Opposition to Patent Owner’s Motion to Amend
`IPR 2016-01261
`U.S. Patent No. 8,457,113
`
`
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`_____________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`_____________________
`
`
`Bright House Networks, LLC,
`WideOpenWest Finance, LLC,
`Knology of Florida, Inc.
`Birch Communications, Inc.,
`Petitioners
`v.
`
`Focal IP, LLC,
`Patent Owner
`
`_____________________
`
`Case No. IPR2016-01261
`U.S. Patent No. 8,457,113
`
`
`
`Before SALLY C. MEDLEY, JONI Y. CHANG, and BARBARA A. PARVIS,
`ADMINISTRATIVE PATENT JUDGES.
`
`PETITIONERS’ OPPOSITION TO PATENT OWNER’S CONTINGENT
`MOTION TO AMEND
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`DM2\7850660.9
`
`
`IPR 2016-01261
`U.S. Patent No. 8,457,113
`
`
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`_____________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`_____________________
`
`
`Bright House Networks, LLC,
`WideOpenWest Finance, LLC,
`Knology of Florida, Inc.
`Birch Communications, Inc.,
`Petitioners
`v.
`
`Focal IP, LLC,
`Patent Owner
`
`_____________________
`
`Case No. IPR2016-01261
`U.S. Patent No. 8,457,113
`
`
`
`Before SALLY C. MEDLEY, JONI Y. CHANG, and BARBARA A. PARVIS,
`ADMINISTRATIVE PATENT JUDGES.
`
`PETITIONERS’ OPPOSITION TO PATENT OWNER’S CONTINGENT
`MOTION TO AMEND
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`DM2\7850660.9
`
`
`
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`Page
`I. INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................. 1
`II. SUMMARY OF THE UNPATENTABILITY GROUNDS ........................... 1
`III. STANDARDS FOR A MOTION TO AMEND .............................................. 3
`IV. SUMMARY OF SUBSTITUTE CLAIMS ...................................................... 3
`V. PATENT OWNER’S ARGUMENTS FOR PATENTABILITY OF
`SUBSTITUTE CLAIM 183 ..................................................................................... 4
`VI. ARCHER DISCLOSES THE FIRST AND SECOND ADDED
`FEATURES .............................................................................................................. 6
`VII. ..... THE NEWLY CITED ART DISCLOSES THE FIRST AND SECOND
`ADDED FEATURES ............................................................................................. 12
`A. Lewis Discloses the First and Second Added Features .................................. 13
`B. LaPier Discloses the First and Second Added Features ................................. 18
`VIII. .... PATENT OWNER HAS NOT ATTRIBUTED PATENTABILITY TO
`ANY OF THE OTHER NEWLY ADDED LIMITATIONS ............................. 23
`IX. CONCLUSION ................................................................................................ 25
`
`
`
`
`
`DM2\7850660.9
`
`i
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` Exhibit Number
`1001
`1002
`1003
`1004
`1006
`1007
`1010
`1057
`1058
`1059
`1060
`1066
`
`1067
`1068
`2019
`
`2020
`
`2040
`
`2041
`
`2057
`2061
`
`2062
`
`PETITIONERS’ OPPOSITION EXHIBIT LIST
`
`Document
`U.S. Patent No. 8,457,113 (“the ’113 Patent”)
`Expert Declaration of Dr. Thomas F. La Porta
`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. 7,764,777 (“the ’777 Patent”)
`U.S. Patent No. 8,115,298 (“the ’298 Patent”)
`File history of U.S. Patent No. 7,764,777
`U.S. Patent No. 6,442,169 to Lewis (“Lewis”)
`U.S. Patent No. 6,333,931 to LaPier (“LaPier”)
`May 8, 2017 Transcript of Deposition of Regis “Bud” Bates
`May 9, 2017 Transcript of Deposition of Regis “Bud” Bates
`Expert Declaration of Dr. Thomas F. La Porta in Support of
`Opposition to Motion to Amend
`Claim Chart of Lewis Against Proposed Substitute Claim 183
`Claim Chart of LaPier Against Proposed Substitute Claim 183
`Deposition Transcript of Dr. La Porta, Feb. 24, 2017, for IPR
`2016-01259, -01261, -01262, and -01263.
`Deposition Transcript of Dr. La Porta, Feb. 23, 2017, for IPR
`2016-01259, -01261, -01262, and -01263.
