Case IPR2016-001259
`Patent 8,155,298
`
`
`
`Paper No. 25
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`________________
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`________________
`
`BRIGHT HOUSE NETWORKS, LLC
`WIDEOPENWEST FINANCE, LLC
`KNOLOGY OF FLORIDA, INC.
`BIRCH COMMUNICATIONS, INC.
`
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`FOCAL IP, LLC,
`
`Patent Owner
`
`________________
`
`Case IPR2016-01259
`Patent Number: 8,155,298
`________________
`
`
`
`PATENT OWNER’S REQUEST FOR REHEARING
`UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d)
`
`
`Patent 8,155,298
`
`
`
`Paper No. 25
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`________________
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`________________
`
`BRIGHT HOUSE NETWORKS, LLC
`WIDEOPENWEST FINANCE, LLC
`KNOLOGY OF FLORIDA, INC.
`BIRCH COMMUNICATIONS, INC.
`
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`FOCAL IP, LLC,
`
`Patent Owner
`
`________________
`
`Case IPR2016-01259
`Patent Number: 8,155,298
`________________
`
`
`
`PATENT OWNER’S REQUEST FOR REHEARING
`UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d)
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-01259
`Patent 8,155,298
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Paper No. 25
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`INTRODUCTION .................................................................................. 1
`
`RELIEF REQUESTED ........................................................................... 1
`
`LEGAL STANDARD ............................................................................. 1
`
`BECAUSE THE BOARD MISAPPREHENDED OR OVERLOOKED
`THE CLAIM LANGUAGE OF CLAIM 20 REGARDING
`“SWITCHING
`FACILITY”
`AND
`PATENT
`OWNER’S
`ARGUMENTS REGARDING THE CONSTRUCTION OF
`“SWITCHING FACILITY”, THE DECISION WAS CLEARLY
`ERRONEOUS ........................................................................................ 2
`
`BECAUSE THE BOARD MISAPPREHENDED OR OVERLOOKED
`THE SPECIFICATION’S TEACHINGS AND DISCLAIMERS, THE
`DECISION WAS CLEARLY ERRONEOUS ....................................... 5
`
`CONCLUSION .....................................................................................14
`
`
`
`ii
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` I.
`
`II.
`
`III.
`
`IV.
`
`V.
`
`VI.
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-01259
`Patent 8,155,298
`
`
`
`
`Cases:
`
`
`
`Paper No. 25
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`Arnold P’ship v. Duda,
`362 F.3d 1338 (Fed. Cir. 2004) ............................................................................. 2
`
`
`Chi. Bd. Options Exch., Inc. v. Int’l Secs. Exch., LLC,
`677 F.3d 1361 (Fed. Cir. 2014) ............................................................................. 6
`
`
`In re Baker Hughes, Inc.,
`215 F.3d 1297 (Fed. Cir. 2000) ............................................................................. 6
`
`
`In re Gartside,
`203 F.3d 1305 (Fed. Cir. 2000) ............................................................................. 2
`
`
`In re Man Mach. Interface Techs. LLC,
`822 F.3d 1282 (Fed. Cir. 2016) ................................................................... 3, 9, 13
`
`
`Microsoft Corp. v. Proxyconn, Inc.,
`789 F.3d 1292 (Fed. Cir. 2015) ............................................................................. 6
`
`
`PPC Broadband, Inc. v. Corning Optical Commc’ns. RF, LLC,
`815 F.3d 747 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (emphasis in original) .......................................... 5
`
`
`SAS Institute, Inc. v. ComplementSoft, LLC,
`825 F.3d 1341 (Fed. Cir. 2016) .......................................................................... 5-6
`
`
`SciMed Life Sys., Inc. v. Advanced Cardiovascular Sys., Inc.,
`242 F.3d 1337 (Fed. Cir. 2001) ............................................................................. 7
`
`
`Star Fruits S.N.C. v. United States,
`393 F.3d 1277 (Fed. Cir. 2005) .......................................................................... 1-2
`
`
`TD Ameritrade v. Trading Techs. Int’l, Inc.,
`CBM2014-00137, Paper No. 34 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 2, 2015) .................................... 2
`
`
`
`iii
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-01259
`Patent 8,155,298
`
`
`
`
`Paper No. 25
`
`
`Tempo Lighting, Inc. v. Tivoli, LLC,
`742 F.3d 973 (Fed. Cir. 2014) ............................................................................... 3
`
`
`Regulations:
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.71 (c) ................................................................................................. 1
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d) ................................................................................................. 1
`
`
`
`
`
`iv
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-001259
`Patent 8,155,298
`
`
`
`Paper No. 25
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.71 (c)-(d), Patent Owner FOCAL IP, LLC requests
`a rehearing of the Board’s Decision granting institution of inter partes review
`entered December 19, 2016 (Paper No. 26) (“Decision”) regarding Claim 20 of the
`’298 Patent. The Decision was based upon erroneous claim constructions of
`“switching facility” and “controller.”
