`Patent 7,764,777
`
`
`
`
`Paper No. 38
`
`
`
`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
`_______________
`
`
`PATENT OWNER FOCAL IP, LLC’S REPLY IN SUPPORT OF
`CONTINGENT MOTION TO AMEND CLAIMS 18 AND 37 OF
`U.S. PATENT NO. 7,764,777 UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.121
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-01258
`Patent 7,764,777
`
`
`
`
`Paper No. 38
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`
`I.
`
`Introduction ...................................................................................................... 1
`
`II.
`
`Lamb Discloses the THS/TNS is Connected to an Edge Switch .................... 1
`
`III.
`
`Petitioner’s Claim that Patent Owner Failed to Disclose Material Art ........... 5
`
`IV. First Call/Second Call Limitations .................................................................. 6
`
`V.
`
`The PBX Art – Blaze, Burke, and Fuentes .................................................... 10
`
`VI. Written Description and New Matter Objections .......................................... 11
`
`
`
`
`
`ii
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-01258
`Patent 7,764,777
`
`
`Cases:
`
`
`
`Paper No. 38
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`Ecowater Systems LLC v. Culligan International Company,
`IPR2013-00155, Paper 18 (P.T.A.B. June 24, 2014) .......................................... 11
`
`
`Google Inc, et al. v. ContentGuard Holdings, Inc.,
`CBM2015-00040, Paper No. 34 (P.T.A.B. June 21, 2016) (ruling on Mot. to
`Amend, Paper No. 16 (filed on Sep. 11, 2015)) ................................................. 11
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`iii
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-01258
`Patent 7,764,777
`
`
`
`
`Paper No. 38
`
`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 of U.S. Patent No. 7,764,777
`(“’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
`U.S. Patent No. 6,574,328
`Opening Claim Construction Expert Declaration of Dr. Eric
`Burger filed by certain Defendants in the underlying district
`court litigation Case No. 3:15-cv-00742-TJC-MCR, Dkt No. 89-
`2, filed 08/12/16.
`Deposition Transcript of Dr. La Porta, Feb. 24, 2017, for
`IPR2016-01259, -01261, -01262, and 01263
`Deposition Transcript of Dr. La Porta, Feb. 23, 2017, for
`IPR2016-01259, -01261, -01262, and 01263 (“La Porta Dep.”)
`Deposition Transcript of Mr. Willis, Mar. 1, 2017, for IPR2016-
`01254 and -01257. (“Willis Dep.”)
`Declaration of Regis J. “Bud” Bates in Support of Response
`Petition filed in IPR2016-01261 (“-01261 Pet.”)
`Petition filed in IPR2016-01254 (“-01254 Pet.”)
`Petition filed in IPR2016-01260 (“-01260 Pet.”)
`Declaration of Dr. La Porta in support of the Petition, Ex. 1002
`of IPR2016-01262 (“La Porta Dec. of IPR2016-01262”)
`Declaration of Mr. Willis in support of the Petition, Ex. 1002 of
`IPR2016-01254 (“Willis Dec. of IPR2016-01254”)
`iv
`
`2001
`
`2002
`
`2003
`2004
`
`2005
`
`2006
`2007
`
`2008
`
`2009
`
`2010
`2011
`
`2019
`
`2020
`
`2021
`
`2022
`2023
`2024
`2025
`2026
`
`2027
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-01258
`Patent 7,764,777
`
`
`2028
`
`
`
`Paper No. 38
`
`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.”)
`Declaration of Dr. Lavian in support of the Petition, Ex. 1002 of
`IPR2016-01256 (“Lavian Dec. of IPR2016-01256”)
`Declaration of Regis J. “Bud” Bates in Support of Motion to
`Amend
`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. Pat. No. 4,646,296 (filed on July 9, 1984)
`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
`
`v
`
`2029
`
`2030
`
`2040
`
`2041
`
`2042
`
`2043
`
`2044
`
`2045
`2046
`2047
`2048
`2049
`2050
`2051
`2052
`
`2053
`2054
`2055
`
`2056
`2057
`2058
`2059
`2060
`2061
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Paper No. 38
`
`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
`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
`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
`Declaration of Regis J. “Bud” Bates in Support Reply in Support
`of Motion to Amend (“ReplyDec”)
`Deposition Transcript of Dr. Forys, July 13, 2017, for IPR2016-
`01258 and -01260 (“ForysDep.”)
