`
`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 COMMUNICATINOS, INC.
`
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`FOCAL IP, LLC,
`
`Patent Owner
`
`________________
`
`Case IPR2016-01261
`Patent Number: 8,457,113 B2
`________________
`
`
`
`
`
`PATENT OWNER FOCAL IP, LLC’S RESPONSE TO PETITION
`FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`I. 
`
`II. 
`
`III. 
`
`A. 
`
`B. 
`
`IV. 
`
`A. 
`
`B. 
`
`C. 
`
`D. 
`
`V. 
`
`A. 
`
`B. 
`
`C. 
`
`VI. 
`
`Case IPR2016-01261
`Patent 8,457,113
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Paper No. 30
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`INTRODUCTION .................................................................................. 1
`
`SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT .............................................................. 1
`
`DISCUSSION OF THE PSTN AND OVERVIEW OF THE ’113
`PATENT ................................................................................................. 4
`
`Overview of the PSTN ......................................................................... 4
`
`The ’113 Patent .................................................................................... 9
`
`The ’113 Patent Contains an Unmistakable Disclaimer of Subject Matter
`and Claim Scope for Call Controllers Connected to an Edge Switch or
`Edge Device. ......................................................................................... 10
`
`Disparaging the Prior Art is Sufficient to Disclaim Claim Scope. .... 10
`
`Disclaimer in the ’113 Patent ............................................................. 14
`
`The Prosecution History Confirms and Reinforces the Disclaimer, and
`Does Not Provide a Basis to Rescind the Plain Disclaimer from the
`Specification. ...................................................................................... 20
`
`Scope of General Disclaimer ............................................................. 28
`
`CLAIM CONSTRUCTION .................................................................. 29
`
`Legal Standards for Claim Construction - Broadest Reasonable
`Interpretation (“BRI”) ........................................................................ 29
`
`“Switching Facility” ........................................................................... 30
`
`“Coupled To” ..................................................................................... 35
`
`SUMMARY OF THE REFERENCES ................................................. 38
`
`ii
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case IPR2016-01261
`Patent 8,457,113
`
`
`
`
`Paper No. 30
`
`State of the Art ................................................................................... 38
`
`Summary of Archer ............................................................................ 42
`
`Summary of Chang ............................................................................ 44
`
`ARGUMENTS ...................................................................................... 46
`
`Archer Does Not Disclose That the Web-Enabled Processing System
`Establishes Voice Communication Between the Calling Party and the
`Called Party. ....................................................................................... 48
`
`Archer Does Not Disclose a Call Processing System Coupled to a
`Switching Facility/Tandem Switch. ................................................... 53
`
`are Edge Devices, Not Switching
`Archer’s Converters
`Facilities ......................................................................................... 53
`
`Archer Does Not Inherently Disclose That Archer’s Converter is
`Coupled to a Switching Facility/Tandem Switch. ......................... 57
`
`It Would Not Be Obvious to a POSA to Couple Archer’s Converters
`to a Switching Facility/Tandem Switch ......................................... 58
`
`Chang Fails to Cure Archer’s Deficiencies ....................................... 59
`
`Chang Does Not Disclose a Call Processing System Coupled to a
`Switching Facility/Tandem Switch ................................................ 59
`
`There Is No Reason to Combine Chang with Archer ..................... 61
`
`Claims 18 and 19 are Patentable. ....................................................... 62
`
`Claim 163 (and its Dependent Claims) are Patentable Because Archer
`Does Not Disclose a “Controller.” ..................................................... 64
`
`CONCLUSION ..................................................................................... 65 
`
`iii
`
`
`
`A. 
`
`B. 
`
`C. 
`
`VII. 
`
`A. 
`
`B. 
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1. 
`
`
`2. 
`
`
`3. 
`
`
`
`C. 
`
`
`1. 
`
`
`2. 
`
`
`D. 
`
`E. 
`
`VIII. 
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case IPR2016-01261
`Patent 8,457,113
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Paper No. 30
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`
`Cases:
`
`Akamai Techs., Inc. v. Limelight Networks, Inc.,
`629 F.3d 1311 (Fed. Cir. 2010) ........................................................................... 13
`
` 
`Akamai Techs., Inc. v. Limelight Networks, Inc.,
`419 F. App’x 989 (Fed. Cir. 2011) ..................................................................... 13
`
`
`Akamai Techs., Inc. v. Limelight Networks, Inc.,
`805 F.3d 1368 (Fed. Cir. 2015) ........................................................................... 13
`
`
`Ariosa Diagnostics v. Verinata Health, Inc.,
`805 F.3d 1359 (Fed. Cir. 2015) ........................................................................... 53
`
`
`Bicon, Inc. v. Straumann Co.,
`441 F.3d 945 (Fed. Cir. 2006) ............................................................................. 31
`
`
`Biogen, Inc. v. Berlex Labs., Inc.,
`318 F.3d 1132 (Fed. Cir. 2003) ...................................................................... 13-14
`
`
`Chi. Bd. Options Exch., Inc. v. Int’l Secs. Exch., LLC,
`677 F.3d 1361 (Fed. Cir. 2014) ................................................................ 11-12, 30
`
`
`Edmund Optics, Inc. v. Semrock, Inc.,
`Case IPR2014-00599, Paper 72 (PTAB Sept. 16, 2015) .................................... 11
`
`
`Epistar Corp. v. Int’l Trade Comm’n,
`556 F.3d 1321 (Fed. Cir. 2009) ...................................................................... 12-13
`
`
`GE Lighting Solutions, LLC v. AgiLight, Inc.,
`750 F.3d 1304 (Fed. Cir. 2014) ........................................................................... 29
`
`
`Hakim v. Cannon Avent Group, PLC,
`479 F.3d 1313 (Fed. Cir. 2007) ........................................................................... 26
`
`
`
`iv
`
`
`
`