`
`II. RELIEF REQUESTED
`
`The Board misapprehended or overlooked Patent Owner’s argument as to the
`construction of the terms “switching facility” and “controller” of Claim 20.
`Accordingly, pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.71 (c)-(d), Patent Owner requests that the
`Board reconsider its Decision of Claim 20 in light of the proper constructions of
`these terms, as proposed by Patent Owner, and deny instituting inter partes review
`of Claim 20 of the ’298 Patent.
`
`III.
`
` LEGAL STANDARD
`A request for rehearing is appropriate when the requesting party believes “the
`Board misapprehended or overlooked” a matter that was previously addressed in the
`record. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d). The request “must specifically identify all matters
`the party believes the Board misapprehended or overlooked, and the place where
`each matter was previously addressed in a motion, an opposition, or a reply.” Id. In
`reviewing such a request, the “panel will review the decision for an abuse of
`discretion.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.71 (c). An abuse of discretion occurs where the decision
`is based on an erroneous interpretation of the law, or on erroneous facts. See Star
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-01259
`Patent 8,155,298
`
`
`
`
`Paper No. 25
`
`
`Fruits S.N.C. v. United States, 393 F.3d 1277, 1281 (Fed. Cir. 2005); Arnold P’ship
`v. Duda, 362 F.3d 1338, 1340 (Fed. Cir. 2004); In re Gartside, 203 F.3d 1305, 13-
`15-16 (Fed. Cir. 2000). Abuse also occurs “if a factual finding is not supported by
`substantial evidence, or if the decision represents an unreasonable judgment in
`weighing relevant factors.” TD Ameritrade v. Trading Techs. Int’l, Inc., CBM2014-
`00137, Paper No. 34 at 3 (Feb. 2, 2015).
`
`IV. BECAUSE THE BOARD MISAPPREHENDED OR OVERLOOKED
`THE CLAIM LANGUAGE OF CLAIM 20 REGARDING “SWITCHING
`FACILITY” AND PATENT OWNER’S ARGUMENTS REGARDING THE
`CONSTRUCTION OF “SWITCHING FACILITY”, THE DECISION WAS
`CLEARLY ERRONEOUS
`The Board misapprehended or overlooked the requirements of Claim 20
`regarding “switching facility” and Patent Owner’s arguments as to the same.
`Accordingly, the Board’s Decision was based on an erroneous conclusion of law or
`clearly erroneous factual findings, and inter partes review of Claim 20 should be
`denied in light of the proper construction for “switching facility.”
`In its Decision, the Board recognized that the preamble of Claim 20 is
`limiting, but the Board failed to analyze the claim language regarding “switching
`facility”, especially as this term relates to the term “edge switch.” Decision at 7.