`
`vi
`
`Case IPR2016-01258
`Patent 7,764,777
`
`
`2062
`
`2063
`
`2064
`
`2065
`
`2066
`2070
`
`2071
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`I.
`
`Introduction
`Petitioner takes a shotgun approach in its Response, citing to no less than 12
`
`new references. These references, however, have the same deficiencies found in the
`
`art discussed in PO’s Motion to Amend. ReplyDec, ⁋ 32. Notably, Petitioner did not
`
`even apply each of the claim limitations to the art. Patent Owner believes Petitioner
`
`bears the burden of proving that the Substitute Claims are not patentable.
`
`II. Lamb Discloses the THS/TNS is Connected to an Edge Switch
`
`The Lamb reference is the single most discussed reference in the Response – it
`
`is specifically mentioned by name on 13 of the 24 pages of the Response. To call it
`
`the linchpin of Petitioner’s arguments against the Substitute Claims is not an
`
`overstatement. According to Petitioner, Public Phone Switch 202-2 in Lamb is (or at
`
`least can be) a tandem switch (which it is not). ReplyDec, ⁋ 33.
`
`
`
`As an initial matter, the Detailed Description of the invention of Lamb never
`
`describes Switch 202-2 as a tandem switch. Furthermore, various portions of Lamb
`
`make clear that Switch 202-2 is an edge switch (a class 5 switch), not a tandem switch.
`
`This puts Lamb in the same category as the External (EXT) Art discussed in Patent
`
`Owner’s Motion to Amend. See Mot. at 15-19. Lamb thus does not add any more to
`
`the analysis than the art discussed in the Motion to Amend. ReplyDec, ⁋ 34.
`
`Specifically, Fig. 4 of Lamb shows Switch 202-2 as connecting directly to
`
`telephones 106 and 108. Telephones 106 and 108 are “consumer telephones.” Lamb
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-01258
`Patent 7,764,777
`
`at 31:64. The Substitute Claims require that tandem switches not be directly
`
`Paper No. 38
`
`
`
`connected to telephones. Every expert in this and the related IPRs that has
`
`characterized edge switches and tandem switches has noted that edge switches are
`
`directly connected to user telephones (while tandem switches are not). See, e.g.,
`
`Lavian Dec. (Ex. 1002), ¶43 (“Landline phones in people’s houses are generally
`
`connected to a geographically local class 5 switch (also called an edge switch, end
`
`switch, or central office switch.”); BatesDec (Ex. 2001), ¶42; ForysDep (Ex. 2071) at
`
`8:21-25, 12:10-18; ReplyDec, ⁋ 35. Fig. 4, standing alone, conclusively demonstrates
`
`that Switch 202-2 is an edge switch. ReplyDec, ⁋ 35. Lamb provides additional
`
`evidence that Switch 202-2 is an edge switch. Lamb describes that the functionality
`
`of Switch 202-2 that is utilized by the TNS is the same functionality that can be
`
`utilized by consumer telephones 106 and 108. Lamb states that the “call service logic
`
`provided by the telecommunications network server 202-1 is rather limited to
`
`creating, maintain, bridging, and disconnecting call connections within the PSTN 101,
`
`via the public phone switch 202-2,” and that “such functions are typically allowed to
`
`be controlled via regular telephone devices.” Lamb at 31:58-65. Petitioner brings
`
`forward no evidence that describes a customer phone being able to control services
`
`provided by a tandem switch. On the other hand, starting in the 1980s, the Regional
`
`Bell Operating Companies provided features such as call waiting and call forwarding
`
`to their customers through edge switches. See Mot. at 10-12. These features were
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-01258
`Patent 7,764,777
`
`controlled by the customer’s phones. ReplyDec, ⁋ 35. Lamb similarly discusses the
`
`Paper No. 38
`
`
`
`fact that these features were found in central offices (another name for edge switches).
`
`See Lamb at 2:8-49 (discussing the capabilities of central offices); ReplyDec, ⁋ 35.
`
`
`
`Lamb teaches that TNS 202-1 can be located “within the confines of a central
`
`office.” Lamb at 30:56. TNS 202-1 manipulates Switch 202-2 to provide the
`
`functionality described in Lamb. Lamb at 30:46-47. It would be more natural for a
`
`TNS located in a central office to manipulate an edge switch also located in the central
`
`office as opposed to a tandem switch located somewhere else. ReplyDec, ⁋ 36.
