Petition for Inter Partes Review
`U.S. Patent No. 8,457,113
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`____________
`
`YMAX CORPORATION,
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`FOCAL IP, LLC,
`Patent Owner
`
`_____________
`
`Inter Partes Review No.: Unassigned
`
`U.S. Patent No. 8,457,113
`
`_____________
`
`DECLARATION OF TAL LAVIAN, Ph.D.,
`IN SUPPORT OF PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW OF CLAIMS
`1, 2, 8, 11, and 15-19 OF U.S. PATENT NO. 8,457,113
`
`{38565264;1}
`
`Ex. 1002
`YMax Corporation
`Page 1 of 79
`
`
`U.S. Patent No. 8,457,113
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`____________
`
`YMAX CORPORATION,
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`FOCAL IP, LLC,
`Patent Owner
`
`_____________
`
`Inter Partes Review No.: Unassigned
`
`U.S. Patent No. 8,457,113
`
`_____________
`
`DECLARATION OF TAL LAVIAN, Ph.D.,
`IN SUPPORT OF PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW OF CLAIMS
`1, 2, 8, 11, and 15-19 OF U.S. PATENT NO. 8,457,113
`
`{38565264;1}
`
`Ex. 1002
`YMax Corporation
`Page 1 of 79
`
`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`U.S. Patent No. 8,457,113
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`I. Background and Qualifications...........................................................................6
`
`II. Legal Understanding .........................................................................................10
`
`A. Anticipation .................................................................................................10
`
`B. Obviousness.................................................................................................11
`
`III. Person Of Ordinary Skill In The Art..............................................................12
`
`IV. Summary Of The ’113 Patent.........................................................................13
`
`A.
`
`Priority Date ................................................................................................13
`
`B. Overview Of The '113 Patent......................................................................14
`
`C.
`
`State Of The Art ..........................................................................................17
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`4.
`
`The PSTN / Circuit Switching Networks.................................................18
`
`Signaling...................................................................................................21
`
`Packet-Switching Networks: The Internet and Voice over IP................21
`
`Processing A Call Between A Traditional Telephone (Over The PSTN)
`
`And A User Of Voice Over IP (Over The Internet) .........................................23
`
`V. Claim Construction ...........................................................................................25
`
`{38565264;1})
`
`2
`
`Ex. 1002
`YMax Corporation
`Page 2 of 79
`
`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`U.S. Patent No. 8,457,113
`
`A. Background..................................................................................................25
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`D.
`
`E.
`
`“web enabled” .............................................................................................25
`
`“coupled to”.................................................................................................25
`
`“switching facility”......................................................................................27
`
`“a call processing system serving as an intelligent interconnection between
`
`at least one packet network and a second network coupled to a switching facility
`
`of a telecommunications network, the telecommunications network comprising
`
`edge switches for routing calls from and to subscribers 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” (Claim 1).......................31
`
`F.
`
`G.
`
`“tandem access controller”.........................................................................35
`
`Summary of Claim Interpretation ...............................................................35
`
`VI. SUMMARY OF PRIOR ART .......................................................................36
`
`A.
`
`Shtivelman: WO 99/14924..........................................................................36
`
`B. O’Neal: U.S. Patent No. 6,463,145............................................................39
`
`VII. THERE IS A REASONABLE LIKELIHOOD THAT THE CHALLENGED
`
`CLAIMS ARE UNPATENTABLE.........................................................................42
`
`A. Ground 1: Claims 1, 2, 8, 15, and 17-19 are Anticipated by Shtivelman...42
`
`{38565264;1})
`
`3
`
`Ex. 1002
`YMax Corporation
`Page 3 of 79
`
`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`U.S. Patent No. 8,457,113
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`4.
`
`5.
`
`6.
`
`7.
`
`Claim 1 .....................................................................................................43
`
`Claim 2 .....................................................................................................51
`
`Claim 8 .....................................................................................................51
`
`Claim 15 ...................................................................................................52
`
`Claim 17 ...................................................................................................53
`
`Claim 18 ...................................................................................................53
`
`Claim 19 ...................................................................................................54
`
`B. Ground 2: Claims 1, 2, 8, 11, and 17-19 are Anticipated by O'Neal ..........54
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`4.
`
`5.
`
`6.
`
`7.