`Expert Declaration of Regis “Bud” Bates in Support of Patent
`Owner’s Motion to Amend
`Section 112 Written Description Support for the Proposed
`Substitute Claim
`$200 Billion Broadband Scandal, Bruce Kushnick, 2006
`Karen Kaplan, Can I Put You on Hold? Profits are Calling, Los
`Angeles Times, February 3, 1997
`Clean and Redlined Versions of the Proposed Substitute Claim
`
`DM2\7850660.9
`
`ii
`
`
`
`
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`Patent Owner filed a Contingent Motion to Amend (“Motion”) substituting
`
`Claim 183 for Claim 1 of U.S. Pat. No. 8,457,113 (“the ’113 Patent”). Petitioners
`
`hereby oppose this Motion because Patent Owner has not met its burden of
`
`showing that substitute Claim 183 is patentable. Patent Owner has not made the
`
`required showing that Claim 183 is patentable over the cited art, and cannot show
`
`that Claim 183 is patentable over newly cited U.S. Patent No. 6,442,169 to Lewis
`
`(“Lewis”) (EX1057) and U.S. Patent No. 6,333,931 to LaPier (“LaPier”)
`
`(EX1058). Accordingly, the Motion should be denied.
`
`II.
`
`
`
`SUMMARY OF THE UNPATENTABILITY GROUNDS
`The Board instituted the present trial on the following grounds:
`
`Ground 1: Claims 1, 2, 8, 11, 15-19, 94, 95, 102, 109-113, 128, 163, 164, 166-168,
`
`175, 179, 180, 181 are obvious over Archer (EX1003) in view of the knowledge of
`
`a person of ordinary skill in the art (“POSA”); and
`
`Ground 2: Claims 1, 2, 8, 11, 15-19, 94, 95, 102, 109-113, 128, and 168 are
`
`obvious over Archer in view of Chang (EX1004).
`
`With respect to Ground 1, in its Response, Patent Owner has asserted that
`
`Archer does not disclose a “web-enabled processing system” for several reasons:
`
`DM2\7850660.9
`
`1
`
`
`
`
`
`(1) There is no disclosure that server processor 128 performs the step of
`
`establishing voice communications between two networks nor how this step
`
`is performed; and
`
`(2) There is no disclosure of a call processing system coupled to a switching
`
`facility/tandem switch because Archer’s gateways are edge devices not
`
`switching facilities (and thus necessarily connected to a PSTN edge switch).
`
`With respect to Ground 2, in its Response, Patent Owner has asserted that
`
`Chang fails to disclose a call processing system coupled to a switching
`
`facility/tandem switch because Chang’s secure access platform 25 cannot deal with
`
`call data or receive, originate, or process a call or call request.
`
`
`
`Likewise, in the present Motion, Patent Owner makes arguments that
`
`overlap with its arguments in its Response regarding Archer and Chang with
`
`respect to substitute Claim 183, asserting that Claim 183 is patentable over all cited
`
`art (including Archer and Chang) because the cited art either discloses a tandem
`
`access controller or “TAC” (call processing system) external to the PSTN and thus
`
`necessarily connected to an edge switch of the PSTN, or (2) discloses a TAC (call
`
`processing system) internal to the PSTN that does not receive call requests or
`
`initiate call requests to establish a call.
`
`Thus, Patent Owner’s arguments for patentability of Claim 1 and substitute
`
`Claim 183 largely turn on the same issues.
`
`DM2\7850660.9
`
`2
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`III. STANDARDS FOR A MOTION TO AMEND
`Under 37 C.F.R. §42.121, the patent owner has the burden to show its
`
`entitlement to the proposed claim amendments, including written description
`
`support in the original disclosure and patentability over the prior art. Patent Owner
`
`has failed to carry this burden.
`
`IV. SUMMARY OF SUBSTITUTE CLAIM
`Patent Owner proposes to amend current Claim 1 by making the following
`
`
`
`amendments:
`
`1. Changing “a telecommunications network” to “a PSTN telecommunications
`
`network” and clarifying that the second network is “a network of PSTN
`
`tandem switches.”
`
`2. Changing the “called party” to “a subscriber.”
`
`3. Changing “call processing system” to “tandem access controller.”
`
`4. Adding the limitations that the PSTN telecommunications network includes
`
`“a plurality of edge switches connected to telephones on one side and PSTN
`
`tandem switches on the other side”, “wherein the PSTN tandem switches
`
`includes the particular PSTN tandem switch”, “wherein the PSTN tandem
`
`switches are not the edge switches”, and “wherein the PSTN tandem
`
`switches are not directly connected to any of the telephones.”
`
`DM2\7850660.9
`
`3
`
`
`
`
`
`5. Adding the limitation “wherein communications between the tandem access
`
`controller and the particular PSTN tandem switch occur without passing
`
`through any edge switches.”