`

`Case IPR2016-01261
`Patent 8,457,113
`
`
`
`
`Paper No. 30
`
`
`Honeywell Int’l, Inc. v. ITT Indus., Inc.,
`452 F.3d 1312 (Fed. Cir. 2006) ...................................................................... 12-13
`
`
`In re Baker Hughes, Inc.,
`215 F.3d 1297 (Fed. Cir. 2000) ........................................................................... 30
`
`
`In re CSB-Sys. Int’l,
`832 F.3d 1335 (Fed. Cir. 2016) ........................................................................... 29
`
`
`In re Man Mach. Interface Techs. LLC,
`822 F.3d 1282 (Fed. Cir. 2016) ................................................................. 2, 12, 30
`
`
`Intelligent Bio-Systems, Inc. v. Illumina Cambridge, Ltd.,
`821 F.3d 1359 (Fed. Cir. 2016) ........................................................................... 52
`
`
`Kingston Tech. Co., Inc. v. Imation Corp.,
`Case IPR2015-00066, Paper 19 (PTAB March 24, 2016) .................................. 11
`
`
`LG Electronics., Inc. v. Advanced Micro Devices, Inc.,
`Case IPR2015-00324, Paper 39 (PTAB May 23, 2016) ..................................... 11
`
`
`Microsoft Corp. v. Proxyconn, Inc.,
`789 F.3d 1292 (Fed. Cir. 2015) ........................................................................... 30
`
`
`Openwave Sys., Inc. v. Apple Inc.,
`808 F.3d 509 (Fed. Cir. 2015) ............................................................................. 12
`
`
`Poly-America, L.P. v. API Indus., Inc.,
`839 F.3d 1131 (Fed. Cir. 2016) ........................................................................... 11
`
`
`PPC Broadband, Inc. v. Corning Optical Commc’ns. RF, LLC,
`815 F.3d 747 (Fed. Cir. 2016) ........................................................................ 29-30
`
`
`Saffran v. Johnson & Johnson,
`712 F.3d 549 (Fed. Cir. 2013) ............................................................................. 11
`
`
`SAS Institute, Inc. v. ComplementSoft, LLC,
`825 F.3d 1341 (Fed. Cir. 2016) ........................................................................... 29
`v
`
`
`
`

