`
`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.
`
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`FOCAL IP, LLC,
`
`Patent Owner
`
`________________
`
`Case IPR2016-01262
`Patent Number: 7,764,777
`________________
`
`
`
`
`
`PATENT OWNER FOCAL IP, LLC’S RESPONSE TO PETITION
`FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case IPR2016-01262
`Patent 7,764,777
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Paper No. 30
`
`
`
`I. 
`
`II. 
`
`III. 
`
`A. 
`
`B. 
`
`IV. 
`
`A. 
`
`V. 
`
`A. 
`
`B. 
`
`C. 
`
`D. 
`
`VI. 
`
`A. 
`
`B. 
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`INTRODUCTION .................................................................................. 1
`
`SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT .............................................................. 1
`
`DISCUSSION OF THE PSTN AND OVERVIEW OF THE ’777
`PATENT ................................................................................................. 4
`
`Overview of the PSTN ......................................................................... 4
`
`The ’777 Patent .................................................................................... 9
`
`LEGAL STANDARDS ......................................................................... 10
`
`Obviousness ....................................................................................... 10
`
`The ’777 Patent Contains an Unmistakable Disclaimer of Subject Matter
`and Claim Scope for Call Controllers Connected to an Edge Switch or
`Edge Device. ......................................................................................... 11
`
`Disparaging the Prior Art is Sufficient to Disclaim Claim Scope. .... 11
`
`Disclaimer in the ’777 Patent. ............................................................ 15
`
`The Prosecution History Confirms and Reinforces the Disclaimer, and
`Does Not Provide a Basis to Rescind the Plain Disclaimer from the
`Specification ..................................................................................... 22
`
`Scope of General Disclaimer ............................................................. 30
`
`CLAIM CONSTRUCTION .................................................................. 31
`
`Legal Standards for Claim Construction - Broadest Reasonable
`Interpretation (“BRI”) ....................................................................... 31
`
`“Switching Facility” ........................................................................... 32
`
`ii
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case IPR2016-01262
`Patent 7,764,777
`
`
`
`
`Paper No. 30
`
`
`
`C. 
`
`D. 
`
`VII. 
`
`A. 
`
`B. 
`
`C. 
`
`VIII. 
`
`A. 
`
`B. 
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`“Controlling Device” ......................................................................... 37
`
`“Coupled To”/ “In Communication With” ........................................ 37
`
`SUMMARY OF THE REFERENCES ................................................. 41
`
`State of the Art ................................................................................... 41
`
`Summary of Archer ............................................................................ 45
`
`Summary of Chang ............................................................................ 48
`
`ARGUMENTS ...................................................................................... 50
`
`Archer Does Not Disclose that the Controlling Device Connects the
`First and Second Calls. ..................................................................... 51
`
`Archer Does Not Disclose A Controlling Device in Communication
`with a Switching Facility. ................................................................. 55
`
`Archer’s Converters Are Edge Devices, Not Switching
`Facilities. ........................................................................................ 55
`
`Archer Does Not Inherently Disclose that Archer’s Converter is
`Coupled to a Switching Facility. .................................................... 58
`
`It Would Not Be Obvious to a POSA to Couple Archer’s Converters
`to a Switching Facility ................................................................... 59
`
`Petitioner’s Obviousness Arguments Are Inadequate. ...................... 61
`
`CONCLUSION ..................................................................................... 61 
`
`iii
`
`
`
`
`1. 
`
`
`2. 
`
`
`3. 
`
`C. 
`
`IX. 
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case IPR2016-01262
`Patent 7,764,777
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Paper No. 30
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`Cases:
`
`Akamai Techs., Inc. v. Limelight Networks, Inc.,
`629 F.3d 1311 (Fed. Cir. 2010) ...................................................................... 14-15
`
`
`Akamai Techs., Inc. v. Limelight Networks, Inc.,
`419 F. App’x 989 (Fed. Cir. 2011) ..................................................................... 14
`
`
`Akamai Techs., Inc. v. Limelight Networks, Inc.,
`805 F.3d 1368 (Fed. Cir. 2015) ........................................................................... 14
`
`
`Ariosa Diagnostics v. Verinata Health, Inc.,
`805 F.3d 1359 (Fed. Cir. 2015) ...................................................................... 54-55
`
`
`Bicon, Inc. v. Straumann Co.,
`441 F.3d 945 (Fed. Cir. 2006) ............................................................................. 33
`
`
`Biogen, Inc. v. Berlex Labs., Inc.,
`318 F.3d 1132 (Fed. Cir. 2003) ...................................................................... 14-15
`
`
`Chi. Bd. Options Exch., Inc. v. Int’l Secs. Exch., LLC,
`677 F.3d 1361 (Fed. Cir. 2014) ................................................................ 12-13, 32
`
`
`Edmund Optics, Inc. v. Semrock, Inc.,
`Case IPR2014-00599, Paper 72 (PTAB Sept. 16, 2015) .................................... 12
`
`
`Epistar Corp. v. Int’l Trade Comm’n,
`556 F.3d 1321 (Fed. Cir. 2009) ...................................................................... 13-14
`
`
`GE Lighting Solutions, LLC v. AgiLight, Inc.,
`750 F.3d 1304 (Fed. Cir. 2014) ........................................................................... 31
`
`
`Graham v. John Deere Co. of Kansas City,
`383 U.S. 1 (1966) .......................................................................................... 11, 61
`
`
`
`iv
`
`
`
`