`
`Further, TNS 202-1, located in an edge switch, falls outside the scope of the Substitute
`
`Claims requiring that communications do not pass through any edge switches. Id.
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s assertions that a POSA “would have understood Lamb to be
`
`teaching that its TNS could be connected at any type of public PSTN switch suitable
`
`for managing call connections to the PSTN” are wholly without merit. Resp. at 13.
`
`Petitioner first argues that a POSA would have understood that a tandem switch would
`
`have provided the functionality of “creating, maintain, bridging, and disconnecting
`
`call connections within the PSTN 101,” where Lamb’s public phone switch provides
`
`access to the PSTN by “creating, maintain, bridging, and disconnecting call
`
`connections within the PSTN 101.” Resp. at 12-13; Lamb at 31:58-62. But, this
`
`argument is directly contradicted by Petitioner’s previous expert’s statement that
`
`“tandem switches are not capable of originating or terminating PSTN calls, but rather
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-01258
`Patent 7,764,777
`
`direct[] calls to/from an edge switch or another tandem switch.” Ex. 2030 (Lavian
`
`Paper No. 38
`
`
`
`Dec. in -01256), ¶106; see also Ex. 2029 (Lavian Dep.) at 32:4-16 (confirming that
`
`Dr. Lavian stands by his statements in ¶106 of his declaration);1 ReplyDec, ⁋ 37.
`
`Petitioner also argues that Switch 202-2 can operate as a signal transfer point
`
`(STP), and an STP is equivalent to a tandem switch. Resp. at 15 (“POSITA would
`
`have recognized that in order to operate as an STP on the PSTN, a tandem switch
`
`would be used as Lamb’s public phone switch 202-2.”); Lamb at 28:12-13.
`
`Petitioner’s own evidence shows this to not be true. The much discussed Chang
`
`reference shows an STP connected to both tandem and edge switches. Chang at Fig.
`
`1 (elements 11E, 11T, and 15). In addition, Figs. 1-3 of Allen (discussed and
`
`reproduced on p. 14 of the Response) show much the same thing, i.e., STP 18 apart
`
`and separate from tandem switch 16 and central offices 10. ReplyDec, ⁋ 38. Further,
`
`Petitioner’s expert further distinguished tandem switches from STPs, including that
`
`
`
`1 Petitioner also claims that PO’s expert confirms Forys’s erroneous view of the
`
`functionalities of a tandem switch, citing Bates deposition transcript at 35:6-18. See
`
`Resp. at 13. But Mr. Bates only read the portions of the Lavian transcript previously
`
`cited that directly rebut Forys’s claims. Thus, the referenced portion of the Bates
`
`transcript actually contradicts Petitioner.
`
`4
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-01258
`Patent 7,764,777
`
`that an STP cannot carry voice traffic while tandem switches do. Id.; ForysDec, ¶56;
`
`Paper No. 38
`
`
`
`ForysDep at 59:25-6:5.
`
`
`
`The lone reference cited to by Petitioner that equates STPs and tandem switches
`
`is Elliot. Resp. at 15. But its description of STPs is at odds with Chang and Allen.
`
`Further, the cited portion of Elliot refers to Figs. 17A and C of Elliot, which show an
`
`arrangement of equipment that is not representative of the PSTN. ReplyDec, ⁋ 39.
`
`Thus, at best, Elliot may stand for the proposition that tandem switches can function
`
`as STPs in Elliot’s proprietary network. Id. This, however, does not implicate STPs
`
`and tandem switches in the PSTN, which is the relevant network for the purposes of
`
`this IPR and the Substitute Claims. Id.
`
`III. Petitioner’s Claim that Patent Owner Failed to Disclose Material Art
`
`Petitioner’s argument that Patent Owner failed to disclose material prior art is
`
`without merit. The Board has provided guidance on what material Patent Owner
`
`needs to address in a motion to amend. This material does not include art cited against
`
`a later filed patent application. Paper 23 at 5-6. As such, Petitioner’s allegations that
`
`Patent Owner breached its duty to disclose the Lamb and Hess references do not stand.
`
`See Resp. at 1-3. There are hundreds of references at issue in the patent family of
`
`which the ’777 Patent is a part, including references in file histories, references from
`
`Petitioner’s invalidity contentions in district court, 100+ references that are art of
`
`record in the patent, and references from this and the related IPRs. Petitioner cited
`
`
`
`5
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-01258
`Patent 7,764,777
`
`nothing to support the proposition that Patent Owner is deemed to have knowledge of
`
`Paper No. 38
`
`
`
`the details contained in these thousands of pages of references.
