UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`___________
`
`BRIGHT HOUSE NETWORKS, LLC
`Petitioners,
`
`v.
`
`FOCAL IP, LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`___________
`Case IPR2016-01259 (Patent 8,155,298 B2)
`Case IPR2016-01261 (Patent 8,457,113 B2)
`Case IPR2016-01262 (Patent 7,764,777 B2)
`Case IPR2016-01263 (Patent 8,155,298 B2)
`___________
`
`Record of Oral Hearing
`Held: September 19, 2017
`_____________
`
`
`
`
`
`Before SALLY C. MEDLEY, JONI Y. CHANG, and BARBARA
`A. PARVIS, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`____________
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`___________
`
`BRIGHT HOUSE NETWORKS, LLC
`Petitioners,
`
`v.
`
`FOCAL IP, LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`___________
`Case IPR2016-01259 (Patent 8,155,298 B2)
`Case IPR2016-01261 (Patent 8,457,113 B2)
`Case IPR2016-01262 (Patent 7,764,777 B2)
`Case IPR2016-01263 (Patent 8,155,298 B2)
`___________
`
`Record of Oral Hearing
`Held: September 19, 2017
`_____________
`
`
`
`
`
`Before SALLY C. MEDLEY, JONI Y. CHANG, and BARBARA
`A. PARVIS, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-01259 (Patent 8,155,298 B2)
`Case IPR2016-01261 (Patent 8,457,113 B2)
`Case IPR2016-01262 (Patent 7,764,777 B2)
`Case IPR2016-01263 (Patent 8,155,298 B2)
`
`APPEARANCES:
`ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER:
`Christopher J. Tyson, Esquire
`Duane Morris
`505 9th Street, Northwest
`Suite 1000
`New York, New York 10104
`
`
`
`
`
`
`ON BEHALF OF THE PATENT OWNER:
`
`Tom C. Cecil, Esquire
`
`Brent N. Bumgardner, Esquire
`
`John Murphy, Esquire
`
`Nelson Bumgardner
`
`3131 West 7th Street
`
`Suite 300.
`
`Fort Worth, Texas 76107
`
`
`
`The above-entitled matter came on for hearing Tuesday,
`September 19, 2017, commencing at the U.S. Patent and Trademark
`Office, 600 Dulany Street, Alexandria, Virginia.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-01259 (Patent 8,155,298 B2)
`Case IPR2016-01261 (Patent 8,457,113 B2)
`Case IPR2016-01262 (Patent 7,764,777 B2)
`Case IPR2016-01263 (Patent 8,155,298 B2)
`
`
`P R O C E E D I N G S
`JUDGE PARVIS: Good afternoon, everyone. This is the oral
`
`argument in IPR2016-01259, and IPR2016-1261 through 1263.
`
`These inter partes reviews involve the challenged patents, the same
`three that we discussed this morning, U.S. Patent Nos. 7,764,777 B2;
`8,155,298 B2; and 8,457,113 B2.
`
`Petitioners are Bright House Networks, LLC, WideOpenWest
`Finance, LLC, Knology of Florida, Incorporated, and Birch
`Communications.
`
`Patent owner is Focal IP, LLC.
`
`As a reminder, the petitioners jointly filed the petitions and will be
`expected to speak with one voice.
`
`The same ground rules explained this morning apply to the
`presentations this afternoon.
`
`Now, petitioner -- counsel for the petitioner, will you please
`introduce yourselves and those with you.
`
`MR. TYSON: Yes. Thank you.
`
`Good afternoon, Your Honors. Chris Tyson with Duane Morris for
`the petitioners. With me is Pat McPherson, also of Duane Morris, for
`petitioners. And I have Wayne Stacy and Jay Schiller of Baker Botts,
`and Jaspal Hare of Spencer Fane.
`
`JUDGE PARVIS: Patent owner.
`
`MR. BUMGARDNER: Good afternoon, Your Honors.
`
`Brent Bumgardner, John Murphy, and Tom Cecil for patent owner.
`Also here is Vic Siber and Hanna Madbak. And also here observing is
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-01259 (Patent 8,155,298 B2)
`Case IPR2016-01261 (Patent 8,457,113 B2)
`Case IPR2016-01262 (Patent 7,764,777 B2)
`Case IPR2016-01263 (Patent 8,155,298 B2)
`
`Barry Bumgardner.