`

`Case IPR2016-01261
`Patent 8,457,113
`
`
`
`
`Paper No. 30
`
`
`
`SciMed Life Sys., Inc. v. Advanced Cardiovascular Sys., Inc.,
`242 F.3d 1337 (Fed. Cir. 2001) ................................................................ 11-12, 30
`
`
`Scotts Co. LLC v. Encap, LLC,
`Case IPR2013-00110, Paper 79 (PTAB June 24, 2014) ................................ 10-11
`
`
`Sony Corp. v. Memory Integrity, LLC,
`Case IPR2015-00158, Paper 35 (PTAB May 19, 2016) ..................................... 10
`
`
`Telcordia Techs., Inc. v. Cisco Sys.,
`612 F.3d 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2010) ...................................................................... 13-14
`
`
`Trs. of Columbia Univ. v. Symantec Corp.,
`811 F.3d 1359 (Fed. Cir. 2016) ........................................................................... 11
`
`
`Statutes:
`
`35 U.S.C. § 103(a) ............................................................................................. 46-47
`
`35 U.S.C. § 314(a) .................................................................................................... 1
`
`Regulations:
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.23(b) ............................................................................................... 52
`
`
`
`vi
`
`
`
`

`

`Case IPR2016-01261
`Patent 8,457,113
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Paper No. 30
`
`7,764,777
`
`of U.S. Patent No.
`
`UPDATED LIST OF EXHIBITS
`
`Declaration of Regis J. “Bud” Bates filed with Preliminary
`Response
`Ray Horak, Communications Systems & Networks, (2nd ed. 2000)
`Ray Horak, Webster’s New World Telecom Dictionary (2008)
`Ray Horak, Telecommunications and Data Communications
`(2007)
`Prosecution History
`(“’777ProsHist”)
`Harry Newton, Newton’s Telecom Dictionary, (23rd ed. 2007)
`Declaration of John P. Murphy in Support of Unopposed Motion
`for Pro Hac Vice Admission
`Declaration of Hanna F. Madbak in Support of Unopposed Motion
`for Pro Hac Vice Admission
`Corrected Declaration of Hanna F. Madbak in Support of
`Unopposed Motion for Pro Hac Vice Admission
`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.”)
`Excerpts of Deposition Transcript of Mr. Willis, Mar. 1, 2017, for
`IPR2016-01254 and -01257. (“Willis Dep.”)
`Declaration of Regis J. “Bud” Bates in Support of Response
`(“BatesDec”)
`Excerpts of Petition filed in IPR2016-01261 (“-01261 Pet.”)
`Excerpts of Petition filed in IPR2016-01254 (“-01254 Pet.”)
`Excerpts of Petition filed in IPR2016-01260 (“-01260 Pet.”)
`Excerpts of Declaration of Dr. La Porta in support of the Petition,
`Ex. 1002 of IPR2016-01262 (“La Porta Dec. of IPR2016-01262”)
`
`vii
`
`2001
`
`2002
`2003
`2004
`
`2005
`
`2006
`2007
`
`2008
`
`2009
`
`2010
`2011
`
`2019
`
`2020
`
`2021
`
`2022
`
`2023
`2024
`2025
`2026
`
`
`
`