`
`
`
`Furthermore, the USPTO has already determined that the ’894 Patent is
`
`patentable over Lamb (in view of Hess and other references). During prosecution, the
`
`USPTO noted that Lamb fails to explicitly teach that the PSTN switch disclosed in
`
`Lamb is a tandem switch. See ’894 Patent File History (Ex. 1037) at 124. The ’894
`
`Patent subsequently issued with the following claim limitation: “communication from
`
`the controller to the called party via a PSTN tandem switch that is separate from a
`
`central office switch without traversing any intervening switches between the
`
`controller and the PSTN tandem switch.” See id. at 32. Thus, the USPTO agrees with
`
`the arguments presented above that Lamb’s Switch 202-2 is not a tandem switch. In
`
`response to the arguments related to this claim amendment, the USPTO issued the
`
`Notice of Allowance. Id. at 21-23. The Substitute Claims contain similar limitations
`
`that are patentable over Lamb and the other references for analogous reasons.
`
`Petitioner has not provided any rationale as to why the USPTO was incorrect.
`
`IV. First Call/Second Call Limitations
`
`None of the art cited by Petitioner teaches, suggests, or discloses the call
`
`processing limitations of “receiving a first call request [at the TAC],” “initiating the
`
`sending of a request to establish a second call without yet answering the first incoming
`
`call [at the TAC],” and “answering the first incoming call at the [TAC] when the
`
`
`
`6
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-01258
`Patent 7,764,777
`
`second call is answered . . .” as recited in the Substitute Claims. ReplyDec, ⁋ 40.
`
`Paper No. 38
`
`
`
`
`
`Petitioner first argues that the ’777 Patent discloses “first call/second call”
`
`functionality. But the language cited by Petitioner (’777 Patent at 2:31-34) says
`
`nothing about a second call or “without yet answering” the first incoming call when
`
`a second call is initiated by a TAC. Furthermore, “local subscriber level” refers to
`
`the geographic level at which tandem switches reside (see, e.g., id. at 3:22-33
`
`(discussing connecting the TAC in the PSTN at the “local service level”)), and the
`
`’777 Patent makes clear that such functionality was not provided at the level of a
`
`tandem switch in the prior art, but at the level of the edge switch. ReplyDec, ⁋ 41.
`
`
`
`Petitioner incorrectly attempts to conflate traditional SS7 signaling to the
`
`specific signaling required in the Substitute Claims. ReplyDec, ⁋ 42. In a nutshell, a
`
`traditional PSTN call is associated with a single call request that is passed from the
`
`originating edge switch to the destination edge switch. Id. This call request (e.g., an
`
`IAM msg) can pass through various tandem switches as it progresses from one edge
`
`switch to another. Id. The end point of “a call” is defined by where the call request
`
`can be answered. Id. Importantly, this is a single call request for a single call, and
`
`the tandem switches simply route the request from one point to another. Id. On the
`
`other hand, as described in the Substitute Claims, the TAC receives a first call request,
`
`without yet answering it, then the TAC initiates a second call request. Id. These are
`
`separate and distinct requests, not one request that is passed from one switch to
`
`
`
`7
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-01258
`Patent 7,764,777
`
`another. Id. After the second call is answered, the TAC itself answers the first call
`
`Paper No. 38
`
`
`
`and connects the two calls. Id. Petitioner’s expert agrees with this common
`
`understanding of a first call/second call. ForysDep at 77:15-25; 79:1-25; 82:4-86:23.
`
`In a traditional SS7 system, there is no TAC. ReplyDec, ⁋ 42.
`
`
`
`Petitioner argues that Wegner discloses these limitations, but the alleged two
`
`call requests are really a single request where there is no teaching of two separate
`
`answers for two separate calls. Resp. at 19-20; ReplyDec, ⁋ 43. Fig. 11 of Wegner
`
`shows a single call between phone 16a and 16b. If Fig. 11 were representative of the
`
`invention described in the Substitute Claims (assuming ViSSP 50 corresponds to the
`
`TAC), one would see two separate call flows – one between phone 16a and ViSSP 50
`
`(the claimed fist call) and one between ViSSP 50 and phone 16b. Instead, a single
`
`call request passes through ViSSP 50. ReplyDec, ⁋ 43.