`
`6. Adding the limitation of completing and processing “a call” across both the
`
`network of PSTN tandem switches and the packet network by the TAC
`
`“receiving a first call request … associated with a first call,” “processing a
`
`second call request associated with a second call across the packet network,”
`
`and “establishing the voice communication between the calling party and the
`
`subscriber, by the tandem access controller, after the second call is
`
`completed and answered.” Mot. To Amend, Paper 31, 2-4.
`
`V.
`
`PATENT OWNER’S ARGUMENTS FOR PATENTABILITY OF
`SUBSTITUTE CLAIM 183
`In support of its burden to establish that its substitute claims are patentable
`
`over the prior art of record and prior art known to it, Patent Owner grouped the
`
`prior art into two categories, external art (EXT Art) and internal art (INT Art).
`
`Patent Owner asserts that EXT Art teaches “systems that apply call features
`
`external to the PSTN via an edge switch or edge device [], rather than a tandem
`
`switch.” Patent Owner asserts that INT Art teaches the “capability of applying call
`
`features internal to the PSTN via an SCP.” Mot. to Amend, 15-16.
`
`Patent Owner asserts that all of the art cited in the Petition is either EXT Art
`
`or INT Art, and that “no Petitioner has come forward with any prior art that shows
`
`DM2\7850660.9
`
`4
`
`
`
`
`
`something akin to a TAC connected to a tandem switch that does not communicate
`
`call requests through an edge switch.” Mot. to Amend., 22. Patent Owner’s
`
`description of what third parties were developing, including the “Baby Bells”, is
`
`wholly dependent upon the testimony of Patent Owner’s expert who does not
`
`provide factual support for these assertions. Id.., 22-25. Nevertheless, Patent
`
`Owner relies on this unsupported expert testimony and focuses its arguments for
`
`patentability on the following two features that Patent Owner asserts are not known
`
`or suggested in any known prior art:
`
`1.
`
`The TAC communicates, including communication related to call
`
`requests, with the tandem switch without passing through an edge switch. Mot. To
`
`Amend, 12. (the “First Added Feature”).
`
`2.
`
`The TAC performs the steps of receiving a first call request associated
`
`with a first call, processing a second call associated with a second call request, and
`
`establishing voice communications across both a packet network and a network of
`
`tandems after the second call is answered. Mot. to Amend, 13. (the “Second
`
`Added Feature”).
`
`However, these two features are present in the art already of record in this
`
`Petition, as well as newly cited art discussed below. Specifically, Archer, which
`
`serves as the basis for Grounds 1 and 2 includes both of these features. Likewise,
`
`the newly cited art of Lewis and LaPier both disclose these two features.
`
`DM2\7850660.9
`
`5
`
`
`
`
`
`VI. ARCHER DISCLOSES THE FIRST AND SECOND ADDED
`FEATURES
`In the Petition, server processor 128 in conjunction with database 138 and
`
`gateway 1261 coupled to a tandem switch in PSTN 118 (136) as described in
`
`Archer was identified as the claimed “call processing system coupled to a
`
`switching facility.” Pet., 34-35, 50. These same components also correspond to
`
`the newly claimed “tandem access controller (TAC) coupled to the particular
`
`PSTN tandem switch” that includes the two newly added features identified above.
`
`EX1066, ¶¶30-51.
`
`
`1 Patent Owner’s position that Archer does not use the term “gateway” with respect
`
`to component 126 is simply false. See, e.g., EX1003, 5:34-35 (“Converter 126 can
`
`also be referred to as a gateway.”), 5:59-60 (“In general PSTN-to-IP network
`
`gateway (i.e. converter 126) . . .”). Moreover, Patent Owner’s reliance on Archer’s
`
`other nomenclature for the same component (“converter”) as indicating that
`
`gateway 126 only converts signals between analog and digital formats is also false
`
`as Archer explicitly discloses that gateway 126 may “convert” or “translate”
`
`circuit-switched digital voice (PCM) into multiple encoding schemes and digital
`
`packets suitable for packet networks (e.g. IP packets). See, e.g., id., 5:27-28; 5:59-
`
`62; 6:7-9; 8:18-21; 9:14-15; 11:23-25; EX1066, ¶31, n. 1.
`
`DM2\7850660.9
`
`6
`
`
`
`
`
`A POSA would understand that Archer discloses the First Added Feature as
`
`server processor 128 communicates with the tandem switch in PSTN 118 (136) via
`
`gateway 126 and without passing through an edge switch. EX1066, ¶31. As set
`
`forth below, a POSA would understand that Archer’s gateway 126 is not an edge
`
`device or an edge switch and communicates on the PSTN using SS7 signaling and
`
`a digital voice protocol used by PSTN tandem switches. EX1066, ¶31.