`
`JUDGE PARVIS: Thank you.
`
`So any time you're ready, Counsel for the petitioner, you may
`proceed.
`
`MR. TYSON: Thank you, Your Honor.
`
`May it please the Board, good afternoon again, Your Honors. I'd
`like to reserve at least 20 minutes for rebuttal.
`
`The purpose of the hearing today is to direct the board to evidence
`of record that supports dispositive facts that are in our petition.
`
`Now, per our request for oral argument, we had spoken with the
`petitioner at Cisco. And in the interest of the Board's time and as we
`forth in that request, we will not be repeating overlapping arguments
`between the two cases.
`
`Now, there's been a lot of papers filed in these cases, but there
`really are many common issues that persist across the IPRs.
`
`And so the arguments today, what I'd like to do is just focus on just
`a few common issues that we think are -- that we submit are dispositive
`of the case.
`
`And with that, I think it's useful to discuss the challenged patents,
`actually to provide a foundation for the state of the art and the grounds.
`
`And I'm putting on the Elmo here, this is page 4 of the Board's
`institution decision in the '113 patent. And this is for the '113 patent, but
`it applies equally. All the patents, as we know, share a common
`specification.
`
`So what I'd like to point out -- and the Board has already reflected
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-01259 (Patent 8,155,298 B2)
`Case IPR2016-01261 (Patent 8,457,113 B2)
`Case IPR2016-01262 (Patent 7,764,777 B2)
`Case IPR2016-01263 (Patent 8,155,298 B2)
`
`this in its annotations -- is that there is no secret sauce in the switches that
`are in the PSTN. There is no secret sauce in the signaling system that the
`PSTN uses, SS7.
`
`And, essentially, there is also all the signaling switches that passes
`in between those switches. There's no secret sauces. That's not where --
`what the patents are talking about.
`
`The patent doesn't disclose any new signaling. Now, signaling is
`an important term. And it's been a little bit glossed over this morning. I'd
`like to talk about signaling. Are those signaling messages that are sent to
`set up, to create a path for establishing voice communication?
`
`So that applies equally to both circuit switch and packet switch
`networks. Here we're talking about the PSTN, circuit switch network.
`
`Now, also in this drawing, in this Figure 1, which is really,
`essentially, the first -- one of the embodiments of the patent, we have
`what's called this web. And we have a user interface and we have a
`device there that connects to the web.
`
`Now, there's no secret sauce in the web. That web is not a cloud.
`It's -- you know, it's thousands of routers that flow in between that
`communicate messages back and forth, that packetize messages.
`
`And the use of the web here, depicted in Figure 1, as a portal by
`which a subscriber -- or it could be also the calling party if they're a
`subscriber -- can connect into the Internet -- connect to the Internet,
`through the web into a web server to add and change call control
`information, the patent acknowledges there's no secret sauce there either.
`
`So all of this is conventional. The patent acknowledges it's
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`
`
`5
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-01259 (Patent 8,155,298 B2)
`Case IPR2016-01261 (Patent 8,457,113 B2)
`Case IPR2016-01262 (Patent 7,764,777 B2)
`Case IPR2016-01263 (Patent 8,155,298 B2)
`
`conventional. The use of those -- the use of signaling, all of that, is
`conventional.
`
`So what we have left here is this tandem access controller. Okay.
`
`And there's a second embodiment that the patents illustrate, and
`I'm going to put that up shortly. And that's in Figure 2 of the patent.
`Essentially, really the difference between these two is -- this is Figure 2
`of the '113 patent.
`
`And, essentially, the difference here is that we have simply added,
`as we've shown here, the web. The web here. And now the web is used
`to send conventional voice over IP, abbreviated here as VoIP.
`
`So it's conventional signaling, conventual voice communication.
`All of this is conventional. It's done using, as the patent describes,
`conventional equipment, a conventional VoIP capable digital telephone.
`
`And so there's no secret sauce there.
`
`Now, the patent owner this morning talked about the fact that
`there's a bidirectional arrow here between the web and the TAC. And I'll
`note for the board that that is the only disclosure in the patent of calls and
`signaling that go in between these two networks, between the VoIP
`network and a PSTN network, so between that IP network and the PSTN.