`
`Claim 1 .....................................................................................................55
`
`Claim 2 .....................................................................................................62
`
`Claim 8 .....................................................................................................62
`
`Claim 11 ...................................................................................................64
`
`Claim 17 ...................................................................................................65
`
`Claim 18 ...................................................................................................65
`
`Claim 19 ...................................................................................................66
`
`C. Ground 3: Claims 1, 11, and 15-17 Are Obvious In Light Of O'Neal........68
`
`1.
`
`Claim 1 .....................................................................................................68
`
`{38565264;1})
`
`4
`
`Ex. 1002
`YMax Corporation
`Page 4 of 79
`
`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`U.S. Patent No. 8,457,113
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`4.
`
`5.
`
`Claim 11 ...................................................................................................70
`
`Claim 15 ...................................................................................................71
`
`Claim 16 ...................................................................................................72
`
`Claim 17 ...................................................................................................74
`
`D. Ground 4: Claims 1, 2, 8, 15, and 17-19 Are Obvious over Shtivelman in
`
`Light of O'Neal .....................................................................................................74
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`Claim 1 .....................................................................................................74
`
`Claims 2, 8, 15, 17, 18, 19 .......................................................................78
`
`{38565264;1})
`
`5
`
`Ex. 1002
`YMax Corporation
`Page 5 of 79
`
`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`U.S. Patent No. 8,457,113
`
`Declaration of Tal Lavian, Ph.D.
`
`I, Tal Lavian, declare as follows:
`
`1.
`
`I make this declaration based upon my own personal knowledge and,
`
`if called upon to testify, would testify competently to the matters contained herein.
`
`2.
`
`I have been asked to provide technical assistance in connection with
`
`inter partes review of U.S. Patent No. 8,457,113 (“the ’113 Patent”).
`
`3.
`
`This declaration is a statement of my opinions on issues related to the
`
`invalidity of claims 1, 2, 8, 11, and 15-19 of the '113 Patent.
`
`I.
`
`Background and Qualifications
`
`4.
`
`My qualifications are stated more fully in my curriculum vitae. Ex.
`
`1016. Here I provide a brief summary of my qualifications.
`
`5.
`
`I have more than 25 years of experience in the networking,
`
`telecommunications, internet, and software fields. I received a Ph.D. in Computer
`
`Science from the University of California at Berkeley in 2006 and obtained a
`
`Master’s of Science (“M.Sc.”) degree in Electrical Engineering from Tel Aviv
`
`University, Israel, in 1996. In 1987, I obtained a Bachelor of Science (“B.Sc.”) in
`
`Mathematics and Computer Science, also from Tel Aviv University.
`
`{38565264;1})
`
`6
`
`Ex. 1002
`YMax Corporation
`Page 6 of 79
`
`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`U.S. Patent No. 8,457,113
`
`6.
`
`I am currently employed by the University of California at Berkeley
`
`and was appointed as a lecturer and Industry Fellow in the Center of
`
`Entrepreneurship and Technology (“CET”) as part of UC Berkeley College of
`
`Engineering. I have been with the University of California at Berkeley since 2000
`
`where I served as Berkeley Industry Fellow, Lecturer, Visiting Scientist, Ph.D.
`
`Candidate, and Nortel’s Scientist Liaison, where some positions and projects were
`
`done concurrently, and others, sequentially.
`
`7.
`
`I have more than 25 years of experience as a scientist, educator and
`
`technologist. For eleven years from 1996 to 2007, I worked for Bay Networks and
`
`Nortel Networks. Bay Networks was in the business of making and selling
`
`computer network hardware and software. Nortel Networks acquired Bay
`
`Networks in 1998, and I continued to work at Nortel after the acquisition.
`
`Throughout my tenure at Bay and Nortel, I held positions including Principal
`
`Scientist, Principal Architect, Principal Engineer, Senior Software Engineer, and
`
`led the development and research involving a number of networking technologies.
`
`I led the efforts of Java technologies at Bay Networks and Nortel Networks. In
`
`addition, during 1999-2001, I served as the President of the Silicon Valley Java
`
`User Group with over 800 active members from many companies in the Silicon
`
`Valley. From 2008 to 2008, I worked as a communications consultant at Ixia,
`
`{38565264;1})
`
`7
`
`Ex. 1002
`YMax Corporation
`Page 7 of 79
`
`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`U.S. Patent No. 8,457,113
`
`where researched and developed advanced network communications testing
`
`technologies.