`
`Specifically, Archer discloses that gateway 1262 passes information (e.g.
`
`voice and signaling) through it, and sends and receives such information in digital
`
`formats3 (e.g. PCM voice and IP voice packets). EX1003, 5:10-11 (“Circuit-
`
`switched network 118 can be . . . a digital network”); 5:23-27 (“[T]he heart of most
`
`telephone networks today is digital.”); 5:33-35; 5:42-46; 5:59-62 (“PSTN-to-IP
`
`
`2 Mr. Bates also testified that there is no such thing as an “edge switch” in IP
`
`networks. EX1059, 110:9-13; 114:17-20; 178:21-24. Thus, gateway 126 (which
`
`clearly has an IP address and is thus on an IP network) cannot be an edge switch.
`
`EX1003, FIGS. 2, 6; 6:6-9; 6:51-53, 6:64-67, 9:10-14; EX1066,EX1066, ¶32 n.2.
`
`3 In its Motion to Amend, Patent Owner ignores the explicit disclosure in Archer
`
`that the gateway receives digital voice (PCM) from the PSTN when it incorrectly
`
`asserts that Archer discloses that gateway 126 only receives analog signals over
`
`analog lines. Mot. to Amend, 18-19; EX2040, ¶¶84-86; EX1066, ¶32 n.3.
`
`DM2\7850660.9
`
`7
`
`
`
`
`
`network gateway (i.e. converter 126) should be able to support the translation of
`
`PCM to multiple encoding schemes to interwork with software from various
`
`vendors.”); EX1066, ¶32.
`
` A POSA would understand that gateway 126 communicates both VoIP and
`
`PSTN signaling (i.e. SS7) over PSTN 118 (136) and IP network 130 such as, for
`
`example, when it receives VoIP call notification messages from server processor
`
`128, and translates such messages into PSTN signaling to cause a called party
`
`telephone (e.g. 120) to ring. EX1003, 9:7-19, 9:31-34, 11:20-25; EX1066, ¶33.
`
`Additionally, for example, Mr. Bates testified that the digital format used by
`
`Archer’s gateway 126 to communicate voice information with PSTN 118 (136)—
`
`PCM—was typical for the “tandem level” in the PSTN, was used by PSTN tandem
`
`switches (but not edge switches), and would “maintain the quality of the call.”
`
`EX1059, 22:23-23:8; 26:7-15; EX2040, ¶44. As such, Mr. Bates acknowledged
`
`that Archer’s gateway 126 would typically be connected to a PSTN tandem switch,
`
`and not an edge switch, in PSTN 118 (136). Id.; see also EX2019, 267:19-268:4;
`
`271:2-273:12; EX1066, ¶34.
`
`Moreover, in his deposition, Mr. Bates defined an “edge device” as an “end
`
`user device”, and testified that (1) like “edge switch”, there is no “edge device” in
`
`an IP network such as the Web/Internet, and (2) a node interconnecting an IP
`
`carrier network and the PSTN is not an “edge device.” EX1059, 54:14-55:15;
`
`DM2\7850660.9
`
`8
`
`
`
`
`
`163:24-164:3; 172:2-9. Thus, contrary to Patent Owner’s arguments in its Motion
`
`to Amend (Mot. to Amend, 18-19, EX2040, ¶¶84-86), Archer’s gateway 126 is not
`
`an “edge device” because it: (1) communicates bi-directionally over PSTN 118
`
`(136) using PCM, (2) communicates bi-directionally over IP network 130 using IP
`
`packets, (3) has an IP address and is thus on an IP network 130 (where there are no
`
`edge devices or edge switches), and (4) is clearly not an end user device. EX1066,
`
`¶¶35-37.
`
`As illustrated in FIG. 2 of Archer (annotated below), Archer discloses a TAC
`
`which includes gateway 126, server processor 128 and database 138. The TAC
`
`communicates, including communication related to call requests, with the tandem
`
`switch without passing through an edge switch. EX1066, ¶38. Specifically, gateway
`
`PSTN
`PSTN tandem
`switch
`PCM
`
`TAC
`
`SS7
`
`IP network
`
`DM2\7850660.9
`
`9
`
`
`
`
`
`126 receives call requests in the form of SS7 signaling from a PSTN tandem switch
`
`without passing through an edge switch. EX1066, ¶¶38-39.