`Specifically, the Board quoted a claim limitation from Claim 20 emphasizing one
`instance of the term “switching facility” without any analysis or recognition of how
`Claim 20 distinguishes the term “edge switch” from the term “switching facility”
`within the preamble:
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-01259
`Patent 8,155,298
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Paper No. 25
`
`The preamble of claim 20 recites “a network comprising edge switches
`for routing calls from and to users within a local geographic area and
`switching facilities for routing calls to other edge switches or other
`switching facilities local or in other geographic areas.”
`
`Decision at 7 (emphasis in Decision).
`Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the Board’s analysis must give
`“primacy to the language of the claims, followed by the specification.” Tempo
`Lighting, Inc. v. Tivoli, LLC, 742 F.3d 973. 977 (Fed. Cir. 2014). Instead, the
`Board’s claim construction analysis primarily relied on extrinsic evidence and the
`prosecution history of a related patent without considering the most important
`factors -- the language of the claims and the specification. Decision at 7-8. As
`explained in more detail below in Section V, the specification also fully supports
`Patent Owner’s construction. “The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim
`term cannot be so broad as to include a configuration expressly disclaimed in the
`specification.” Paper No. 11 at 14 citing In re Man Mach. Interface Techs. LLC,
`822 F.3d 1282, 1286 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
`Patent Owner proposed a construction for “switching facility” which excluded
`edge switches and edge devices. POPR, Paper No. 11 at 34. Patent Owner’s
`argument regarding the proper construction of “switching facility” first analyzed the
`claim language of Claim 20. Id. Patent Owner noted that the language of Claim 20
`expressly distinguishes that a “switching facility” is not an “edge switch.” Id. A
`quick reading of the relevant limitation shows that Claim 20 expressly distinguishes
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-01259
`Patent 8,155,298
`
`
`
`
`Paper No. 25
`
`
`a “switching facility” from an “edge switch” in at least two instances. Id. In the first
`instance, Claim 20 recites “a network comprising edge switches … and switching
`facilities …” Id. (emphasis added). In the second instance, Claim 20 recites
`“switching facilities for routing calls to other edge switches or other switching
`facilities …” Id. (emphasis added).
`Patent Owner further highlighted that Claim 20 recites functionality for a
`“switching facility” that is different than the claimed functionality for an “edge
`switch.” Id. The preamble of Claim 20 defines the architecture of a PSTN by
`reciting that the claimed “network” includes “edge switches” that are “for routing
`calls from and to users within a local geographic area,” and “switching facilities”
`that are “for routing calls to other edge switches or other switching facilities local
`or in other geographic areas.” Id. (emphasis in POPR). Edge switches can only
`communicate within a local geographic area, as recited by Claim 20, because edge
`switches are connected directly to subscribers or edge devices via end-lines on the
`exterior of the network. See Paper No. 11 at 34-39 citing, in part, to the ’298 Patent
`at 4:64-6 and clarifying statements made in the prosecution history of the ’777
`Patent; 6-7 citing, in part, the ’298 Patent, 1:42-8 and Fig 2; 34-39. Other switches
`in the network make up the interior of the network and are not directly connected to
`subscribers or edge devices, but are instead connected to edge switches or other
`interior switches. Id.
`Also, as explained in more detail below in Section V, the specification
`disparages prior art systems and methods applying call control features through or
`4
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-01259
`Patent 8,155,298
`
`
`
`
`Paper No. 25
`
`
`at an edge switch or edge device, and the specification explains the advantages of
`the invention’s novel arrangement of applying call control features through or at a
`switch other than an edge switch. See Paper No. 11 at 7-10, 21-33. Thus, based on
`the functionality recited in the claims themselves, in addition to the teachings of the
`specification, it would be improper and unreasonable to construe “switching
`facilities” to include edge switches and/or edge devices. Paper No. 11 at 33-39.
` Respectfully, based on the claim language alone, the Board’s construction
`regarding “switching facility” was based on an erroneous conclusion of law or
`clearly erroneous factual findings, and inter partes review of Claim 20 should be
`denied in light of the proper construction for “switching facility.”