`
`
`
`Petitioner also relies on Schumacher, Scherer and MeLampy, which suffer from
`
`similar defects. ReplyDec, ⁋ 44. Schumacher and MeLampy both tout the ability to
`
`“redirect” a call without “tying up” two trunks, which confirms there is but a single
`
`call. Id. This functionality is very different than what is recited in the Substitute
`
`Claims – a first call and a second call to the TAC (i.e., two calls) Id. Scherer, at most,
`
`discusses receiving calls and placing calls, but never discloses placing a second call
`
`in response to receiving the first call, then connecting the calls together. Id.
`
`Finally, contrary to Petitioner’s arguments, Lamb does not disclose the first
`
`8
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-01258
`Patent 7,764,777
`
`call/second call limitations. ReplyDec, ⁋ 45. Unlike the Substitute Claims, Lamb has
`
`Paper No. 38
`
`
`
`the first call being answered before the second call is placed. See Lamb at 31:30-35
`
`(“When the [the TNS] detects . . . that a person (the user) has picked up the handset
`
`of user telephony device 106, the phone switch 202-2 under control of the [TNS] can
`
`place a second call connection 232 to the user telephony device 108 . . . .”). In other
`
`words, a second call is placed only after a person “picks up” the handset to which the
`
`first call is placed. ReplyDec, ⁋ 45. The Substitute Claims, however, require a second
`
`call to be placed before the first one is answered. ReplyDec, ⁋ 45.
`
`Furthermore, Lamb actually describes two outbound calls (from the perspective
`
`of the TNS). ReplyDec, ⁋ 46. Specifically, Lamb describes the TNS causing phone
`
`106 to ring first (Lamb at 31:27-28), then causing phone 108 to ring second (id. at
`
`31:33-38). In contrast, the Substitute Claims require the TAC to receive a first call
`
`request, then initiate a second call.
`
`
`
`Lastly, Lamb joins the first and second calls together as soon as the second call
`
`is placed. Id. at 31:38-44 (“Once the [TNS] has caused the phone switch 202-2 to
`
`place the call connections 231 and 232, the telecommunications network server 202-
`
`1 can instruct the phone switch 202-2 to bridge the two connections 231 and 232
`
`together thus creating a single telecommunications session”); ReplyDec, ⁋ 47. But,
`
`the Substitute Claims require that the calls be joined when the second call is answered.
`
`In sum, Petitioner fails to disclose any art that describes a device similar to a
`
`9
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-01258
`Patent 7,764,777
`
`TAC that receives a first call request, then sends out a second, independent call
`
`Paper No. 38
`
`
`
`request without yet answering the first call. ReplyDec, ⁋ 48. Wegner, Schumacher
`
`and MeLampy only disclose a single call that traverses an alleged TAC, Scherer
`
`discloses independent inbound and outbound calls but fails to link them together, and
`
`Lamb discloses two outbound calls when the Substitute Claims call for both an
`
`inbound and outbound call. Id. Further, the Substitute Claims would not have been
`
`obvious in view of O’Neal nor does Petitioner make any effort to provide any
`
`meaningful analysis on obviousness. Id.
`
`V. The PBX Art – Blaze, Burke, and Fuentes
`
`While Petitioner did discover some art that shows a PBX connected to a tandem
`
`switch, these arrangements are a far cry from the TAC in Substitute Claims and the
`
`’777 Patent. As described in the ’777 Patent, the TAC attaches to existing tandem
`
`switches in the PSTN to provide enhanced functionality. See, e.g., ’777 Patent at
`
`4:40-44. The TAC is not shown directly connected to telephones, but either routes
`
`calls to phones via the PSTN or a packet switched network. The PBXs in the PBX
`
`Art, on the other hand, function as edge switches. Consider the language of the
`
`Substitute Claims. It describes edge switches as “connected to telephones on one side
`
`and to PSTN tandem switches on the other side.” And, this is exactly what is shown
`
`in the PBX Art. See, e.g., Burke, Fig. 1 (illustrating PBX 130 attached to toll switch
`
`124 and telephones 141 and 142); Blaze, Fig. 1 (illustrating PBX 111 connected to
`
`
`
`10
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-01258
`Patent 7,764,777
`
`telephones 130 and 131 and toll switch 110); Fuentes, Fig. 1 (illustrating PBX 30
`
`Paper No. 38
`
`
`
`connected to telephone 48 and describing a connection to a toll switch (4:62-65));
`
`ReplyDec, ⁋ 49. Petitioner’s expert acknowledges that this art is the claimed edge
`
`switch in the Substitute Claims. ForysDep at 6:10-21. Accordingly, it would not have
`
`been obvious to modify O’Neal with Blaze, Burke, or Fuentes, nor has Petitioner
`
`made any meaningful attempt as to how or why O’Neal could be modified or
`
`combined to read on the limitations of the Substitute Claims. ReplyDec, ⁋ 49.