`
`With respect to the Second Added Feature, a POSA would understand that
`
`Archer discloses the Second Added Feature as software executing on server
`
`processor 128 communicates signaling with gateway 126 on IP network 130 and
`
`establishes the voice communication across IP network 130 and PSTN 118 (136) via
`
`gateway 126. EX1066, ¶41. Archer discloses software executing on server
`
`processor 128 receiving call data from the call request received by gateway 126
`
`which is associated with a first call via a circuit-switched network (118, 136),
`
`preferably the PSTN. EX1003, Fig. 2, 5:10-46, 8:27-34, 8:50-60, 9:62-64; EX1066,
`
`¶42. When a caller makes a first call to a called party using phone equipment (114),
`
`the call request containing the call data from the first call, in the form of the called
`
`party’s telephone number, is routed through PSTN 118 (136), to gateway 126, which
`
`packages the call data into IP packets for transmission over IP network 130 to server
`
`processor 128. EX1003, Figs. 2, 4, 5, 5:32-34, 5:59-63, 8:50-60; EX1001, cls. 134,
`
`136 (call data includes the called party’s telephone number); EX1066, ¶43. Server
`
`processor 128 receives the call packets from gateway 126 which contain subscriber
`
`information (e.g., the dialed telephone number) which server processor 128 extracts
`
`and uses to query the database 138 for destination addresses associated with the
`
`DM2\7850660.9
`
`10
`
`
`
`
`
`subscriber. EX1003, Figs. 2 (128), 4 (52, 54), 5, 2:45-49, 6:33-38, 6:49-51, 6:57-62.
`
`8:27-34, 8:50-60, 9:62-64; EX1066, ¶44.
`
`Archer teaches the server processor 128 initiates a call over the second
`
`network by creating and multicasting IP call request packets addressed to the
`
`subscriber’s communication devices based on the control criteria (device addresses
`
`and priorities) retrieved from database 138. EX1003, Figs. 4 (54-66), 5, 7:3-13, 9:9-
`
`16, 6:57-59, 9:10-15; 11:1-11; EX1066, ¶45. Archer teaches that server processor
`
`128 uses the call data to initiate the second call because it uses the called telephone
`
`to search database 138 in order to determine which destination addresses to use to
`
`generate the multicast call packets. EX1003, 6:57-67, 8:61-65; EX1066, ¶46. For
`
`communications directed to devices on PSTN 118 (136), server processor 128
`
`generates packets with the IP address of gateway 126 (132) which contain the
`
`telephone number of telephones (120a, 120b). EX1003, 6:55-67; EX1066, ¶47. The
`
`gateway 126 then translates the packets for transmission over PSTN 118 (136) and
`
`calls the telephone (120a, 120b). EX1003, 7:3-15, 9:7-16; EX1066, ¶47. For
`
`communications addressed to communications devices (134a) on IP network 130
`
`server processor 128 generates packets with the IP address of the IP communications
`
`devices (134a). EX1003, Figs. 2 (128, 132, 134), 4 (54, 62), 5 (108), 6:57-59, 6:64-
`
`7:4, 9:10-15, 11:15-17; EX1066, ¶48.
`
`Archer discloses that “FIG. 4 is a flowchart of the software which will
`
`DM2\7850660.9
`
`11
`
`
`
`
`
`execute on server processor 128” and Figure 4 expressly describes such software
`
`executing the step of:
`
`
`
`EX1066, ¶49; EX1003, 6:47-48, Figure 4 (68), 7:14–21. Archer also discloses that
`
`software executing on server processor 128 performs this step after receiving
`
`signaling that the called party has answered (e.g. “response”, “pick-up
`
`notification”), which Mr. Bates acknowledged is when the “call is completed.” Id.;
`
`see also EX1003, Figure 4 (64), 6:30-32, 8:43-45, 9:31-36; EX1059, 250:23-
`
`251:17; EX1060, 331:17-332:20; EX1066, ¶50.
`
`Thus, in its Motion to Amend, Patent Owner fails to properly address the art
`
`of record in the Petition, including Archer. Indeed, as set forth supra, Archer
`
`discloses both of Patent Owner’s First and Second Added Features in Substitute
`
`Claim 183. EX1066, ¶51. By failing to properly address this prior art of record,
`
`Patent Owner has failed to meet its burden that Substitute Claim 183 is patentable.