`
`8.
`
`Prior to that, from 1994 to 1995, I worked as a software engineer and
`
`team leader for Aptel Communications, designing and developing mobile wireless
`
`devices and network software products.
`
`These telecommunications cellular
`
`devices provided short messaging service (SMS) between base stations and mobile
`
`devices. In addition, I developed a network protocols for the base stations and the
`
`mobile wireless devices. Furthermore, I developed a GPS-based application to
`
`track the quality of signals in urban areas between the mobile devices and the base
`
`stations. From 1990 to 1993, I worked as a software engineer and team leader at
`
`Scitex Ltd., where I developed system and network communications tools (mostly
`
`in C and C++). From 1987 to 1990, I worked as a software engineer and team
`
`leader at Shalev, where I developed real-time software and algorithms (mostly in C
`
`and C++). From 1983 to 1987, as a student, I worked as a software engineer on
`
`several part time projects.
`
`9.
`
`I have extensive experience in telecommunications and network
`
`communications technologies, including routing and switching architectures and
`
`protocols including Multi-Protocol Label Switching Networks, Layer 2 and Layer
`
`3 Virtual Private Networks, Voice over IP (VoIP), telephony systems, PSTN
`
`networks, circuit switching, and Pseudowire technologies.
`
`{38565264;1})
`
`8
`
`Ex. 1002
`YMax Corporation
`Page 8 of 79
`
`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`U.S. Patent No. 8,457,113
`
`10. Much of my work for Nortel Networks (mentioned above) involved
`
`the research and development of these technologies.
`
`For example, I wrote
`
`software for Bay Networks and Nortel Networks switches and routers, developed
`
`network technologies for the Accelar 8600 family of switches and routers, the
`
`OPTera 3500 SONET switches, the OPTera 5000 DWDM family, and the Alteon
`
`L4-7 switching product
`
`family.
`
`I wrote software for Java based device
`
`management including software interface to the device management and network
`
`management for the Accelar routing switch family network management system.
`
`11.
`
`I am named as a co-inventor on more than 80 issued patents and I
`
`have co-authored more than 25 scientific publications, journal articles, and peer-
`
`reviewed papers. Furthermore, I am a Senior Member of the Institute of Electrical
`
`and Electronics Engineers (“IEEE”).
`
`12.
`
`I currently serve as a Principal Scientist at my company Telecomm
`
`Net Consulting Inc., where I develop network communication technologies and
`
`provide research and consulting in advanced technologies, mainly in computer
`
`networking and Internet technologies. In addition, I serve as a Co-Founder and
`
`Chief Technology Officer (CTO) of VisuMenu, Inc., where I design and develop
`
`architecture of visual IVR technologies for smartphones and wireless mobile
`
`devices in the area of network communications. The backend architecture
`
`implements a telephone Private Branch Exchange (“PBX”) that makes Session
`
`{38565264;1})
`
`9
`
`Ex. 1002
`YMax Corporation
`Page 9 of 79
`
`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`U.S. Patent No. 8,457,113
`
`Initiation Protocol (“SIP”) based Voice over Internet Protocol (“VoIP”) telephone
`
`calls to other SIP trunks and telephone services, such as Public Switch Telephone
`
`Network (“PSTN”).
`
`The system is based on cloud networking and cloud
`
`computing utilizing Amazon Web Services. I have extensive experience with PBX,
`
`telecommunications systems, networking equipment, and call centers telephony
`
`systems. Additional details of my background are set forth in my curriculum vitae
`
`(see Ex. 1016), which provides a more complete description of my educational
`
`background and work experience.
`
`II.
`
`Legal Understanding
`
`13. My opinions are also informed by my understanding of the relevant
`
`law, although I am not a lawyer and do not intend to testify about legal issues. I
`
`understand that the patentability analysis is conducted on a claim-by-claim basis
`
`and that there are several possible reasons that a patent claim may be found to be
`
`unpatentable.
`
`14.
`
`I understand that earlier publications and patents may act to render a
`
`patent unpatentable for one of two reasons: (1) anticipation, and (2) obviousness.
`
`A.
`
`15.