`
`And when I asked the patent owner's expert, and I'll show you
`some of that later, he acknowledged that, yeah, that's all conventional.
`Everybody knew how to -- how to translate signaling between the two.
`
`So there didn't need to be any more disclosure than this one
`bidirectional arrow. That is the only disclosure that covers that.
`
`So, again, what is this secret sauce? What are we looking at? The
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`
`
`6
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-01259 (Patent 8,155,298 B2)
`Case IPR2016-01261 (Patent 8,457,113 B2)
`Case IPR2016-01262 (Patent 7,764,777 B2)
`Case IPR2016-01263 (Patent 8,155,298 B2)
`
`TAC, right? The TAC.
`
`Okay. Well, the patent thankfully gives us a little bit more
`background on what the TAC is and what the TAC is not.
`
`So the first thing I'd like to do is just point out a couple places
`where the TAC identifies -- gives us a little bit more information on the
`TAC. And I'm going to the '113 patent. This is column 4. And what I'd
`like to look at right here for now is -- I'm going to focus you on this line
`right here. So this is column 4, line 39 to 42.
`
`And what it says here is that, The TAC 10 may use any
`combination of hardware, firmware, or software and, in one embodiment,
`is a conventional computer.
`
`So what that tells us is the TAC -- there's no secret sauce in the
`hardware, there's none in the software, there's none in the firmware. And
`it could actually just be a conventional computer, the TAC itself.
`
`Okay. Well, what else do we know from the patent?
`
`Again, we're going to go to the '113 patent, and I'm going to start at
`column 6. And I'm looking right here.
`
`And what does this tell us? It says, first: The TAC may be
`implemented by using conventional processor hardware.
`
`Okay. That's like we'd said before. There's no secret sauce in the
`hardware.
`
`Okay. What else does it say?
`
`Devising the software/firmware used to control the TAC is well
`within the capability of those skilled in the art since the various control
`features that can be made available are generally already known.
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`
`
`7
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-01259 (Patent 8,155,298 B2)
`Case IPR2016-01261 (Patent 8,457,113 B2)
`Case IPR2016-01262 (Patent 7,764,777 B2)
`Case IPR2016-01263 (Patent 8,155,298 B2)
`
`Okay. So there's no secret sauce in the programming of the TAC.
`
`Programming the software, programming the firmware, there's no secret
`sauce there.
`
`And on the same -- going to the opposite column here, I'm looking
`right here. This is column 5, line 25 to 35. Actually, it's line 26 is what
`I'm looking at.
`
`And it says here that: Examples of features that can be selected by
`the subscriber include -- and it identifies a number of well-known
`telephone features.
`
`And it goes on to say -- the patent goes on to say that: These
`features can be implemented in the TAC using known software
`techniques since such features are known.
`
`Okay. So all the call processing, the call processing associated
`with these telephone features -- how to connect a call, how to -- how to --
`that sent SS7 signaling, the signaling that sent -- all of those features are
`identified as providing -- as just being done in their conventional way.
`There's not any new call processing that the patent is talking about here.
`It's identifying this.
`
`And so what do those features include? Well, they include call
`blocking. Well, that's a term that's in the claims. Well, this is the
`admission that whatever it says about call blocking, that's well known.
`That's conventional. Call forwarding, the same. Time of day conditions.
`Follow me. All of these different things. Routing to voicemail. Right up
`here.
`
`
`All of those are well-known conventional features that the TAC
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`
`
`8
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-01259 (Patent 8,155,298 B2)
`Case IPR2016-01261 (Patent 8,457,113 B2)
`Case IPR2016-01262 (Patent 7,764,777 B2)
`Case IPR2016-01263 (Patent 8,155,298 B2)
`
`implements using known software techniques.
`
`So there's no secret sauce in the call processing that the TAC does.
`It can't. So if there's no secret sauce in the hardware, the software, the
`firmware, programming the TAC, programming the software/firmware,
`and there's no secret sauce in the call processing, well, what's left?
`
`Okay. So if we look back at Figure 2, and here's our Figure 2. And,
`again, just like Figure 1, there's no secret sauce here, no secret sauce
`here, no secret sauce here. There's SS7, no secret sauce there. In the IP
`signaling, there's nothing there.
`
`Okay. So what's left?
