`
`2008
`
`2009
`
`2020
`
`2021
`
`2022
`
`2023
`2024
`2025
`2026
`
`2027
`
`2028
`
`2029
`
`2030
`
`
`
`

`

`Case IPR2016-01258
`Patent 7,764,777
`
`
`
`
`Paper No. 26
`
`
`
`2040
`
`2041
`
`2042
`
`2043
`
`2044
`
`2046
`2047
`2048
`2049
`2050
`2051
`2052
`
`2053
`2054
`2055
`
`2056
`2057
`2058
`2059
`2060
`2061
`
`2062
`
`2063
`
`2064
`
`
`
`Declaration of Regis J. “Bud” Bates in Support of Motion to
`Amend (“BatesDec”)
`Listing of Section 112 Written Description Support for the
`Proposed Substitute Claims
`Application No. 11/948,965, filed on November 20, 2007
`(annotated with line numbers)
`Application No. 10/426,279, filed on April 30, 2003 (annotated
`with line numbers)
`Application No. 09/565,565, filed on May 4, 2000 (annotated with
`line numbers)
`U.S. Patent No. 6,381,323 to Schwab, et al. (“Schwab”)
`U.S. Patent No. 6,463,145 to O’Neal et al. (“O’Neal”)
`U.S. Patent No. 6,683,870 to Archer (“Archer”)
`U.S. Patent No. 5,958,016 to Chang et al. (“Chang”)
`U.S. Patent No. 6,353,660 to Burger et al. (“Burger”)
`U.S. Patent No. 6,798,767 to Alexander et al. (“Alexander”)
`PCT Application No. WO 99/14924
`to Shtivelman
`(“Shtivelman”)
`U.S. Patent No. 5,809,128 to McMullin (“McMullin”)
`U.S. Patent No. 6,445,694 to Swartz (“Swartz”)
`An Overview of Signaling System No. 7, Abdi R. Modarressi, and
`Ronald A. Skoog, April, 1992
`U.S. Patent No. 4,646,296 to Bartholet et al. (“Bartholet”)
`$200 Billion Broadband Scandal, Bruce Kushnick, 2006
`U.S. Patent No. 6,744,759 to Sidhu et al. (“Sidhu”)
`U.S. Patent No. 6,041,325 to Shah et al. (“Shah”)
`U.S. Patent No. 5,802,160 to Kugell et al. (“Kugell”)
`Karen Kaplan, Can I Put You on Hold? Profits are Calling, Los
`Angeles Times, February 3, 1997
`Redline Comparison of the Proposed Substitute Claims and the
`Original Claims and Clean Versions of the Proposed Substitute
`Claims
`“Cheat Sheet” listing the various IPRs by docket number, along
`with the identity of the petitioner, claims at issue, and art at issue
`Excerpts of Declaration of Thomas La Porta in Support of Petition
`for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,457,113, June 23,
`2016, submitted in support of IPR2016-01261
`
`x
`
`

`

`Case IPR2016-01258
`Patent 7,764,777
`
`
`
`
`Paper No. 26
`
`
`
`2065
`
`2066
`
`Excerpts of Declaration of Dr. Tal Lavian in Support of Petition
`for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,764,777, June 23,
`2016, submitted in support of IPR2016-01258
`Application No. 12/821,119, filed on June 22, 2010
`
`
`
`
`xi
`
`
`
`

`

`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`On January 3, 2017, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (the “Board”)
`instituted an inter partes review (the “IPR”) and trial, pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 314(a),
`as to claims 18, 21, 23, 25, 26, 28-31, 37, 38, 41, and 45 of U.S. Patent No. 7,764,777
`(the “Challenged Claims” and the “’777 Patent”, respectively) on the following
`grounds:
`1) Claims 18, 23, 25, 26, 29-31, 37, 38, 41, and 45 are anticipated by U.S. Pat.
`No. 6,463,145 to O’Neal (“O'Neal”); and
`2) Claims 21 and 28 are obvious over O'Neal.
`See Decision Granting Institution of Inter Partes Review, Jan. 3, 2017, Paper No.
`13. The Petition associated with this IPR is but one of nine filed against the ’777
`Patent, and two related patents, by three groups of petitioners.
`
`II.
`
`SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT
`The Board’s institution decision was erroneous because it failed to give effect
`to the ’777 Patent’s disclaimer of subject matter and claim scope that is plain and
`unmistakable from the face of the ’777 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
`
`

`

`Case IPR2016-01258
`Patent 7,764,777
`
`
`
`
`Paper No. 26
`
`
`is particularly inappropriate here, where the entirety of the prosecution history
`reinforces the disclaimer from the specification.
`The ’777 Patent specification is clear that the inventive concept of the ’777
`Patent relates to modifying a known telecommunications network configuration in a
`way that relocates call control operations away from “edge” devices and switches.
`This is accomplished in the ’777 Patent by connecting the Tandem Access Controller
`(“TAC”) to a PSTN tandem switch, rather than edge switches and edge devices.
`Thus, broadly speaking, the subject matter of the ’777 Patent relates to novel (and
`claimed) network configurations that were invented specifically to overcome the
`technical limitations of the edge switch configuration and to improve call control
`functionality as compared to prior art solutions configured via edge switches and
`edge devices. This architecture further allows the TAC to manage two calls (e.g., a
`first incoming call and a second outgoing call) from within the PSTN. 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 V, infra (collecting and discussing
`Federal Circuit cases).
`In light of the clarity of the ’777 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
`2
`
`
`
`