`
`Anticipation
`
`I understand that a single piece of prior art “anticipates” a claim if
`
`each and every element of the claim is disclosed in that prior art. I further
`
`{38565264;1})
`
`10
`
`Ex. 1002
`YMax Corporation
`Page 10 of 79
`
`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`U.S. Patent No. 8,457,113
`
`understand that, where a claim element is not explicitly disclosed in a prior art
`
`reference, the reference may nonetheless anticipate a claim if the missing claim
`
`element is necessarily present in the apparatus disclosed, or is a natural result of
`
`the method disclosed—that
`
`is,
`
`the missing element
`
`is “inherent” in what
`
`is
`
`disclosed.
`
`B.
`
`16.
`
`Obviousness
`
`Second, I understand that the prior art may render a patent claim
`
`“obvious.” I understand that two or more pieces of prior art that each disclose
`
`fewer than all elements of a patent claim may nevertheless be combined to render a
`
`patent claim obvious if the combination of the prior art collectively discloses all
`
`elements of the claim and one of ordinary skill in the art at the time would have
`
`been motivated to combine the prior art. I understand that this motivation to
`
`combine need not be explicit in any of the prior art, but may be inferred from the
`
`knowledge of one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the patent was filed. I also
`
`understand that one of ordinary skill in the art is not an automaton, but is a person
`
`having ordinary creativity.
`
`17.
`
`I further understand that one or more pieces of prior art that disclose
`
`fewer than all of the elements of a patent claim may render a patent claim obvious
`
`if including the missing element would have been obvious to one of skill in the art
`
`at the time of the alleged invention (that is, if the missing element represents only
`
`{38565264;1})
`
`11
`
`Ex. 1002
`YMax Corporation
`Page 11 of 79
`
`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`U.S. Patent No. 8,457,113
`
`an insubstantial difference over the prior art, or a reconfiguration of a known
`
`system).
`
`18.
`
`I understand that
`
`the obviousness analysis must
`
`focus on the
`
`knowledge available to one of skill in the art at the time of the invention in order to
`
`avoid impermissible hindsight. I further understand that the obviousness inquiry
`
`assumes that the person having ordinary skill in the art would have knowledge of
`
`all relevant references available at the time of the invention.
`
`III. Person Of Ordinary Skill In The Art
`
`19.
`
`It is my opinion that a person of ordinary skill in the art with respect
`
`to the ’113 patent in 1999-2000 would have a bachelor’s degree in electrical
`
`engineering, computer science, or the equivalent thereof and approximately 2 years
`
`of professional experience within the field of telecommunications or network
`
`communications.
`
`20.
`
`The ’113 patent concerns the basic architecture of the telephone
`
`network that has existed in the United States for many decades, as well as basic
`
`internet
`
`technology that was well known by 1999-2000. These topics were
`
`covered in detail by that time in books, in publications by standards bodies, and by
`
`vendors that provided products and solutions in these areas. Because the
`
`technology involved in the ’113 patent involves well-known technologies and
`
`{38565264;1})
`
`12
`
`Ex. 1002
`YMax Corporation
`Page 12 of 79
`
`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`U.S. Patent No. 8,457,113
`
`functionalities, an engineer or computer scientist with approximately 2 years of
`
`experience in telecommunications would be well-versed in the concepts disclosed
`
`in the ’113 patent.
`
`21. My opinions regarding the level of ordinary skill in the art are based
`
`on, among other things, my over 25 years of experience in the field of
`
`telecommunications, network communications, computer science and engineering,
`
`my understanding of the basic qualifications that would be relevant to an engineer
`
`or scientist tasked with investigating methods and systems in the relevant area, and
`
`my familiarity with the backgrounds of colleagues and co-workers, both past and
`
`present.
`
`IV.
`
`Summary Of The ’113 Patent
`
`A.
`
`Priority Date
`
`22.
`
`The face of the ’113 patent reflects a chain of patent applications
`
`dating back to May 4, 2000.
`
`I have been informed that in pending litigation
`
`against Petitioner YMax Corporation in which the ’113 patent is being asserted, the
`
`plaintiff asserting infringement has stated that the claims of the ’113 patent may be
`
`entitled to a priority date as early as June 1, 1999. For this declaration, I will
`
`{38565264;1})
`
`13
`
`Ex. 1002
`YMax Corporation
`Page 13 of 79
`
`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`U.S. Patent No. 8,457,113
`
`assume that the '113 Patent is entitled to the filing date of May 4, 2000, and that it
`
`may be entitled to an invention date as early as June 1, 1999.