`
`Well, what the patent talked about is that -- here, if I have -- here's
`my -- this a Class 5 switch. If this Class 5 switch, if this is my
`subscriber, 20 here, if that -- if this Class 5 switch is where I control my
`call processing, if this is the control of my call processing -- and they
`identify a number of disadvantages that may be achieved from that.
`
`If this is where my controller is inside that Class 5 switch, there
`may be a number of disadvantages to that.
`
`So what does it say? It says, okay, well, if we make that
`centralized, if we put it somewhere other than that switch, we have a
`centralized control, that will provide some advantages. It identified.
`
`And now what I'll point out is that all of those advantages that are
`described in the specification are not for PSTN to IP calls. They're not for
`the IP network. They're for PSTN calls only. They do not apply to this
`scenario.
`
`So those advantages are not advantages of this. In fact, if you look
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`
`
`9
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-01259 (Patent 8,155,298 B2)
`Case IPR2016-01261 (Patent 8,457,113 B2)
`Case IPR2016-01262 (Patent 7,764,777 B2)
`Case IPR2016-01263 (Patent 8,155,298 B2)
`
`at the specifications, it's going to identify that VoIP didn't have any of
`those disadvantages. It didn't. It had different ones.
`
`It may have had a different -- a better user interfacing control, but
`that's it.
`
`So all those advantages that we talked about this morning do not
`apply to this Figure 2 embodiment when we're talking about calls that are
`going across both networks.
`
`And so what we do is we look at -- so that really doesn't help us
`too much, because I'm still wondering, well, what's the secret sauce here
`on these patents?
`
`So we go to the patent owner's response. And I'm looking at the
`patent owner response on page 10 -- again, this is from the '113 patent.
`And I want to focus right here.
`
`And here we have a quote from their response. And what it says
`is: 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.
`
`Okay. So what the patent is saying, what the patent owner has
`acknowledged and stated is that implementing -- it doesn't say anything
`about call features here in that. It doesn't say anything about call
`processing.
`
`What it's saying is that if I implement well-known call processing
`where the signals can be maintained in the digital form, that's where
`they're in the tandem level. Then I can get a number of advantages. So
`that's the secret sauce if I'm -- if I am handling those calls where they can
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`
`
`10
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-01259 (Patent 8,155,298 B2)
`Case IPR2016-01261 (Patent 8,457,113 B2)
`Case IPR2016-01262 (Patent 7,764,777 B2)
`Case IPR2016-01263 (Patent 8,155,298 B2)
`
`be in digital form.
`
`All right. And so with that background, let's go to the claims. And
`for purposes of the hearing today, I'm going to just talk about -- discuss
`the '113 patent, Claim 1.
`
`In that claim, we submit, and I think the testimony this morning
`kind of confirms that, that this is representative. This is a representative
`claim for all the claims before the Board.
`
`Now, I'm going to go over this briefly because we've already
`talked a lot about this claim already this morning. And it is a very dense
`claim. It doesn't really fit on here.
`
`And so what I'm going to say is -- the things that I want to point
`the Board to that we think are important here: One, it's a call that goes
`across a packet network. So we have a call across a packet network. We
`have this call across the second network. Okay. And their expert has
`identified that the second network is the circuit switch network or the
`PSTN.
`
`And then we have two limitations in this. Those are the two
`limitations we talked about this morning. I'm not going to belabor them.
`But for purposes of brevity, I'm going to identify that those limitations
`are -- there we go -- the call processing system coupled -- I'm going to
`call that the switching facility limitations. And then we have this
`establishing the communication limitation. And I'm going to call that the
`call connection limitation. I think they were called something very
`similar and addressed by both the patent owner and the petitioners this
`morning.
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`
`
`11
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-01259 (Patent 8,155,298 B2)
`Case IPR2016-01261 (Patent 8,457,113 B2)
`Case IPR2016-01262 (Patent 7,764,777 B2)
`Case IPR2016-01263 (Patent 8,155,298 B2)
`
`And what I'd like to point out -- and, actually, I'm just going to put
`
`this back up again for one second. This limitation, the petitioners in
`YMAX identified this morning -- this switching facility limitation here.
`
`If the board rejects patent owner's construction and its narrow
`interpretation based on the disclaimer, then this switching facility --
`there's no rebuttal -- this switching facility is found under our grounds as
`well.