`

`Case IPR2016-01258
`Patent 7,764,777
`
`
`
`
`Paper No. 26
`
`
`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, O’Neal
`only discloses subject matter that was disclaimed—purported “controlling devices”
`that are edge devices connected directly to an edge switch.
`
`To overcome the deficiencies of O’Neal, Petitioner’s arguments rely heavily
`on its construction of the term “switching facility.” Petitioner’s construction is based
`on a single extrinsic reference. In arriving at its construction, however, Petitioner
`ignores the entirety of the claim language, the specification and the prosecution
`history. Under a proper construction of “switching facility”, Petitioner’s arguments
`fail.
`In addition to the foregoing, O’Neal does not disclose the step of “connecting
`the first and second calls at the controlling device after the second call is received
`by a communication device associated with the specified recipient.” This argument
`is found in found in Challenged Independent Claims 18 and 37 (but not 45 and 46)
`and was not presented in Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response (Paper No. 7).
`Instead, O’Neal connects the first and second calls before the second call is
`answered. This lack of disclosure in O’Neal is fatal to Petitioner’s claims of
`invalidity with respect to Challenged Independent Claims 18 and 37.
`
`
`
`3
`
`

`

`Case IPR2016-01258
`Patent 7,764,777
`
`
`
`
`Paper No. 26
`
`
`III. DISCUSSION OF THE PSTN AND OVERVIEW OF THE ’777
`
`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:
`
`4
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`Paper No. 26
`
`Case IPR2016-01258
`Patent 7,764,777
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`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 ’777 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 ’777 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.
`Accordingly, the ’777 Patent refers to “PSTN tandem switches” as “exchanges that
`direct telephone calls (or other traffic) to central offices [] or to other tandem
`5
`
`
`
`

`

`Case IPR2016-01258
`Patent 7,764,777
`
`
`
`
`Paper No. 26
`
`
`switches.” ’777 Pat., 4:44-46; 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].
`Ex. 2002 at 159. They have also been described as:
`. . . 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.
`Ex. 2003 at 102; BatesDec, ¶38. The ’777 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 IPR2016-01258
`Patent 7,764,777
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Paper No. 26
`
`
`
`
`’777 Pat., 1:40-46 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
`7
`
`
`
`

`

`Case IPR2016-01258
`Patent 7,764,777
`
`
`
`
`Paper No. 26
`
`
`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
`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.
`
`
`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 IPR2016-01258
`Patent 7,764,777
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Paper No. 26
`
`The ’777 Patent
`B.
`Generally, the ’777 Patent relates to the provision of call control features in
`the PSTN. 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 ’777 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. ’777 Pat., 4:32-44;
`BatesDec, ¶41.
`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 ’777 Patent concerns where in the PSTN such call control features are
`implemented. As discussed in more detail below, the ’777 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. ’777 Pat., 1:47-62 and 2:35-
`49. 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.
`By contrast, the ’777 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 a
`perform call control feature, the TAC processes the call at a tandem switch before it
`
`
`
`9
`
`

`

`Case IPR2016-01258
`Patent 7,764,777
`
`
`
`
`Paper No. 26
`
`
`is ever routed to the destination CO. Further, the TAC “is not an edge device such
`as a PBX or central office (CO) switch . . . .” ’777 Pat., 5:1-3; 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 ’777 Pat., 2:12-17 (discussing this
`scenario). BatesDec, ¶44. Using a TAC instead avoids these costs. See ’777 Pat.,
`4:52-67; BatesDec, ¶44.
`Another advantage regarding the TAC’s placement at a tandem switch
`concerns call quality. BatesDec, ¶45. 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 ’777
`Pat., 5:1-3. 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). ’777 Pat., 1:54-65, 2:35-49; BatesDec, ¶45.
`
`IV. LEGAL STANDARDS
`
`IPR Procedures
`A.
`This IPR is an administrative trial in which Patent Owner’s property interests
`in the ’777 Patent are at issue and at risk of being taken or revoked. Patent Owner
`is entitled to the applicable procedural protections required by the due process clause
`
`
`
`10
`
`

`

`Case IPR2016-01258
`Patent 7,764,777
`
`
`
`
`Paper No. 26
`
`
`of the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution and the Administrative Procedure
`Act (“APA”). See, e.g. In re Nuvasive, Inc., 841 F.3d 966, 971 (Fed. Cir. 2016);
`Belden, Inc. v. Berk-Tek LLC, 805 F.3d 1064, 1080 (Fed. Cir. 2015); Power
`Integrations, Inc. v. Lee, 797 F.3d 1318, 1323 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (“Proceedings of the
`Board are governed by the APA . . . which establishes a scheme of reasoned decision
`making”) (internal citations and quotations omitted). Because an adversarial hearing
`in IPR is required by statute, IPR trials are considered formal agency adjudications
`under Administrative Procedures Act and are therefore subject to the APA
`provisions that govern the conduct of formal adjudications. See 5 U.S.C