`

`Case IPR2016-01261
`Patent 8,457,113
`
`
`
`
`Paper No. 30
`
`
`
`2027
`
`2028
`
`2029
`
`2030
`
`2040
`
`2041
`
`2042
`
`2043
`
`2044
`
`2046
`2047
`2048
`2049
`2050
`2051
`2052
`
`2053
`2054
`2055
`
`2056
`2057
`2058
`2059
`2060
`2061
`
`
`
`Excerpts of Declaration of Mr. Willis in support of the Petition,
`Ex. 1002 of IPR2016-01254 (“Willis Dec. of IPR2016-01254”)
`Excerpts of Declaration of Dr. Lavian in support of the Petition,
`Ex. 1002 of IPR2016-01258 (“Lavian Dec. of IPR2016-01258”)
`Excerpts of Deposition Transcript of Dr. Lavian, March 29, 2017,
`for IPR2016-01256, -01258, and -01260 (“Lavian Dep.”)
`Excerpts of Declaration of Dr. Lavian in support of the Petition,
`Ex. 1002 of IPR2016-01256 (“Lavian Dec. of IPR2016-01256”)
`Declaration of Regis J. “Bud” Bates in Support of Motion to
`Amend (“BatesDec”)
`Listing of Section 112 Written Description Support for the
`Proposed Substitute Claims
`Application No. 11/948,965, filed on November 20, 2007
`(annotated with line numbers)
`Application No. 10/426,279, filed on April 30, 2003 (annotated
`with line numbers)
`Application No. 09/565,565, filed on May 4, 2000 (annotated with
`line numbers)
`U.S. Patent No. 6,381,323 to Schwab, et al. (“Schwab”)
`U.S. Patent No. 6,463,145 to O’Neal et al. (“O’Neal”)
`U.S. Patent No. 6,683,870 to Archer (“Archer”)
`U.S. Patent No. 5,958,016 to Chang et al. (“Chang”)
`U.S. Patent No. 6,353,660 to Burger et al. (“Burger”)
`U.S. Patent No. 6,798,767 to Alexander et al. (“Alexander”)
`PCT Application No. WO 99/14924
`to Shtivelman
`(“Shtivelman”)
`U.S. Patent No. 5,809,128 to McMullin (“McMullin”)
`U.S. Patent No. 6,445,694 to Swartz (“Swartz”)
`An Overview of Signaling System No. 7, Abdi R. Modarressi, and
`Ronald A. Skoog, April, 1992
`U.S. Patent No. 4,646,296 to Bartholet et al. (“Bartholet”)
`$200 Billion Broadband Scandal, Bruce Kushnick, 2006
`U.S. Patent No. 6,744,759 to Sidhu et al. (“Sidhu”)
`U.S. Patent No. 6,041,325 to Shah et al. (“Shah”)
`U.S. Patent No. 5,802,160 to Kugell et al. (“Kugell”)
`Karen Kaplan, Can I Put You on Hold? Profits are Calling, Los
`Angeles Times, February 3, 1997
`
`viii
`
`

`

`Case IPR2016-01261
`Patent 8,457,113
`
`
`
`
`Paper No. 30
`
`
`
`2062
`
`2063
`
`2064
`
`2065
`
`2066
`
`Redline Comparison of the Proposed Substitute Claims and the
`Original Claims and Clean Versions of the Proposed Substitute
`Claims
`“Cheat Sheet” listing the various IPRs by docket number, along
`with the identity of the petitioner, claims at issue, and art at issue
`Excerpts of Declaration of Thomas La Porta in Support of Petition
`for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,457,113, June 23,
`2016, submitted in support of IPR2016-01261
`Excerpts of Declaration of Dr. Tal Lavian in Support of Petition
`for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,764,777, June 23,
`2016, submitted in support of IPR2016-01258
`Application No. 12/821,119, filed on June 22, 2010
`
`
`
`
`ix
`
`
`
`

`

`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`On January 3, 2017, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (the “Board”)
`instituted an inter partes review (the “IPR”) trial, pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 314(a), as
`to Claims 1, 2, 8, 11, 15-19, 94, 95, 102, 109-113, 128, 163, 164, 166-168, 175, and
`179-181 of U.S. Patent No. 8,457,113 (the “Challenged Claims” and the “’113
`Patent,” respectively) on the grounds set forth in the Institution Decision. See
`Decision Granting Institution of Inter Partes Review, Jan. 3, 2017, Paper No. 19 (the
`“Decision”).
`
`II.
`
`SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT
`The Board’s institution decision was erroneous because it failed to give effect
`to the ’113 Patent’s disclaimer of subject matter and claim scope that is plain and
`unmistakable from the face of the ’113 Patent itself. The Board’s claim
`constructions have the effect of expanding the scope of the claims to cover known
`prior art network configurations that the patent specification thoroughly criticizes,
`distinguishes, and disclaims. Where a disclaimer of claim scope is apparent on the
`face of the patent, it is inappropriate to rely on after-the-fact statements made during
`prosecution as a basis for ignoring the disclaimer in the specification and for
`broadening the scope of the claims to encompass the disclaimed subject matter.
`The ’113 Patent specification is clear that the inventive concept of the ’113
`Patent relates to modifying a known telecommunications network configuration in a
`way that relocates call control operations away from “edge” devices and switches.
`This is accomplished in the ’113 Patent by connecting the Tandem Access Controller
`
`