`
`V. BECAUSE THE BOARD MISAPPREHENDED OR OVERLOOKED
`THE SPECIFICATION’S TEACHINGS AND DISCLAIMERS, THE
`DECISION WAS CLEARLY ERRONEOUS
`In addition to misapprehending or overlooking the claim language of Claim
`20, the Board also misapprehended or overlooked Patent Owner’s arguments
`regarding the teachings of the invention and disclaimers expressly disclosed in the
`specification. POPR, Paper No. 11 at 1-9, 21-42, including internal citations to the
`Bates Declaration. It is important to note that there are practical limits to how
`“broad” an interpretation may be. POPR, Paper No. 11 at 11-12. “Above all, [it]
`must be reasonable in light of the claims and specification.” Id. citing PPC
`Broadband, Inc. v. Corning Optical Commc’ns. RF, LLC, 815 F.3d 747, 755 (Fed.
`Cir. 2016) (emphasis in original); see also SAS Institute, Inc. v. ComplementSoft,
`
`
`
`5
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-01259
`Patent 8,155,298
`
`
`
`
`Paper No. 25
`
`
`LLC, 825 F.3d 1341, 1348 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (“While we have endorsed the Board’s
`use of the broadest reasonable interpretation standard in IPR proceedings, we also
`take case to not read ‘reasonable’ out of the standard.”). Under a broadest reasonable
`interpretation, “claims should always be read in light of the specification and
`teachings in the underlying patent claim.” Paper No. 11 at 11 citing Microsoft Corp.
`v. Proxyconn, Inc., 789 F.3d 1292, 1298 (Fed. Cir. 2015). “[T]he Board’s
`construction ‘cannot be divorced from the specification and the record evidence,’
`and ‘must be consistent with the one that those skilled in the art would reach.’” Id.
`The construction must be “reasonable in light of the totality of the written
`description.” Paper No. 11 at 11 citing In re Baker Hughes, Inc., 215 F.3d 1297,
`1303 (Fed. Cir. 2000).
`
`In its Decision, the Board focused on “switching facility” not being expressly
`discussed in the specification, but the Board failed to analyze the specification’s
`express disclosure of the invention’s novel architecture of not applying call features
`by or through an edge switch or edge device, including the specification’s express
`disclaimers and disparagement of prior art systems applying call features by or
`through an edge switch or edge device. Decision at 7. “Where the specification
`makes clear that the invention does not include a particular feature, that feature is
`deemed to be outside the reach of the claims of the patent, even though the language
`of the claims, read without reference to the specification, might be considered broad
`enough to encompass the feature in question.” Paper No. 11 at 14-15 citing Chi. Bd.
`Options Exch., Inc. v. Int’l Secs. Exch., LLC, 677 F.3d 1361, 1372 (Fed. Cir. 2014)
`6
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-01259
`Patent 8,155,298
`
`
`
`
`Paper No. 25
`
`
`(citing SciMed Life Sys., Inc. v. Advanced Cardiovascular Sys., Inc., 242 F.3d 1337,
`1341 (Fed. Cir. 2001)).
`The specification of the ’298 Patent recognizes that prior art systems and
`methods applied call control features through an edge switch or an edge device.
`Paper No. 11 at 21. The ’298 Patent disparages these prior art attempts as suffering
`from various shortcomings that the present inventions specifically seek to remedy.
`Id. Indeed, Applicants repeatedly criticized applying call control features through
`an edge switch or an edge device, and in fact distinguished their inventions over such
`prior art. Id. By making such statements, Applicants unequivocally disclaimed
`controllers that applied call control features through an edge switch, or controllers
`that were themselves an edge device, from the scope of their inventions. Id.
