`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