`

`Case IPR2016-01261
`Patent 8,457,113
`
`
`
`
`Paper No. 30
`
`
`(“TAC”) to a PSTN tandem switch, rather than edge switches and edge devices.
`When a patent specification criticizes or disparages the prior art in this manner, and
`discloses that the invention modifies the prior art to overcome technical limitations
`in the art, the law states that the patent has disclaimed or disavowed claim coverage
`for the disparaged prior art configurations. See Section IV, infra (collecting and
`discussing Federal Circuit cases).
`In light of the clarity of the ’113 Patent specification, Patent Owner
`respectfully contends that the Board’s claim constructions in the Institution Decision
`are erroneous. Simply stated: “[t]he broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim
`term cannot be so broad as to include a configuration expressly disclaimed in the
`specification.” In re Man Mach. Interface Techs. LLC, 822 F.3d 1282, 1286 (Fed.
`Cir. 2016) (emphasis added).
`
`Based on proper constructions, the Challenged Claims are patentable over the
`prior art at issue here. Archer is a prior art reference that discloses a configuration
`disclaimed by Applicants. Moreover, Archer is devoid of any teaching, suggestion,
`or disclosure of “the call processing system coupled to at least one switching facility
`of the telecommunications network” (Claim 1), “the call processing system coupled
`to at least one tandem switch of the circuit-switched network” (Claim 94), or a
`“controller for use between a first communication network and a second
`communication network” (Claim 163). Chang does not cure the deficiencies of
`Archer. Additionally, Petitioner failed to articulate the requisite “how” or “why” a
`POSA would combine these references.
`2
`
`
`
`

`

`Case IPR2016-01261
`Patent 8,457,113
`
`
`
`
`Paper No. 30
`
`
`Archer also does not disclose “[a] method performed by a web enabled
`
`processing system . . . the method comprising the steps of . . . establishing the voice
`communication between the calling party and the called party after the call is
`completed, across both the circuit-switched network and the packet network” (Claim
`1) or “a capability within the web-enabled processing system for establishing the
`voice communication between the calling party and the called party after the call is
`completed, across both the circuit-switched network and at least one packet
`network” (Claim 94). This argument was not presented in Patent Owner’s
`Preliminary Response (Paper No. 11) in this matter.
`
`
`
`3
`
`

`

`Case IPR2016-01261
`Patent 8,457,113
`
`
`
`
`Paper No. 30
`
`
`III. DISCUSSION OF THE PSTN AND OVERVIEW OF THE ’113
`
`PATENT
`A. Overview of the PSTN
`The PSTN employs various equipment to route calls. This equipment
`includes switches and databases, and is arranged in a hierarchical fashion:
`
`4
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case IPR2016-01261
`Patent 8,457,113
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Paper No. 30
`
`
`
`
`
`BatesDec, ¶36 (Ex. 2022). Notably, the same hierarchical levels/equipment may be
`referred to by a variety of names. In both examples above, the class 4 level refers to
`both a “toll center” and a “tandem switch.” This understanding is important because
`the ’113 Patent and prior art references sometimes use different terminology to refer
`to the same hierarchical level. Id.
`Class 4 and 5 levels comprise the rest of the hierarchy and are of particular
`relevance to the ’113 Patent. Class 4 centers contain tandem switches. Id. Class 4
`centers are also referred to as toll centers, and tandem switches are also referred to
`as Class 4 switches or toll switches. Accordingly, the ’113 Patent refers to “PSTN
`tandem switches” as “exchanges that direct telephone calls (or other traffic) to
`central offices [] or to other tandem switches.” ’777 Patent, 4:47-49; BatesDec, ¶37.
`These “PSTN tandem switches” are in the PSTN. Id. (citing Lavian Dec. of
`IPR2016-01258 (Ex. 2028), ¶¶39-45).
`
`
`
`5
`
`