`
`VII. THE NEWLY CITED ART DISCLOSES THE FIRST AND SECOND
`ADDED FEATURES
`The Lewis (EX1057) and LaPier (EX1058) patents were filed by two of the
`
`major industry players in converging networks (Level 3 Communications and
`
`Cisco Systems, respectively) in the late 1990s. Patent Owner’s arguments in its
`
`DM2\7850660.9
`
`12
`
`
`
`
`
`Motion to Amend hinge on its expert’s unsupported opinion that no technology
`
`being developed by third parties disclosed or involved “something akin to a TAC
`
`connected to a tandem switch that does not communicate call requests through an
`
`edge switch.” Mot. to Amend., 22-25; EX2040, ¶¶145, 148-151. However, this
`
`opinion is directly refuted by both patents which show the use of a TAC connected
`
`to a PSTN tandem switch without first going through an edge switch. The prior art
`
`discussed below clearly show that the two features that Patent Owner added in its
`
`contingent amendment and asserts provide patentability to Substitute Claim 183
`
`were undisputedly in the prior art—and in use by major telecommunications
`
`companies—years before the May 2000 priority date of the ‘113 Patent.
`
`A. Lewis Discloses the First and Second Added Features
`Lewis is titled “System and Method for Bypassing Data From Egress
`
`Facilities” and was filed November 20, 1998 and issued on August 27, 2002. It
`
`qualifies as prior art under 102(e). Lewis was not cited by the examiner during
`
`prosecution of the ’113 Patent. Lewis is directed to a telecommunications
`
`architecture that routes a call from a calling party to a called party by bypassing the
`
`edge switch connected to a called party in order to avoid the cost associated with
`
`sending the call through an edge switch. EX1057, 7:6-27; EX1066, ¶56. In one
`
`embodiment, using an architecture that is virtually identical to the ’113 Patent, a
`
`call request from a calling party through the PSTN can be converted into a protocol
`
`DM2\7850660.9
`
`13
`
`
`
`
`
`suitable for a data network to complete the call to the called party as a VOIP called
`
`party. EX1057, FIGS. 1, 4, 5, 9A 12:50-56, 25:9-10, 25:35-44; EX1066, ¶57.
`
`As illustrated in FIG. 4 (annotated below), Lewis discloses a PSTN network
`
`including edge switches EO 104 and tandem access switches 106 connected to a
`
`packet network (e.g. IP network) with an intelligent interconnection between the
`
`two networks called an open architecture switch 502, within open architecture
`
`platform 402, coupled to the PSTN through the tandem switch 106.
`PSTN
`PSTN tandem
`switch 106
`
`PSTN edge
`switch 104
`
`SS7
`
`PCM
`
`TAC 502
`
`IP network
`
`EX1057, FIGS. 4, 5, 9A, 12:50-56, 19:54-67, 25:9-10, 25:35-44; EX1066, ¶58.
`
`The edge switches 104 are connected to telephones 102 on one side and PSTN
`
`tandem switches 106 on the other side, wherein the edge switches route calls from
`
`and to subscribers within a local geographic area and the PSTN tandem switches
`
`route calls to the edge switches or the PSTN tandem switches local or in other
`
`DM2\7850660.9
`
`14
`
`
`
`
`
`geographic areas. EX1057, FIGS. 1, 4, 15:7-23; EX1066, ¶59. Tandem switch
`
`106 is not directly connected to any telephones. Id.
`
`Open architecture switch 502 receives call requests in the form of SS7
`
`signaling and receives voice from tandem switch 106 and converts the voice and
`
`SS7 signaling to formats suitable for use on the packet network. EX1057, FIGS. 1,
`
`4, 5, 9A, 10A, 27:2-14, 27:19-38, 27:59-61, 29:1-8; EX1066, ¶60. As further
`
`illustrated below, in annotated FIG. 5 from Lewis, open architecture switch 502,
`
`including gateway 508, tandem Network Access Server (NAS) Bays 504 and
`
`modem NAS bays 514 are the claimed TAC that include the First and Second
`
`Added Features identified above. EX1057, FIGS. 4, 5, 9A; EX1066, ¶61.
`PSTN
`
`PCM
`
`TAC 502
`
`SS7
`
`IP network
`
`Lewis discloses the First Added Feature as a TAC (gateway 508 and tandem
`
`NAS Bays 504) that communicates SS7 signaling and voice directly with the
`
`DM2\7850660.9
`
`15
`
`
`
`
`
`tandem switch AT 106 without passing communications through an edge switch
`
`EO 104. EX1057, FIGS. 4, 5, 9A, 27:2-15, 27:59-61, 29:1-8; EX1066, ¶62.