`So the only limitation in dispute if the patent owner -- if the Board
`
`rejects the patent owner's construction is this establishing the call
`connection limitation.
`
`Now, with that, what I'd like to do first is -- unless the Board has
`any questions -- I'm going to address that switching facility limitation
`first.
`And the way I'm going to address it for purposes of this hearing is
`
`I'm going to show that Archer discloses that switching facility limitation
`using the patent owner's construction.
`
`So this narrow construction that the patent owner is trying to have
`you adopt, Your Honors, for purposes of the hearing, I'm going to walk
`through how Archer discloses that limitation using their construction.
`And we're going to start with Figure 2 from Archer.
`
`Now, what Archer is, Archer is explicitly about telephony. And it
`is explicitly about converging networks where we have a circuit switch
`network, like the PSTN, and we have a packet switch network, like the
`Internet, like an IP network.
`
`And this is -- and Archer is specifically about PSTN, calls between
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`
`
`12
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-01259 (Patent 8,155,298 B2)
`Case IPR2016-01261 (Patent 8,457,113 B2)
`Case IPR2016-01262 (Patent 7,764,777 B2)
`Case IPR2016-01263 (Patent 8,155,298 B2)
`
`PSTN and VoIP, calls between circuit switch network and IP networks.
`And it is explicitly about voice over IP.
`
`Now, that is -- if you note, that is exactly like the claim. So it's in
`that same frame as the claim. We're talking about calls across two
`different types of networks, those converging networks.
`
`Now, the signaling, how this works -- and we'll just talk about this
`a little bit. There's signaling that comes from the phone. It's converted to
`the SS7 signaling in the PSTN.
`
`Okay. That SS7 signaling, in embodiments, will pass to this
`gateway. The job of the gateway is to translate the signaling, the voice --
`everything it receives -- translate that into the IP network.
`
`Okay. And then what -- then you get down here to this server
`processor 128 right here. This is the brains of Archer. And the brains in
`Archer, what it does, it receives that signaling message. And based on
`information in that message -- could be a phone number -- you know, the
`phone number, okay, it's calling the phone number.
`
`It receives this message. This is where the call processing -- you
`know, this is part of the call processing system. It's going to do a lookup
`in the database. Based on that lookup, it may say, Well, this subscriber
`wants me to call a number of different numbers at the same time.
`Because it -- we want to make sure that we find where he is.
`
`And so what it does is the server processor then initiates new call
`requests. It initiates a call request out, let's say, to this computer 134a,
`which is not a voice-over-IP-capable computer. It may send signaling
`back through the converter, back to the PSTN to another switch, or
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`
`
`13
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-01259 (Patent 8,155,298 B2)
`Case IPR2016-01261 (Patent 8,457,113 B2)
`Case IPR2016-01262 (Patent 7,764,777 B2)
`Case IPR2016-01263 (Patent 8,155,298 B2)
`
`through another converter. The point being that that signaling message is
`going out, and at this time it's all signaling. That's what we're talking
`about.
`
`That signaling goes out and when -- Archer is very explicit on this
`point -- when it's -- let's say this computer 134a is the first of those calls
`to pick up, somebody picks up the phone. I get an answer message. It's a
`call to pick up notification, an answer message. That answer message is
`received by the server processor, and then the server processor will then
`connect the calls together.
`
`I think we've talked about that a lot. Again, that's conventional.
`That's how this works. That's how conventional call processing works.
`
`If you're doing call forwarding, if you're doing branch calling,
`especially when you're talking about two different networks, you're going
`to hold that first call here, and then you're going to try to connect it.
`
`That's how it's done. When the patent is talking about all those
`different telephone features, it's just saying, we're doing it just the way it
`was already done. And that's not part of the secret sauce.
`
`So what we have here in Archer is then -- now, what I'll say is that
`in our petition -- we're going to point to this in the petition. In our
`petition, we set forth -- so this is from our petition, and there were a
`number of different alternatives that were set forth in our petition.