`

`Case IPR2016-01262
`Patent 7,764,777
`
`
`
`
`Paper No. 30
`
`
`Hakim v. Cannon Avent Group, PLC,
`479 F.3d 1313 (Fed. Cir. 2007) ........................................................................... 28
`
`
`Honeywell Int’l, Inc. v. ITT Indus., Inc.,
`452 F.3d 1312 (Fed. Cir. 2006) ...................................................................... 13-15
`
`
`In re Baker Hughes, Inc.,
`215 F.3d 1297 (Fed. Cir. 2000) ........................................................................... 32
`
`
`In re CSB-Sys. Int’l,
`832 F.3d 1335 (Fed. Cir. 2016) ........................................................................... 31
`
`
`In re Kahn,
`441 F.3d 977 (Fed. Cir. 2006) ....................................................................... 11, 61
`
`
`In re Man Mach. Interface Techs. LLC,
`822 F.3d 1282 (Fed. Cir. 2016) ................................................................. 2, 13, 32
`
`
`Innogenetics, N.V. v. Abbott Labs.,
`512 F.3d 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2008) ........................................................................... 11
`
`
`Intelligent Bio-Systems, Inc. v. Illumina Cambridge, Ltd.,
`821 F.3d 1359 (Fed. Cir. 2016) ........................................................................... 54
`
`
`Kingston Tech. Co., Inc. v. Imation Corp.,
`Case IPR2015-00066, Paper 19 (PTAB March 24, 2016) .................................. 12
`
`
`KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc.,
`550 U.S. 398 (2007) ............................................................................................ 11
`
`
`LG Electronics., Inc. v. Advanced Micro Devices, Inc.,
`Case IPR2015-00324, Paper 39 (PTAB May 23, 2016) ..................................... 11
`
`
`Microsoft Corp. v. Proxyconn, Inc.,
`789 F.3d 1292 (Fed. Cir. 2015) ........................................................................... 32
`
`
`Openwave Sys., Inc. v. Apple Inc.,
`808 F.3d 509 (Fed. Cir. 2015) ............................................................................. 13
`v
`
`
`
`

`

`Case IPR2016-01262
`Patent 7,764,777
`
`
`
`
`Paper No. 30
`
`
`
`Poly-America, L.P. v. API Indus., Inc.,
`839 F.3d 1131 (Fed. Cir. 2016) ........................................................................... 12
`
`
`PPC Broadband, Inc. v. Corning Optical Commc’ns. RF, LLC,
`815 F.3d 747 (Fed. Cir. 2016) ............................................................................. 32
`
`
`Saffran v. Johnson & Johnson,
`712 F.3d 549 (Fed. Cir. 2013) ............................................................................. 12
`
`
`SAS Institute, Inc. v. ComplementSoft, LLC,
`825 F.3d 1341 (Fed. Cir. 2016) ........................................................................... 32
`
`
`SciMed Life Sys., Inc. v. Advanced Cardiovascular Sys., Inc.,
`242 F.3d 1337 (Fed. Cir. 2001) ................................................................ 12-13, 32
`
`
`Scotts Co. LLC v. Encap, LLC,
`Case IPR2013-00110, Paper 79 (PTAB June 24, 2014) ..................................... 11
`
`
`Sony Corp. v. Memory Integrity, LLC,
`Case IPR2015-00158, Paper 35 (PTAB May 19, 2016) ..................................... 11
`
`Telcordia Techs., Inc. v. Cisco Sys.,
`612 F.3d 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2010) ...................................................................... 14-15
`
`
`Trs. of Columbia Univ. v. Symantec Corp.,
`811 F.3d 1359 (Fed. Cir. 2016) ........................................................................... 12
`
`
`
`Statutes:
`
`35 U.S.C. § 314(a) .................................................................................................... 1
`
`Regulations:
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.23(b) ............................................................................................... 54
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b) ............................................................................................. 31
`vi
`
`
`
`