`
`B.
`
`Overview Of The '113 Patent
`
`23. What the specification of the ’113 Patent describes as the alleged
`
`invention is rather different from what the claims recite.
`
`24.
`
`The '113 Patent summarizes its alleged invention as relating to “a
`
`system for allowing a subscriber to select features of the subscriber’s telephone
`
`service and to various novel features that can be selected.” Ex. 1001 at 1:23-26.
`
`25.
`
`The specification explains that telephone companies offer optional
`
`features such as call forwarding. Id. at 1:52-54, 2:17. However, the specification
`
`continues, “these features typically require access from [the calling party or called
`
`party's telephones] and are extremely awkward to program. The user interaction is
`
`not only awkward,
`
`it
`
`is limited and requires interaction with the telephone
`
`company to provision them.
`
`In other words, past systems for provisioning,
`
`meaning addition, modification, or control of telephone features, required a
`
`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.” Id. at 2:4-16.
`
`26.
`
`To address this alleged problem,
`
`the specification discloses the
`
`alleged invention of using a website interface for configuring telephone system
`
`{38565264;1})
`
`14
`
`Ex. 1002
`YMax Corporation
`Page 14 of 79
`
`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`U.S. Patent No. 8,457,113
`
`features like call waiting instead of having to call
`
`the telephone company's
`
`customer service line. See id. at 2:56-64 (“SUMMARY OF THE INVENTION: 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. A
`
`subscriber may be any customer using the telephone service,
`
`in contrast
`
`to
`
`employees of the PSTN [the traditional telephone network]…”); Id. at 5:16-24
`
`(“FIG. 1 illustrates the preferred method for an authorized subscriber to modify the
`
`3rd-party control criteria by means of the world wide web … The subscriber 12
`
`interacts with the web 22 via the Internet to quickly and easily specify the
`
`enhanced 3rd-party call control features.”) This “eliminat[es] the need to go
`
`through the telephone company (telco) business office.” Id. at 3:24-27.
`
`27.
`
`The patent specification also spends many columns detailing two
`
`allegedly new telephone features: branch calling, and caller ID-based call routing.
`
`See id. at 7:54-12-20. Indeed, the title of the patent is "Branch Calling and Caller
`
`ID Based Call Routing Telephone Features."
`
`28.
`
`29.
`
`There are two notable facts in connection with these disclosures.
`
`First, by July 1, 1999, there was nothing inventive about setting up a
`
`website for configuring telephone options rather than having to call customer
`
`service. Using a website to configure telephone features was already in the prior
`
`art. As one example, U.S. Patent No. 6,463,145 to O'Neal et al. (“O'Neal”)
`
`{38565264;1})
`
`15
`
`Ex. 1002
`YMax Corporation
`Page 15 of 79
`
`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`U.S. Patent No. 8,457,113
`
`discloses a system that allows a user
`
`to “review and/or modify [their]
`
`communication options” (such as “call forwarding”) over the world wide web
`
`using a “user computer 100” in communication with a “web-site” and a “web
`
`server 122.” Ex. 1003 at 16:36-64, 7:45-8:22, 11:26-51, Fig. 1.
`
`30. As a further example, U.S. Patent No. 5,958,016 to Chang et al.
`
`(“Chang”) discloses a system where the user can “review and/or change” their
`
`telephone “service control information” (such as “chang[ing] the 'forward to'
`
`number”) over the world wide web. Ex. 1004 at 18:33-21:27, 2:54-67.
`
`In
`
`explaining the motivation for this invention, Chang notes that “[i]t
`
`is too
`
`cumbersome to require the subscriber to call
`
`the local
`
`telephone company's
`
`business office and request each and every one of the routine changes” and that
`
`“[a] need therefore still exists for a technique which will enable any subscriber to
`
`personally access and control their AIN ['Advanced Intelligent Network'] services
`
`from a general purpose computer without specially developed hardware or
`
`software interfaces.” Ex. 1004 at 2:54-67, 4:39-42.
`
`31.
`
`Even the '113 Patent itself admits that web-enabled telephone feature
`
`configuration was already known: “Today,
`
`there are web-based companies
`
`managing 3rd-party call control, via the toll-switch network, which allow users to
`
`enter call control information through a web portal.” Ex. 1003 at 1:30-40.