`
`And our petition identified that, you know, depending on the
`construction -- depending on the construction of the term switching
`facility, that can impact how Archer can read. But in any event, there are
`a lot of different ways that we set forth that -- that this would be -- that
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`
`
`14
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-01259 (Patent 8,155,298 B2)
`Case IPR2016-01261 (Patent 8,457,113 B2)
`Case IPR2016-01262 (Patent 7,764,777 B2)
`Case IPR2016-01263 (Patent 8,155,298 B2)
`
`Archer would render the claims obvious.
`
`And so here, what we say specifically, is: Archer's web-enabled
`processing system includes converters coupled through packet switch
`network 130 to server processor 128 coupled to database 138.
`
`So we identified the TAC here in this particular element as
`including all three of those different components.
`
`Now, the patent owner -- and I'm just going to leave that up for one
`second. The patent owner has made a big deal in its motion to strike.
`And it's alleged that this is a new argument, that we didn't identify that
`those three components were there.
`
`And I'm not just going to look at the petition. What I'd like to do is
`show you -- this is from their patent owner response -- the patent owner
`response -- whether we identified that these three components in one
`reading of Archer could be part of the TAC.
`
`And we're just going to look at this top page. This is page 63.
`And this is just one example. We've identified a number of examples for
`Your Honors in our responsive listing that was issued pursuant to the
`motion to strike.
`
`Let's just take a look at this first sentence: With respect to
`Grounds 1 and 2, petitioner argues that Archer teaches and renders
`obvious a web-enabled processing system configured as a tandem access
`controller in the form of its server processor 128 and database 138 and
`converter gateways 126-32.
`
`Okay. So it is disingenuous for the patent owner to come in here
`and tell you, and represent to you, the Board, that this is a new argument.
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`
`
`15
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-01259 (Patent 8,155,298 B2)
`Case IPR2016-01261 (Patent 8,457,113 B2)
`Case IPR2016-01262 (Patent 7,764,777 B2)
`Case IPR2016-01263 (Patent 8,155,298 B2)
`
`If it was a new argument, then how did they respond to it before our
`reply?
`
`They did. They had an opportunity to. This is not the only
`example. We provided a number of those. But it is disingenuous for
`them to represent to you that this is a new argument.
`
`Now, what we'll say -- what I'll put forward is that -- is that the
`patent owner's argument -- and I'm going to put forward -- here's our
`Figure 2. And what I'd -- what I'd like to do -- this is Figure 2 of Archer.
`
`I'm just going to draw in that when we use that narrower
`construction of the patent owner, we identified -- specifically, we
`identified our tandem access controller here.
`
`And I'll just draw it out here. Here's our tandem access controller
`that we identified in the petition in one of the alternative rounds. Now,
`there were other -- there were descriptions based on the construction
`switching facility. But that was certainly one that we put it in.
`
`Now, the patent owner's argument in its response is this: It alleges
`that Archer does not disclose the secret sauce, that handling the calls at
`the tandem level. And it's reason is simple. It says that Archer here, at
`the converter, can only receive analog signals. That's its position. And
`based on that, it's saying, okay, if it only receives analog signals, then it
`can't be the secret sauce, because secret sauce was call processing in
`digital form. Call processing in digital form.
`
`Well, I already know that my call processing here is certainly in
`digital form. So the question is, is my call processing in Archer, can it be
`ever -- can it ever be in digital form under any embodiments?
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`
`
`16
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-01259 (Patent 8,155,298 B2)
`Case IPR2016-01261 (Patent 8,457,113 B2)
`Case IPR2016-01262 (Patent 7,764,777 B2)
`Case IPR2016-01263 (Patent 8,155,298 B2)
`
`And patent owner's position is absolutely not. It can never. It
`
`must only be in analog form. That's how they're interpreting Archer.
`
`Now, the patent owner -- the patent owner is wrong. And I'm
`going to show you a few ways why.
`
`First off, in Archer, a disclosure of Archer, it has a number of
`different embodiments. Well, let's just talk about one of those
`embodiments here.
`
`This is column 5 of Archer. And here we are looking at column 5,
`line 10 to 11. That's where I want you to focus, Your Honors. We are
`going to focus right here.
`
`And it says: Circuit switch network 118 can be either an analog
`network, a digital network, or a combination of both.
`
`So Archer contemplates that its circuit switch network could be
`entirely digital. And in that embodiment, if we look here again, in this
`embodiment, if that circuit switch network is entirely digital, then my call
`processing is not entirely digital. It's maintained at the tandem level.