`
`Lewis discloses the Second Added Feature as gateway 508 that receives a
`
`first call request associated with a first call and as tandem NAS bay 504 and
`
`modem NAS bay 514 that process a second call associated with a second call
`
`request and that establish voice communications across both a packet network and
`
`a network of tandems after the second call is answered. Id.; EX1057, FIG. 10A-
`
`10C, 12:50-56, 29:44-51, 30:4-37, 30:48-50, 26:9-14; EX1066, ¶63. Specifically,
`
`gateway 508 receives signaling information to set up data calls and voice calls
`
`from a calling party to a called party. EX1057, FIGS. 4, 5, 9A, 10A-10C, 27:3-5,
`
`27:50-52, 27:59-62, 28:15-22, 28:26-30, 29:1-11, 29:44-51; EX1066, ¶64.
`
`Gateway 508 converts the signaling information into an open architecture protocol
`
`format for delivery in a packet network. Id.; EX1057, 25:35-39, 27:3-14, 30:13-
`
`19; EX1066, ¶64. Lewis references a VOIP call as voice traffic over a data
`
`network or data connection. EX1057, 12:50-56; 26:9-13; EX1066, ¶65. In a call
`
`from the PSTN to the packet network as a VOIP call, the PSTN call is terminated
`
`at modem NAS bay 514 for conversion to a VOIP format:
`
`Definitions: packetized voice or voice-- One example of packetized
`voice is voice over a backbone over internet protocol (VOIP). Voice
`over packet refers to the carrying of telephony or voice traffic over a
`data network, e.g. voice over frame, voice over ATM, voice over
`
`DM2\7850660.9
`
`16
`
`
`
`
`
`Internet Protocol (IP), over virtual private networks (VPNs), voice
`over a backbone, etc. EX1057, 12:50-56.
`
`In step 1002 of FIG. 10A, the technique receives signaling
`information to set up data calls and voice calls from a calling party to
`a called party. In step 1004, the technique converts the signaling
`information into an open architecture protocol format. In step 1006 [of
`FIG. 10A], data calls . . . are received at open architecture switch 502 .
`. . In step 1012, the method terminates data calls to modems in a
`modem NAS bay, e.g., in modem NAS 514, for conversion to a
`packetized data format for transmission to network nodes. Id., 27:3-
`14; EX1066, ¶65.
`
`After the first call is made to modem NAS bay 514, a second call is placed
`
`to the end user. EX1057, FIG. 10C, 20:44-53; EX1066, ¶66. Gateway 508 looks
`
`up the called party number in internal or external database 516 to determine how to
`
`route the call and informs modem NAS bay 514. EX1057, 29:44-51; EX1066,
`
`¶66. NAS bay 514 converts the PSTN call to data packets in a VOIP protocol
`
`using the routing information provided by gateway 508. EX1057, FIG. 10C, 24:5-
`
`19, 25:35-39, 30:13-19; EX1066, ¶66. Gateway 508 then sends an address
`
`complete (ACM) message out over SS7 network and edge switch plays a ringing
`
`signal for calling party 102. EX1057, 30:24-35; EX1066, ¶67. After the called
`
`party answers the second call, voice communication is established across both the
`
`packet network and the PSTN between the calling party and the called party.
`
`EX1057, FIGS. 10C, 18A, 18B, 30:36-43, 30:48-50, 26:9-14; EX1066, ¶67.
`17
`
`DM2\7850660.9
`
`
`
`
`
`As shown in FIG. 4 (annotated above), tandem switch 106 is different than
`
`edge switch 104 and tandem switch 106 is not directly connected to the telephones
`
`of subscribers. EX1066, ¶67. Thus, Lewis describes all of the features that Patent
`
`Owner seeks to add in Substitute Claim 183. Id., ¶¶56-69. Specifically, Lewis is
`
`an example of an intelligent call processing system that was connected into the
`
`PSTN through a tandem switch, without the need to access the PSTN only through
`
`an edge switch. Id., ¶70. Patent Owner’s expert is unaware of the work like Lewis
`
`that happened at a major telecom company (Level 3 Communications) prior to
`
`May 2000 and even acknowledged that, in preparing his declarations, he did not
`
`actively research the state of the art with respect to converging IP and PSTN
`
`networks (as recited in the Proposed Substitute Claim). EX1059, 192:11-14.
`
`Therefore, Patent Owner has failed to meets its burden for showing the
`
`patentability of Substitute Claim 183 over Lewis. Although the burden is on
`
`Patent Owner to show the patentability of Substitute Claim 183, attached as
`
`Exhibit 1067 is a claim chart identifying where Lewis discloses each of the
`
`claimed limitations.
`
`B.