`
`VI. Written Description and New Matter Objections
`Petitioner complains that Patent Owner’s Ex. 2041 is insufficient to establish
`
`where in the ’777 Patent (and its parent applications) written description support
`
`exists for the Substitute Claims. Resp. at 4-6. Petitioner cites to IPR2013-00155
`
`(Paper 18) for the proposition that “mere citation to the original disclosure, without
`
`any explanation” is inadequate. Id. at p. 5. Petitioner, however, neglected to quote
`
`the phrase immediately before “mere”—“under the circumstances.” This decision
`
`was therefore limited to the facts of the case and is not a general statement of the law.
`
`Here, Patent Owner’s amendments to the claims largely use the exact words and
`
`phrases cited to by Patent Owner in Ex. 2041, and, based on the excerpts included in
`
`Ex. 2041, it is clear that the inventions described by the Substitute Claims are
`
`supported. See CBM2015-00040, Paper 16 at 3-5 (listing support for an amended
`
`claim that was allowed in Paper 34 at 56-60 of the same proceeding and which is less
`
`
`
`11
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-01258
`Patent 7,764,777
`
`detailed than that provided by Patent Owner in Ex. 2041).
`
`
`
`Paper No. 38
`
`
`
`Petitioner also claims that the Substitute Claims add subject matter not
`
`disclosed in the specification of the ’777 Patent. Specifically, Petitioner complains
`
`about the “answering” step. Resp. at 6. The terms “answering” and “terminating”
`
`are equated in the ’777 Patent’s specification. ’777 Patent at 4:60. The specification
`
`contemplates a subscriber 12 “terminat[ing] (or answer[ing])” a call placed to
`
`subscriber 12 on phone 14. These terms are known to a POSA to have the same
`
`meaning, when used in the context found in the relevant section of the ’777 Patent.
`
`Id.; ReplyDec, ⁋ 50. Notably, Petitioner did not take a position as to how these terms
`
`differ (i.e., it said they were different without explaining what else it could mean) –
`
`an admission that it means answer in this context. ForysDep at 25:17-31:15.
`
`
`
`Finally, Petitioner argues that the ’777 Patent does not support the TAC
`
`initiating the sending of a request to establish a second call over a packet-based
`
`connection. Resp. at 7-8. The underlying applications clearly disclose this limitation
`
`where the TAC receives a first call, which in turn initiates a second call where the
`
`calls initiated by the TAC can be VoIP calls (bidirectional arrows) via a packet-based
`
`connection. See Ex. 2041 (Written Desc Support) at 13, 27, 41. ReplyDec, ⁋ 51.
`
`Dated: July 31, 2017
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Respectfully Submitted,
`
`/s/ Brent N. Bumgardner
`Brent N. Bumgardner
`
`12
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-01258
`Patent 7,764,777
`
`
`
`
`Paper No. 38
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`I hereby certify that on this 31st day of July, 2017, a copy of Patent Owner
`
`FOCAL IP, LLC’s Reply In Support of Patent Owner’s Contingent Motion to
`
`Amend has been served in its entirety via email on the following:
`
`Joseph J. Richetti
`BRYAN CAVE LLP
`1290 Avenue of the Americas
`New York, NY 10104
`General Tel: (212) 541-2000
`Direct Tel: (212) 541-4630
`Email: joe.richetti@bryancave.com
`
`Mark D. Passler
`David Brafman
`AKERMAN LLP
`777 South Flagler Drive
`Suite 1100 West Tower
`West Palm Beach, FL 33401
`Tel: (561) 653-5000
`Fax: (561) 659-6313
`Mark.passler@akerman.com
`David.brafman@akerman.com
`
`
`Dated: July 31, 2017
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Respectfully Submitted,
`
`/s/ Brent N. Bumgardner
`Brent N. Bumgardner
`
`Registration No. 48,476
`NELSON BUMGARDNER, P.C.
`3131 W. 7th Street, Suite 300
`Fort Worth, Texas 76107
`Telephone: (817) 377-3490
`Email: brent@nelbum.com
`
`
`
`
`13
`
`
`
`