`

`Case IPR2016-01262
`Patent 7,764,777
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Paper No. 30
`
`7,764,777
`
`of U.S. Patent No.
`
`UPDATED LIST OF EXHIBITS
`
`Declaration of Regis J. “Bud” Bates filed with Preliminary
`Response
`Ray Horak, Communications Systems & Networks, (2nd ed. 2000)
`Ray Horak, Webster’s New World Telecom Dictionary (2008)
`Ray Horak, Telecommunications and Data Communications
`(2007)
`Prosecution History
`(“’777ProsHist”)
`Harry Newton, Newton’s Telecom Dictionary, (23rd ed. 2007)
`Declaration of John P. Murphy in Support of Unopposed Motion
`for Pro Hac Vice Admission
`Declaration of Hanna F. Madbak in Support of Unopposed Motion
`for Pro Hac Vice Admission
`Corrected Declaration of Hanna F. Madbak in Support of
`Unopposed Motion for Pro Hac Vice Admission
`U.S. Patent No. 6,574,328
`Opening Claim Construction Expert Declaration of Dr. Eric
`Burger filed by certain Defendants in the underlying district court
`litigation Case No. 3:15-cv-00742-TJC-MCR, Dkt No. 89-2, filed
`08/12/16.
`Deposition Transcript of Dr. La Porta, Feb. 24, 2017, for
`IPR2016-01259, -01261, -01262, and 01263
`Deposition Transcript of Dr. La Porta, Feb. 23, 2017, for
`IPR2016-01259, -01261, -01262, and 01263 (“La Porta Dep.”)
`Excerpts of Deposition Transcript of Mr. Willis, Mar. 1, 2017, for
`IPR2016-01254 and -01257. (“Willis Dep.”)
`Declaration of Regis J. “Bud” Bates in Support of Response
`(“BatesDec”)
`Excerpts of Petition filed in IPR2016-01261 (“-01261 Pet.”)
`Excerpts of Petition filed in IPR2016-01254 (“-01254 Pet.”)
`Excerpts of Petition filed in IPR2016-01260 (“-01260 Pet.”)
`Excerpts of Declaration of Dr. La Porta in support of the Petition,
`Ex. 1002 of IPR2016-01262 (“La Porta Dec. of IPR2016-01262”)
`
`vii
`
`2001
`
`2002
`2003
`2004
`
`2005
`
`2006
`2007
`
`2008
`
`2009
`
`2010
`2011
`
`2019
`
`2020
`
`2021
`
`2022
`
`2023
`2024
`2025
`2026
`
`
`
`

`

`Case IPR2016-01262
`Patent 7,764,777
`
`
`
`
`Paper No. 30
`
`
`
`2027
`
`2028
`
`2029
`
`2030
`
`2040
`
`2041
`
`2042
`
`2043
`
`2044
`
`2046
`2047
`2048
`2049
`2050
`2051
`2052
`
`2053
`2054
`2055
`
`2056
`2057
`2058
`2059
`2060
`2061
`
`
`
`Excerpts of Declaration of Mr. Willis in support of the Petition,
`Ex. 1002 of IPR2016-01254 (“Willis Dec. of IPR2016-01254”)
`Excerpts of Declaration of Dr. Lavian in support of the Petition,
`Ex. 1002 of IPR2016-01258 (“Lavian Dec. of IPR2016-01258”)
`Excerpts of Deposition Transcript of Dr. Lavian, March 29, 2017,
`for IPR2016-01256, -01258, and -01260 (“Lavian Dep.”)
`Excerpts of Declaration of Dr. Lavian in support of the Petition,
`Ex. 1002 of IPR2016-01256 (“Lavian Dec. of IPR2016-01256”)
`Declaration of Regis J. “Bud” Bates in Support of Motion to
`Amend (“BatesDec”)
`Listing of Section 112 Written Description Support for the
`Proposed Substitute Claims
`Application No. 11/948,965, filed on November 20, 2007
`(annotated with line numbers)
`Application No. 10/426,279, filed on April 30, 2003 (annotated
`with line numbers)
`Application No. 09/565,565, filed on May 4, 2000 (annotated with
`line numbers)
`U.S. Patent No. 6,381,323 to Schwab, et al. (“Schwab”)
`U.S. Patent No. 6,463,145 to O’Neal et al. (“O’Neal”)
`U.S. Patent No. 6,683,870 to Archer (“Archer”)
`U.S. Patent No. 5,958,016 to Chang et al. (“Chang”)
`U.S. Patent No. 6,353,660 to Burger et al. (“Burger”)
`U.S. Patent No. 6,798,767 to Alexander et al. (“Alexander”)
`PCT Application No. WO 99/14924
`to Shtivelman
`(“Shtivelman”)
`U.S. Patent No. 5,809,128 to McMullin (“McMullin”)
`U.S. Patent No. 6,445,694 to Swartz (“Swartz”)
`An Overview of Signaling System No. 7, Abdi R. Modarressi, and
`Ronald A. Skoog, April, 1992
`U.S. Patent No. 4,646,296 to Bartholet et al. (“Bartholet”)
`$200 Billion Broadband Scandal, Bruce Kushnick, 2006
`U.S. Patent No. 6,744,759 to Sidhu et al. (“Sidhu”)
`U.S. Patent No. 6,041,325 to Shah et al. (“Shah”)
`U.S. Patent No. 5,802,160 to Kugell et al. (“Kugell”)
`Karen Kaplan, Can I Put You on Hold? Profits are Calling, Los
`Angeles Times, February 3, 1997
`
`viii
`
`