`

`Case IPR2016-01261
`Patent 8,457,113
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Paper No. 30
`
`Class 5 offices contain edge switches and are interconnected by tandem
`switches. BatesDec, ¶38. Edge switches are sometimes referred to as central offices
`(“COs”). Id. Central offices have been defined as:
`[Offices] which serve end users through local loop connections [local
`loops are the actual copper wires that run from a customer’s premises
`to the central office].
`Ex. 2002 at 159. They have also been described as:
`. . . a CO traditionally houses one or more voice-optimized circuit
`switches to interconnect subscriber lines within a local area known as
`the carrier serving area (CSA) and to connect subscriber local loops to
`network trunks.
`Ex. 2003 at 102; BatesDec, ¶38. The ’113 Patent’s description of edge switches is
`consistent with the above:
`The [PSTN] consists of a plurality of edge switches connected to
`telephones on one side and to a network of tandem switches on the
`other. The tandem switch network allows connectivity between all of
`the edge switches, and a signaling system is used by the PSTN to allow
`calling and to transmit both calling and called party identity.
`
`6
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case IPR2016-01261
`Patent 8,457,113
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Paper No. 30
`
`
`
`
`’113 Pat., 1:45-51 and Fig. 2; BatesDec, ¶38. The extrinsic and intrinsic evidence
`confirm that (1) edge switches are connected directly to subscribers or edge devices
`via end-lines (i.e., there are copper wires (or other media) that run directly between
`the edge switches and subscribers); and (2) tandem switches are not directly
`connected to subscribers or edge devices, but are instead connected to edge switches
`and other tandem switches. BatesDec, ¶38; Lavian Dec. of IPR2016-1256 (Ex.
`2030), ¶¶105-106; Lavian Dep. (Ex. 2029) at 31:5-32:16.
`Petitioners largely agree with how a tandem switch functions in the PSTN. In
`a Related IPR, Petitioner BHN states, “[t]he PSTN consists of switches known as
`
`tandem switches or class 4 switches (switching facilities in the claims) which serve
`to interconnect between different geographical regions and edge switches or class 5
`switches, which connect to end-user devices, like telephones, within a local
`7
`
`
`
`

`

`Case IPR2016-01261
`Patent 8,457,113
`
`
`
`
`Paper No. 30
`
`
`geographic area.” -01261 Pet. (Ex. 2023) at 29 (emphasis added). In a different
`Related IPR, Petitioner Cisco states, “[c]lass 3 switches are also known as tandem
`
`switches and generally provide long distance calling links by interconnecting
`between edge switches and other tandem switches.” -01254 Pet. (Ex. 2024) at 7
`(emphasis added). In yet another Related IPR, Petitioner YMax states that “[w]hen
`a telephone call is placed on the PSTN, the call typically travels from the caller’s
`phone to the edge switch in the caller’s local central office. Unless the recipient is
`in the same geographical area and directly connected to the same central office, the
`
`call is then typically routed to one or more tandem switches (in sequence), until it
`reaches the edge switch that is directly connected to the recipient’s phone, and
`finally to the recipient’s phone.” -01260 Pet. (Ex. 2025) at 13 (emphasis added);
`BatesDec, ¶39; Lavian Dec. of IPR2016-1256 (Ex. 2030), ¶¶41-43; Lavian Dep. (Ex.
`2030) at 23:11-25:11.
`At the time of the invention, the PSTN utilized the Signaling System 7 (“SS7”)
`protocol to set up calls.1 SS7 signaling flows between one CO and another, including
`all switches in between (e.g., tandem switches). SS7 signaling does not flow past
`COs to edge devices, as edge devices are not equipped to process and respond to
`SS7 signaling. BatesDec, ¶40.
`
`
`1 “Setting up” calls refers to the exchange of control signaling that causes the
`establishment of a path over which voice data can flow. BatesDec, ¶40.
`8
`
`
`
`