`Applicants’ disparaging statements begin in the Background of the Invention
`section of the ’298 Patent. Id. In discussing various prior art systems and their
`perceived disadvantages, Applicants specifically disparage the application of call
`control features at an edge switch:
`There are also edge devices in each of the public telephone company’s
`central offices which provide local control, but offer an extremely
`limited number of features and do not provide true 3rd-party call
`control.
`
`’298 Patent, 1:34-37; Paper No. 11 at 21-22;
`In the past, numerous devices have been built that allow the connection
`of two lines together at an edge switch. These devices can be used to
`
`
`
`7
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-01259
`Patent 8,155,298
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Paper No. 25
`
`add features to a telephone network by receiving a call on one line and
`then dialing out on another line. The problem with these devices is that,
`because they are connected through an edge switch, transmission losses
`and impairments occur, degrading the overall connection. In addition,
`signaling limitations prevent full control, by the subscriber or the
`system, over the call.
`
`Id., 1:56-64; BatesDec, ¶52; Paper No. 11 at 22.
`In addition to these disparaging statements, Applicants further distinguish
`their invention from controllers that are edge devices, and note the numerous
`disadvantages of applying call control features using an edge device:
`In addition to these [1-800] services, there are edge devices that
`perform some of the same services. Edge devices such as phones and
`PBXs that include voice mail, inter-active voice response, call
`forwarding, speed calling, etc., have been used to provide additional
`call control. These devices allow the phone user direct control over
`incoming and outgoing calls. The disadvantage of edge devices is that
`they add cost, degrade voice and transmission quality, can be difficult
`to program, are not easily programmed remotely, can require the user
`to pay for two lines, provide lower quality of service, and cannot
`provide the same level of functionality as a system that controls the
`PSTN directly.
`
`’298 Patent, 2:37-51; BatesDec, ¶53; Paper No. 11 at 22-23.
`
`In sum, the ’298 Patent’s specification expressly recognizes that prior art
`systems and methods provided call control features through an edge switch or an
`
`
`
`8
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-01259
`Patent 8,155,298
`
`
`
`
`Paper No. 25
`
`
`edge device, but notes that there are numerous disadvantages with carrying out call
`control features in this manner; namely, the addition of costs, voice quality
`problems, and the requirement of a user to pay for the use of multiple telephone lines
`(in order to handle incoming and outgoing calls simultaneously). Paper No. 11 at
`23. A POSA could not possibly read the passages preceding the “Detailed
`Description of The Invention” and comprehend that controllers or call processing
`systems coupled to edge switches, or that were an edge device, are within the scope
`of Applicants’ claims. Id.; BatesDec, ¶54.
`It is unreasonable and clear error to construe the claims so broadly to include
`configurations expressly disclaimed in the specification. The Federal Circuit has
`held that “[t]he broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim term cannot be so broad
`as to include a configuration expressly disclaimed in the specification.” Paper No.
`11 at 13 citing In re Man Mach. Interface Techs. LLC, 822 F.3d 1282, 1286 (Fed.
`Cir. 2016); see also Patent Owner’s analysis of other Federal Circuit cases applying
`reasonable claim scope based on disclaimers in the specification at Paper No. 11 at
`14-20.
`In contrast to the criticized prior art solution of providing call features through
`an edge switch or edge device, the specification is replete with commentary
`describing the benefits of connecting to switches other than edge switches:
`
`9
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-01259
`Patent 8,155,298
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Paper No. 25
`
`A preferred embodiment of the inventive system described herein
`connects at the tandem [switch], thereby eliminating these problems
`[the problems identified in 1:59-67 regarding the provision of call
`features at an edge switch].
`
`’298 Patent, 1:65-7; Paper No. 11 at 23-24;
`Connecting directly to the PSTN tandem switch (or embedding the
`system into the tandem switch) eliminates the signal degradation
`problems previously described [i.e., those associated with connecting
`at a CO].