`
`A person of ordinary skill in the art would understand that. So that
`secret sauce is right here. That secret sauce is right there in Archer.
`
`JUDGE PARVIS: So petitioner -- what you're arguing is that the -
`- there's two -- the tandem access controller, the petitioner pointed to the
`database 138 and the server processor 128, correct?
`
`MR. TYSON: In certain embodiments, yes. Yes, Your Honor.
`
`JUDGE PARVIS: And then the converter 126, it's petitioner's
`position that that's part of the tandem access controller? Yes, it may be --
`
`MR. TYSON: So what we're doing, Your Honor, for this
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`
`
`17
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-01259 (Patent 8,155,298 B2)
`Case IPR2016-01261 (Patent 8,457,113 B2)
`Case IPR2016-01262 (Patent 7,764,777 B2)
`Case IPR2016-01263 (Patent 8,155,298 B2)
`
`afternoon, we're just using patent owner's construction.
`
`We're saying that that call processing, this can be part of the TAC.
`That gateway, if that converter, which Archer also talks about as a
`gateway, could be a tandem switch, it's a switch that can be
`interconnected to edge switches.
`
`It also could be a gateway. It is a -- any point in the switching
`fabric of converging networks is explicitly one of the switching facilities.
`
`And so if you read our petition, because switching facility was a
`term introduced in the claims, we identified a number of different
`interpretations, Your Honor. This was one of them. And there's another
`interpretation where the server processor and the database could also be
`the call processing system.
`
`So this is -- this is using the patent owner's construction.
`
`JUDGE PARVIS: This is page 50 of your petition --
`
`MR. TYSON: It's page 33. I can actually identify all the pages,
`Your Honor, before we do this. It's in our responsive listing. And if you
`-- I could either do it at rebuttal --
`
`JUDGE PARVIS: The responsive listing is fine.
`
`MR. TYSON: Okay. Thank you.
`
`Now, what I was just starting to say is that the patent owner does
`not -- it totally ignores this. It totally ignores this limitation in the claims.
`And instead, what it does, is it puts out this very, very bold statement in
`its patent owner response.
`
`And it says -- this is right here. This is the patent owner response
`at page 38. And I just want to focus right on this first sentence here.
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`
`
`18
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-01259 (Patent 8,155,298 B2)
`Case IPR2016-01261 (Patent 8,457,113 B2)
`Case IPR2016-01262 (Patent 7,764,777 B2)
`Case IPR2016-01263 (Patent 8,155,298 B2)
`
`And this is the statement of the patent. So it doesn't rebut Archer's digital
`embodiments. It doesn't -- it doesn't address it at all.
`
`So what it does say is: Prior to the date of invention of the
`challenged patent, a person of ordinary skill in the art would understand
`that any prior art disclosing an edge device external to the PSTN must
`access the PSTN through an edge switch first, not a tandem switch.
`
`Now, I had to read that probably three or four times to even figure
`out what it was saying. And the reason it's so difficult is because it's
`highly circular. Okay.
`
`What this is saying is that an edge device is connected to an edge
`switch. And an edge switch -- and an edge switch is a switch that's
`connected to an edge device.
`
`So an edge device is a device connected to an edge switch. And an
`edge switch is a switch connected to an edge device. And based on that
`definition, it's very confusing. And they do that. You'll hear that. They
`use these terms very loosely.
`
`And it's very important. Because what this is actually saying --
`what this statement is actually saying that in May 2000 -- because that is
`the time of the invention -- May 4th -- and, you know, we're not saying
`that that's the time of the invention, but for purposes of this hearing, I'm
`going to state that that's the time of the invention. May 4, 2000.
`
`What it's saying is: Any device that wants to connect to a switch
`in the PSTN can only connect to a Class 5 switch. That is what this says.
`
` Any device that wants to connect into the PSTN, the only way
`they can do that is through a Class 5 switch. That's what that says.
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`
`
`19
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-01259 (Patent 8,155,298 B2)
`Case IPR2016-01261 (Patent 8,457,113 B2)
`Case IPR2016-01262 (Patent 7,764,777 B2)
`Case IPR2016-01263 (Patent 8,155,298 B2)
`
`Okay. I want to make that clear.
`
`Now, one thing that I'm going to sh
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