`

`Case IPR2016-01261
`Patent 8,457,113
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Paper No. 30
`
`B.
`The ’113 Patent
`Generally, the ’113 Patent relates to the provision of call control features in
`the PSTN. The ’113 Patent discloses a Tandem Access Controller (“TAC”) that
`implements call control features. The TAC is a combination of computing hardware
`and software that is appropriately programmed to process calls. ’113 Pat., 4:35-47;
`BatesDec, ¶41.
`The Background section acknowledges that, at the time of the invention,
`various devices existed to provide call control features. One novel and important
`aspect of the ’113 Patent concerns where in the PSTN such call control features are
`implemented. As discussed in more detail below, the ’113 Patent expressly
`recognizes that prior art call control devices were attached to an edge device (e.g.,
`phones and PBXs) or an edge switch located in a CO. ’113 Pat., 1:52-67 and 2:40-
`54. These prior art edge devices received and answered a call on one line, then
`dialed out on another line, and then connected the two lines together. BatesDec, ¶42.
`By contrast, the ’113 Patent discloses connecting the TAC to a tandem switch
`(hence the name Tandem Access Controller). Id., ¶43. This arrangement allows
`calls to be intercepted and processed before they are handed off to the CO (edge
`switch) associated with the called party. Stated differently, instead of a call being
`passed to a destination CO, then on to a controller connected to the CO which would
`perform a call control feature, the TAC processes the call at a tandem switch before
`it is ever routed to the destination CO. Further, the TAC “is not an edge device such
`as a PBX or central office (CO) switch . . . .” ’113 Pat., 5:4-6; BatesDec, ¶43.
`
`
`
`9
`
`

`

`Case IPR2016-01261
`Patent 8,457,113
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Paper No. 30
`
`This novel arrangement has several advantages. The first advantage concerns
`costs. Calls coming into and out of controllers connected to COs incurred charges
`for each incoming and outgoing call. See ’113 Pat., 2:17-22 (discussing this
`scenario); BatesDec, ¶44. Using a TAC instead avoids these costs. See ’113 Pat.,
`4:55-5:3; BatesDec, ¶44.
`Another advantage regarding the TAC’s placement at a tandem switch
`concerns call quality. BatesDec, ¶45. Running an analog voice signal from an edge
`switch to an edge device over copper wire degrades the quality of the signal. An
`edge device is a device connected to an edge switch, typically on a customer’s
`premises, such as a private branch exchange (PBX) or a generic telephone. See ’113
`Pat., 5:4-7. Handling calls at the tandem level maintains the quality of the call, as it
`is processed within the PSTN, where the signal may be in digital form and/or carried
`over high-quality lines (as compared to the end lines that carry a call from a CO to
`a phone). ’113 Pat., 1:59-2:623, 2:40-54; BatesDec, ¶45.
`
`IV. The ’113 Patent Contains an Unmistakable Disclaimer of Subject
`Matter and Claim Scope for Call Controllers Connected to an Edge
`Switch or Edge Device.
`A. Disparaging the Prior Art is Sufficient to Disclaim Claim Scope.
`The PTAB follows Federal Circuit authority and legal standards when
`determining whether a patentee has made a disclaimer (or disavowal) of subject
`matter or claim scope. See, e.g., Sony Corp. v. Memory Integrity, LLC, Case
`IPR2015-00158, Paper 35 (PTAB May 19, 2016); Scotts Co. v. Encap, LLC, Case
`
`
`
`10
`
`

`

`Case IPR2016-01261
`Patent 8,457,113
`
`
`
`
`Paper No. 30
`
`
`IPR2013-00110, Paper 79 (PTAB June 24, 2014); LG Electronics., Inc. v. Advanced
`Micro Devices, Case IPR2015-00324, Paper 39 (PTAB May 23, 2016); Kingston
`Tech. Co., Inc. v. Imation Corp., Case IPR2015-00066, Paper 19 (PTAB March 24,
`2016); Edmund Optics, Inc. v. Semrock, Inc., Case IPR2014-00599, Paper 72 (PTAB
`Sept. 16, 2015).
`Under the applicable Federal Circuit authority, a disclaimer of claim scope
`that is plainly set forth in the patent specification trumps all other evidence—even
`unambiguous claim language that has a broader ordinary meaning. “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.” Chi. Bd. Options
`Exch., Inc. v. Int’l Secs. Exch., LLC, 677 F.3d 1361, 1372 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (emphasis
`added); see also SciMed Life Sys., Inc. v. Advanced Cardiovascular Sys., Inc., 242
`F.3d 1337, 1341 (Fed. Cir. 2001).
`“While disavowal must be clear and unequivocal, it need not be explicit.”
`Poly-America, L.P. v. API Indus., Inc., 839 F.3d 1131, 1136 (Fed. Cir. 2016); see
`also Trs. of Columbia Univ. v. Symantec Corp., 811 F.3d 1359, 1363-64 (Fed. Cir.
`2016); Saffran v. Johnson & Johnson, 712 F.3d 549, 559 (Fed. Cir. 2013)
`(“applicants rarely submit affirmative disclaimers along the lines of ‘I hereby
`disclaim the following . . .’”).
`
`
`
`11
`
`