`
`Id., 3:26-28; Paper No. 11 at 24;
`FIG. 1 illustrates the tandem access controller (TAC) in one
`embodiment of the present invention connected to the existing PSTN
`tandem switch, the TAC providing features for the subscriber’s
`telephone as requested by the subscriber via the web.
`
`Id., 4:15-9; Paper No. 11 at 24; and
`The invention allows enhanced direct third-party call control features,
`such as selective call routing and remote dialing, to be added to the
`PSTN (Public Switched Telephone Network) using local call control
`and providing dynamic provisioning of the system by the subscriber.
`Direct 3rd-party control means that the ability to provision the 3rd-party
`features is directly available to a subscriber, eliminating the need to go
`through the telephone company (telco) business office [i.e., the edge
`switch / central office].
`
`
`
`10
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-01259
`Patent 8,155,298
`
`
`
`
`Paper No. 25
`
`
`Id., 2:66-3:6; BatesDec, ¶55; Paper No. 11 at 24. It is unreasonable and clear error
`to construe the claims so broadly to eliminate the objectives of the invention, such
`as signal degradation and toll charges associated with applying call features through
`an edge switch or edge device, as described above. See, for example, Paper No. 11
`at 7-9. Yet, construing “switching facility” to include edge switches does just that.
`The’298 Patent is consistent in showing the claimed controller always being
`directly connected to a tandem switch, not an edge switch, to access the PSTN.
`Paper No. 11 at 24-25. For example, Fig. 1 of the ’298 Patent shows Tandem Access
`Controller 10 connected to PSTN Tandem Switch 16, not CO 17 or 18. Id.
`
`11
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-01259
`Patent 8,155,298
`
`
`
`
`Paper No. 25
`
`
`This is also true for Figs. 2, 7, and 8 of the ’298 Patent - TACs 10 are directly
`connected to PSTN tandem switches 16, not COs 17 and 18 (i.e., edge switches).
`BatesDec, ¶56; Paper No. 11 at 25. As discussed above, the specification criticizes
`and disclaims a direct connection to a CO or edge switch. Yet, construing “switching
`facility” as including edge switches would bring within the scope of the ‘298 Patent
`allowing the controller to be connected to an edge switch – something not
`contemplated in the ’298 Patent.
`
`The exclusion of edge switches from the construction of “switching facility”
`is further supported in the prosecution history of the related ’777 Patent, where
`“Applicant’s architecture” is repeatedly distinguished over that of Schwab.
`’777ProsHist, 80-83, 110; Paper No. 11 at 32-33. Like the ’298 Patent itself, a POSA
`reviewing the prosecution history would clearly understand that a controller
`applying call control logic at an edge switch or edge device is not within the scope
`of the claimed inventions. BatesDec, ¶66; Paper No. 11 at 32-33. Under Federal
`Circuit authority, these disclaimers attached to all claims issuing from the ’777
`Patent, as well as related patents such as the ’298 Patent.
`The Board misapprehended or overlooked the express teachings of the
`specification and disclaimers expressly disclosed in the specification. See generally
`Decision. Indeed, the Board failed to even analyze the disclosure of the specification
`in this regard. Id. Specifically, the Board misapprehended or overlooked that the
`’298 Patent makes clear that applying call features through an edge switch or edge
`device is (1) known in the prior art, and (2) suffers from problems which the present
`12
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-01259
`Patent 8,155,298
`
`
`
`
`Paper No. 25
`
`
`invention seeks to remedy. Paper No. 11 at 25-26. In addition, every embodiment
`of the ’298 Patent (1) illustrates a controller connected to a tandem switch (i.e.,
`“switching facility”), and (2) describes the benefits of this configuration over the
`prior art. Id. A POSA could not possibly read the ’298 Patent specification and
`believe that controllers connected to edge switches, or that are edge devices, are
`within the scope of Applicants’ inventions. BatesDec, ¶57; Paper No. 11 at 25-26.