`LaPier Discloses the First and Second Added Features
`LaPier is titled “Method and System for Interconnecting a Circuit-Switched
`
`Telephony Network and a Packet-Switched Data Network, And Applications
`
`Therefor” and was filed December 28, 1998 and issued on December 25, 2001. It
`
`DM2\7850660.9
`
`18
`
`
`
`
`
`qualifies as prior art under 102(e). LaPier was not cited by the examiner during
`
`prosecution of the ’113 Patent. LaPier is directed to interconnecting voice calls
`
`between the PSTN and a packet switched network. EX1058, FIGS. 1B (annotated
`
`below), 1C, 4:58-5:4, 8:61-9:7, 35:13-16, 35:54-62; EX1066, ¶74. LaPier
`
`discloses an intelligent interconnection architecture between the PSTN and the
`
`packet-switched network including a Signaling Access Server (SAS) and the
`
`Network Access Server (NAS). Id. The SAS converts the signaling into the
`
`proper protocol suitable for the PSTN and the packet-switched network to ensure
`
`that the voice call is routed properly. Id.; EX1058, 4:67-5:2, 6:4-9, 6:49-54, 9:18-
`
`22, 9:26-29, 38:13-25, 38:51-62; EX1066, ¶75. The SAS and NAS interconnect
`
`the voice calls between the PSTN and the packet-switched network. EX1058, 5:8-
`
`16, 5:28-35, 6:10-27, 6:55-62, 8:61-9:7, 38:26-40, 38:51-62; EX1066, ¶75.
`
`As illustrated in annotated FIG. 1B, LaPier discloses a PSTN network
`
`including edge switches 116 and tandem access switches 114 connected to a packet
`
`network 122 with an intelligent interconnection between the two networks as a
`
`TAC (Network Access Server (NAS) 118 and Signaling Access Server (SAS) 112)
`
`coupled to the tandem switch 114. EX1058, FIGS. 1B-1C, 5:28-35, 6:60-62 (“The
`
`Network Access Servers 118 are coupled by voice links V to one or more switches
`
`such as . . . tandem switch 114.”); EX1066, ¶76. The edge switches 116 are
`
`connected to telephones 105 on one side and PSTN tandem switches 114 on the
`
`DM2\7850660.9
`
`19
`
`
`
`
`
`other side, wherein the edge switches route calls from and to subscribers within a
`
`local geographic area and the PSTN tandem switches route calls to the edge
`
`switches or the PSTN tandem switches local or in other geographic areas. Id.,
`
`EX1058, 7:1-3; EX1066, ¶77. Tandem switch 114 is not directly connected to any
`
`telephones (e.g. 105, 107). Id.; EX1066, ¶77.
`
`TAC
`
`SS7
`
`PSTN
`
`PSTN tandem
`switch 114
`PSTN edge
`switch 116
`
`SS7
`
`PCM
`
`IP network
`
`Signaling Access Server (SAS) 112 receives call requests in the form of SS7
`
`signaling and NAS 118a receives voice from tandem switch 106 and converts the
`
`DM2\7850660.9
`
`20
`
`
`
`
`
`voice and SS7 signaling to formats suitable for use on the packet network 122.
`
`EX1058, 4:67-5:4, 5:8-16, 5:28-43, 6:49-54, 6:60-62, 35:54-62, 38:13-40, 38:51-
`
`62; EX1066, ¶78. NAS 118a and SAS 112 are the claimed TAC that include the
`
`two newly added features identified above. EX1066, ¶79. LaPier discloses the
`
`First Added Feature as SAS 112 and NAS 118a each communicate directly with
`
`the tandem switch 114 without passing through an edge switch 116. EX1066, ¶79.
`
`LaPier discloses the Second Added Feature as SAS 112 receives a first call
`
`request associated with a first call, SAS 112 and NAS 118a process a second call
`
`associated with a second call request, and NAS 118a establishes voice
`
`communications across both a packet network and a network of tandems after the
`
`second call is answered. EX1066, ¶80. Specifically, SAS 112 receives signaling
`
`information to set up voice calls from a calling party to a called party. EX1058,
`
`FIGS. 1B (SS7 signaling from tandem switch 114 to STP 106 to SAS 112), 7A
`
`(704), 5:39-43; 16:57-60; 38:13-18 (“[SS7 trunk 20] delivers an Initial Address
`
`Message 704 to the Signaling Access Server (SAS) 112.”); EX1066, ¶81. SAS 112
`
`converts the signaling information into a protocol format for communication with
`
`NAS 118a. EX1058, FIGS. 1B, 7A, 5:61-6:1, 7:14-21, 16:54-57; EX1066, ¶81. In
`
`a call from the ta
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