`

`Case IPR2016-01261
`Patent 8,457,113
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Paper No. 30
`
`Where the patent specification discloses certain prior art configurations,
`criticizes or disparages those configurations, and discloses modifications to the prior
`art configurations to overcome technical deficiencies of the prior art, the Federal
`Circuit has held that the patent specification amounts to a disclaimer or disavowal
`of claim coverage for the prior art configuration. See, e.g. In re Man Mach. Interface
`Techs., 822 F.3d 1282, 1286 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Openwave Sys., Inc. v. Apple Inc., 808
`F.3d 509, 514 (Fed. Cir. 2015); Chi. Bd. Options, 677 F.3d at 1372; Honeywell Int’l,
`Inc. v. ITT Indus., Inc., 452 F.3d 1312, 1315-16 (Fed. Cir. 2006); SciMed Life Sys.,
`Inc., 242 F.3d 1337 (Fed. Cir. 2001).
`In one of Petitioner’s Replies to POPR, Petitioners argue that “[d]isavowal
`does not arise merely by criticizing a particular embodiment that is encompassed in
`the plain meaning of the prior art.” See IPR2016-01262, Paper No. 17 at 2 (citing
`Epistar Corp. v. Int’l Trade Comm’n, 556 F.3d 1321, 1335 (Fed. Cir. 2009). Epistar,
`however, does not undercut or contradict any of the cases cited in the previous
`paragraph. In Epistar, the patent specification criticized a specific prior art
`configuration “that is not relevant to the ’718 patent [the patent-in-suit]” because the
`patent did not modify the prior art configuration to arrive at the invention. Epistar,
`566 F.3d at 1335. The Federal Circuit in Epistar merely held that the particular
`patent specification involved did not amount to a disavowal because the art being
`criticized was not even relevant to the invention, the art was not criticized strongly
`enough to amount to a disavowal, the patentee did not modify this art to arrive at the
`invention, and the patentee did not clearly distinguish the invention from this art.
`12
`
`
`
`

`

`Case IPR2016-01261
`Patent 8,457,113
`
`
`
`
`Paper No. 30
`
`
`See id. Thus, Epistar is a fact-bound decision that is entirely consistent with the
`legal standards set forth in the cases cited in the previous paragraph.
`Moreover, where a disclaimer or disavowal of subject matter is plain from the
`four-corners of the patent, statements or evidence from the prosecution history
`cannot broaden the scope of the claims to cover the disclaimed subject matter. See,
`e.g., Akamai Techs., Inc. v. Limelight Networks, Inc., 629 F.3d 1311, 1328 (Fed. Cir.
`2010), vacated on other grounds, 419 F. App’x 989 (Fed. Cir. 2011), reinstatement
`confirmed, 805 F.3d 1368, 1381-82 (Fed. Cir. 2015); Telcordia Techs., Inc. v. Cisco
`Sys., 612 F.3d 1365, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2010); Honeywell, 452 F.3d 1312, 1319 (Fed.
`Cir. 2006); Biogen, Inc. v. Berlex Labs., Inc., 318 F.3d 1132, 1140 (Fed. Cir. 2003).
`In each of these four cases, the Federal Circuit found plain evidence of disclaimer
`on the face of the patent, and refused to even consider evidence from the prosecution
`history that was offered to contradict the disclaimer and broaden the scope of the
`claims. For example, in Akamai, the court stated: “Even if we agreed with Akamai
`that the patentee indicated in the prosecution history that the [claim term could be
`broader], this is not enough to overcome the clear description of the invention in the
`specification.” Akamai, 629 F.3d at 1328. And in Honeywell, the Court stated:
`“Where . . . the written description clearly identifies what his invention is, an
`expression by a patentee during prosecution that he intends his claims to cover more
`than what his specification discloses is entitled