`Respectfully, the Board’s claim construction of the term “switching facility” as
`including edge switches and edge devices is therefore based on an erroneous
`conclusion of law or clearly erroneous factual findings, and inter partes review
`should be denied on Claim 20 in light of the proper construction.
`For analogous reasons, the Board also misapprehended or overlooked the
`express teachings of the specification and disclaimers expressly disclosed in the
`specification regarding the construction of “controller.” Decision at 9. Claim 20’s
`“controller” is analogous to the ’298 Patent’s disclosure of a Tandem Access
`Controller. Paper No. 11 at 40. Applicants disclaimed a controller that applies call
`control features through an edge switch, or that is itself an edge device. Id. (citing
`to Section V in the POPR regarding the specification’s teaching and disclaimers
`presented herein). Thus, under a BRI analysis, a “controller” cannot apply call
`control features through an edge switch, or be an edge device. Paper No. 11 at 40.
`It is unreasonable and clear error to construe the claims so broadly to include
`configurations expressly disclaimed in the specification. Paper No. 11 at 13 citing
`In re Man Mach. Interface Techs. LLC, 822 F.3d 1282, 1286 (Fed. Cir. 2016); see
`13
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-01259
`Patent 8,155,298
`
`
`
`
`Paper No. 25
`
`
`also Patent Owner’s analysis of other Federal Circuit cases applying reasonable
`claim scope based on disclaimers in the specification at Paper No. 11 at 14-20.
`Respectfully, the Board’s decision on claim construction regarding “controller” to
`apply call control features through an edge switch, or be an edge devices is therefore
`based on an erroneous conclusion of law or clearly erroneous factual findings, and
`inter partes review should be denied on Claim 20 in light of the proper construction.
`
`VI. CONCLUSION
`For the foregoing reasons, the Decision to Institute should be modified to
`reflect the proper constructions, and the Petition should be denied and a trial should
`not be instituted in light of the proper constructions.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Dated: January 3, 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
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`14
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-01259
`Patent 8,155,298
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Paper No. 25
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`I hereby certify that on this 3rd day of January 2017, a copy of Patent Owner
`
`FOCAL IP, LLC’s Request for Rehearing has been served in its entirety via email
`
`on the following:
`
`Wayne Stacy
`BAKER BOTTS L.L.P.
`2001 Ross Avenue
`Dallas, TX 75201
`Phone: (214) 953-6678
`Facsimile: (214) 661-4678
`wayne.stacy@bakerbotts.com
`
`Sarah J. Guske
`BAKER BOTTS L.L.P.
`101 California Street, #3070
`San Francisco, CA 94111
`Phone: (415) 291-6205
`Facsimile: (415) 291-6305
`sarah.guske@bakerbotts.com
`
`May Eaton
`BAKER BOTTS L.L.P.
`1001 Page Mill Road
`Building One, Suite 200
`Palo Alto, CA 94304
`Phone: (650) 739-7520
`Facsimile: (650) 739-7620
`may.eaton@bakerbotts.com
`
`
`
`
`
`15
`
`
`
`
`
`Paper No. 25
`
`Case IPR2016-01259
`Patent 8,155,298
`
`
`
`Patrick McPherson
`Duane Morris LLP
`505 9th St. NW, Ste 1000
`Washington DC 20004
`Tel: 202-776-5214
`Fax: 202-776-7801
`PDMcPherson@duanemorris.com
`
`Christopher Tyson
`Duane Morris LLP
`505 9th St. NW, Ste 1000
`Washington DC 20004
`Tel: 202-776-7851
`Fax: 202-776-7801
`CJTyson@duanemorris.com
`
`Kyle Lynn Elliott
`Spencer Fane LLP
`1000 Walnut, Suite 1400
`Kansas City, MO 64106
`Tel: 816-292-8150
`Fax: 816-474-3216
`sfbbaction@spencerfane.com
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`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
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`16
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Dated: January 3, 2017
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