`

`Case IPR2016-01262
`Patent 7,764,777
`
`
`
`
`Paper No. 30
`
`
`
`2062
`
`2063
`
`2064
`
`2065
`
`2066
`
`Redline Comparison of the Proposed Substitute Claims and the
`Original Claims and Clean Versions of the Proposed Substitute
`Claims
`“Cheat Sheet” listing the various IPRs by docket number, along
`with the identity of the petitioner, claims at issue, and art at issue
`Excerpts of Declaration of Thomas La Porta in Support of Petition
`for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,457,113, June 23,
`2016, submitted in support of IPR2016-01261
`Excerpts of Declaration of Dr. Tal Lavian in Support of Petition
`for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,764,777, June 23,
`2016, submitted in support of IPR2016-01258
`Application No. 12/821,119, filed on June 22, 2010
`
`
`
`ix
`
`
`
`

`

`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`On January 3, 2017, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (the “Board”)
`instituted an inter partes review (the “IPR”) and trial, pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 314(a),
`as to Claims 18, 21, 23, 25, 26, 28-31, 37, 38, 41, 45, and 46 of U.S. Patent No.
`7,764,777 (the “Challenged Claims” and the “’777 Patent”, respectively) on the
`following ground: the Challenged Claims are obvious over U.S. Pat. No. 6,683,870
`to Archer (“Archer”), U.S. Pat. No. 5,958,016 to Chang (“Chang”), and the Admitted
`Prior Art. See Decision Granting Institution of Inter Partes Review, Jan. 3, 2017,
`Paper No. 19.
`
`II.
`
`SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT
`The Board’s institution decision was erroneous because it failed to give effect
`to the ’777 Patent’s disclaimer of subject matter and claim scope that is plain and
`unmistakable from the face of the ’777 Patent itself. The Board’s claim
`constructions have the effect of expanding the scope of the claims to cover known
`prior art network configurations that the patent specification thoroughly criticizes,
`distinguishes, and disclaims. Where a disclaimer of claim scope is apparent on the
`face of the patent, it is inappropriate to rely on after-the-fact statements made during
`prosecution as a basis for ignoring the disclaimer in the specification and for
`broadening the scope of the claims to encompass the disclaimed subject matter. It
`is particularly inappropriate here, where the entirety of the prosecution history
`reinforces the disclaimer from the specification.
`
`

`

`Case IPR2016-01262
`Patent 7,764,777
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Paper No. 30
`
`The ’777 Patent specification is clear that the inventive concept of the ’777
`Patent relates to modifying a known telecommunications network configuration in a
`way that relocates call control operations away from “edge” devices and switches.
`This is accomplished in the ’777 Patent by connecting the Tandem Access Controller
`(“TAC”) to a PSTN tandem switch, rather than edge switches and edge devices.
`Thus, broadly speaking, the subject matter of the ’777 Patent relates to novel (and
`claimed) network configurations that were invented specifically to overcome the
`technical limitations of the edge switch configuration and to improve call control
`functionality as compared to prior art solutions configured via edge switches and
`edge devices. This architecture further allows the TAC to manage two calls (e.g., a
`first incoming call and a second outgoing call) from within the PSTN. When a patent
`specification criticizes or disparages the prior art in this manner, and discloses that
`the invention modifies the prior art to overcome technical limitations in the art, the
`law states that the patent has disclaimed or disavowed claim coverage for the
`disparaged prior art configurations. See Section V, infra (collecting and discussing
`Federal Circuit cases).
`In light of the clarity of the ’777 Patent specification, Patent Owner
`respectfully contends that the Board’s claim constructions in the Institution Decision
`are erroneous. Simply stated: “[t]he broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim
`term cannot be so broad as to include a configuration expressly disclaimed in the
`specification.” In re Man Mach. Interface Techs. LLC, 822 F.3d 1282, 1286 (Fed.
`Cir. 2016) (emphasis added).
`
`
`
`2
`
`