`
`{38565264;1})
`
`16
`
`Ex. 1002
`YMax Corporation
`Page 16 of 79
`
`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`U.S. Patent No. 8,457,113
`
`32.
`
`This is not surprising because by June of 1999, there were over 3
`
`million websites on the web,
`
`including Yahoo (launched in 1994), Amazon
`
`(launched in 1995), and eBay (launched in 1995). See Ex. 1010. Indeed, in 1996 –
`
`over two years prior to June 1, 1999 – eBay hosted over 250,000 auctions that
`
`received over one million bids. See Ex. 1013.
`
`33.
`
`Second, in any event, none of the patent claims challenged in the
`
`accompanying petition (the “challenged claims”) focus on using a website to
`
`configure telephone options, and none recite either branch calling or caller ID-
`
`based call routing.
`
`34.
`
`Instead, the challenged claims, drafted approximately a decade after
`
`the filing of the first priority application, are directed primarily to a call processing
`
`system that routes calls over both the traditional telephone network (the PSTN, a
`
`circuit switched-based network) and over the internet (a packet switched-based
`
`network). However, as shown below, routing calls over both the PSTN and the
`
`internet was also already in the prior art by June 1, 1999.
`
`C.
`
`State Of The Art
`
`35. As explained below, the technology claimed in the ’113 patent was
`
`well known in the telecommunications field by June 1, 1999. The ’113 patent
`
`concerns the basic architecture of the telephone network that has existed in the
`
`United States for many decades, as well as basic Internet technology that was well
`
`{38565264;1})
`
`17
`
`Ex. 1002
`YMax Corporation
`Page 17 of 79
`
`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`U.S. Patent No. 8,457,113
`
`known by 1999-2000. These topics were covered in detail by that time in books, in
`
`publications by standards bodies, and by vendors that provided products and
`
`solutions in these areas. Exhibits 1021-1026 are just few examples of books,
`
`standard bodies publications and products at this time period.
`
`1.
`
`The PSTN / Circuit Switching Networks
`
`36.
`
`The PSTN (public switched telephone network)
`
`is the world’s
`
`collection of interconnected circuit-switching telephone networks.
`
`37.
`
`In the United States, the PSTN is the conventional telephone network,
`
`primarily built by AT&T when it was “the” telephone company in the United
`
`States. Telephone calls have been made over the PSTN in the United States for
`
`over a century.
`
`38.
`
`In the United States, the PSTN is a countrywide network of switches
`
`connected to each other by wires. The wires and switches between them connect
`
`the telephone of a calling party to the telephone of the called party. Once a
`
`telephone call between two landline telephones is established, there is a continuous
`
`physical path of wires, linked by one or more switches, between the telephones at
`
`each end of the call that is dedicated solely to that call. This is the meaning of the
`
`term “circuit switching.” The term refers to the switching of infrastructure from
`
`{38565264;1})
`
`18
`
`Ex. 1002
`YMax Corporation
`Page 18 of 79
`
`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`U.S. Patent No. 8,457,113
`
`one dedicated use to another. The network focus is on circuit-based, or connection-
`
`oriented, systems designed for delivery of voice communications.
`
`39.
`
`Even more specifically, the PSTN uses a hierarchy of switches. This
`
`makes it possible to scale the telecommunications network to accommodate a large
`
`number of end users across the country. Traffic is managed between the various
`
`switching offices depending on the type of traffic that was to be connected: local
`
`traffic, long distance traffic, and international traffic.
`
`40.
`
`The switches in the PSTN use a five-level hierarchy: edge or end
`
`(class 5), toll or tandem (class 4), primary (class 3), sectional (class 2) and regional
`
`(class 1). Landline phones in people’s houses are generally connected to a
`
`geographically local class 5 switch (also be called an edge switch, end switch, or
`
`central office switch). Tandem/Class 4 switches generally connect edge/class 5
`
`switches together, although nearby class 5 switches can be connected directly. In
`
`the PSTN, class 2 and 3 switches are used infrequently, and class 4 switches can be
`
`connected to one another as well as by a class 1 switch. The basic architecture of
`
`the PSTN can therefore be illustrated by the following diagram:
`
`{38565264;1})
`
`19
`
`Ex. 1002
`YMax Corporation
`Page 19 of 79
`
`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`U.S. Patent No. 8,457,113
`
`41.
`
`The PSTN switch hierarchy does not mandate physical separation.
`
`Switches from one or more adjacent classes (specifically edge and tandem) can be
`
`located together in the same physical facility. A combined class 4/class 5 switch is
`
`often called a “hybrid” switch.
`
`42. When 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. The switches use the
`
`{38565264;1})
`
`20
`
`Ex. 1002
`YMax Corporation
`Page 20 of 79
`
`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`U.S. Patent No. 8,457,113
`
`telephone number dialed by the caller to know where to route the call. Thus, the
`
`network of switches enables the communication network to connect users either
`
`within or outside a local geographic area.
`
`2.
`
`Signaling
`
`43.
`
`In addition to carrying voice communications, the PSTN also carries
`
`signaling, which is information used to control the call. Signaling communicates
`
`information the network needs to operate, such as the signal sent to the local
`
`central office from a telephone when the handset is picked up that notifies the
`
`central office to send the telephone a dial tone, or the signal from the central office
`
`that tells a telephone to ring because there is an incoming call. The protocol that is
`
`used for signaling on the PSTN is called Signalling System 7, or SS7.1
`
`44.
`
`The SS7 signaling protocol was first issued by CCITT (for Comite
`
`Consultatif International Telephonique et Telegraphique, now known as the ITU-T
`
`for
`
`Telecommunication
`
`Standardization
`
`Sector
`
`of
`
`the
`
`International
`
`telecommunications Union,
`
`the primary international body for cooperative
`
`telecommunications standards) in 1980 (and was revised in 1984, 1988, and 1992).
`
`3.
`
`Packet-Switching Networks: The Internet and Voice over
`IP
`
`1 Ex. 1017.
`{38565264;1})
`
`21
`
`Ex. 1002
`YMax Corporation
`Page 21 of 79
`
`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`U.S. Patent No. 8,457,113
`
`45. As explained above, the PSTN is a circuit-switched network, which
`
`requires a dedicated point-to-point connection during a phone call. In contrast, the
`
`internet is a packet-switched network. There is no dedicated route between two
`
`computers that are communicating over the internet. Rather, information to be
`
`transmitted through the internet is broken down into small blocks called packets,
`
`each of which includes the address of the destination computer. Each packet may
`
`travel a different route through the connected parts of the internet before arriving at
`
`the destination computer. The packets are then reassembled at the destination
`
`computer.
`
`46.
`
`TCP/IP is a collection of protocols used for, among other things,
`
`sending information through the internet. The “IP” stands for Internet Protocol.
`
`47.
`
`Voice over IP (VoIP). VoIP is the transmission of voice that has
`
`been converted into digital packets of data using the Internet Protocol. VoIP
`
`communications typically take place over the internet, though they could use a
`
`private network.
`
`48. As the ‘113 patent admits, VoIP was invented and used before the
`
`alleged invention of the ‘113 patent. See Ex. 1001 at 2:51-54 (“There are Voice
`
`Over Internet Protocol (VoiP) products emerging that provide better user interfaces
`
`and control but they do not take advantage and [sic] voice quality of the PSTN.”)
`
`{38565264;1})
`
`22
`
`Ex. 1002
`YMax Corporation
`Page 22 of 79
`
`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`U.S. Patent No. 8,457,113
`
`49.
`
`Indeed, a public domain VoIP application NetFone (later called Speak
`
`Freely) was released in 1991 by Autodesk. See Ex. 1018.
`
`50.
`
`The first commercial internet VoIP application, called Internet Phone,
`
`was released by Petitioner’s predecessor VocalTec Communications in February of
`
`1995.
`
`4.
`
`Processing A Call Between A Traditional Telephone (Over
`The PSTN) And A User Of Voice Over IP (Over The
`Internet)
`
`51. U.S. Patent No. 6,031,836 (the Haserodt patent), the application for
`
`which was filed several years before the earliest application in the chain leading to
`
`the ‘113 patent, discloses not
`
`just Voice over IP telephony, but also voice
`
`communication between a VoIP user and a PSTN user, processing calls using
`
`both a packet-switched network and a circuit-switched network. See Ex. 1015 at
`
`1:10-17 (“It is known in the communications arts that voice calls can be carried by
`
`the Internet (or some other data transport network) between a pair of Internet
`
`phones or voice-enabled computers. It is also k
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