`

`Case IPR2016-01262
`Patent 7,764,777
`
`
`
`
`Paper No. 30
`
`
`Based on proper constructions, the Challenged Claims are patentable over the
`
`prior art. With respect to the particular prior art references at issue here, Archer is a
`prior art reference that discloses application of call processing features using an edge
`device, which is the configuration disclaimed by Applicants. Moreover, Archer is
`devoid of any teaching, suggestion, or disclosure of Independent Claims 18, 37, 45,
`and 46’s requirement of “a controlling device in communication with the switching
`facility”, as properly construed. Additionally, both Archer and Chang are devoid of
`any teaching, suggestion, or disclosure of Dependent Claims 29 and 30’s
`requirement of a “controlling device” that is “configured as a tandem access
`controller.”
`
`In addition to the foregoing, Archer does not disclose the step of “connecting
`the first and second calls at the controlling device after the second call is received
`by a communication device associated with the specified recipient.” This argument
`was not presented in Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response (Paper No. 11) in this
`matter. This limitation is found in found in Challenged Independent Claim 18 and
`37 (but not 45 and 46). Archer, the only reference used to disclose this step, does
`not disclose that the connecting is done at the controlling device. This lack of
`disclosure in Archer is fatal to Petitioner’s claims of invalidity with respect to
`Challenged Independent Claims 18 and 37.
`
`
`
`3
`
`

`

`Case IPR2016-01262
`Patent 7,764,777
`
`
`
`
`Paper No. 30
`
`
`III. DISCUSSION OF THE PSTN AND OVERVIEW OF THE ’777
`
`PATENT
`A. Overview of the PSTN
`The PSTN employs various equipment to route calls. This equipment
`includes switches and databases, and is arranged in a hierarchical fashion:
`
`4
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`Paper No. 30
`
`Case IPR2016-01262
`Patent 7,764,777
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`BatesDec, ¶36 (Ex. 2022). Notably, the same hierarchical levels/equipment may be
`referred to by a variety of names. In both examples above, the class 4 level refers to
`both a “toll center” and a “tandem switch.” This understanding is important because
`the ’777 Patent and prior art references sometimes use different terminology to refer
`to the same hierarchical level. Id.
`At the top of the hierarchy are regional toll centers (class 1 offices). These
`offices are interconnected with sectional toll centers (class 2 offices), which in turn
`connect to primary centers (class 3 offices). Class 4 and 5 levels comprise the rest
`of the hierarchy and are of particular relevance to the ’777 Patent. Class 4 centers
`contain tandem switches. Id. Class 4 centers are also referred to as toll centers, and
`tandem switches are also referred to as Class 4 switches or toll switches.
`Accordingly, the ’777 Patent refers to “PSTN tandem switches” as “exchanges that
`direct telephone calls (or other traffic) to central offices [] or to other tandem
`5
`
`
`
`

`

`Case IPR2016-01262
`Patent 7,764,777
`
`
`
`
`Paper No. 30
`
`
`switches.” ’777 Pat., 4:44-46; BatesDec, ¶37. These “PSTN tandem switches” are
`in the PSTN. Id. (citing Lavian Dec. of IPR2016-01258 (Ex. 2028), ¶¶39-45).
`Class 5 offices contain edge switches and are interconnected by tandem
`switches. BatesDec, ¶38. Edge switches are sometimes referred to as central offices
`(“COs”). Id. Central offices have been defined as:
`[Offices] which serve end users through local loop connections [local
`loops are the actual copper wires that run from a customer’s premises
`to the central office].
`Ex. 2002 at 159. They have also been described as:
`. . . a CO traditionally houses one or more voice-optimized circuit
`switches to interconnect subscriber lines within a local area known as
`the carrier serving area (CSA) and to connect subscriber local loops to
`network trunks.
`Ex. 2003 at 102; BatesDec, ¶38. The ’777 Patent’s description of edge switches is
`consistent with the above:
`The [PSTN] consists of a plurality of edge switches connected to
`telephones on one side and to a network of tandem switches on the
`other. The tandem switch network allows connectivity between all of
`the edge switches, and a signaling system is used by the PSTN to allow
`calling and to transmit both calling and called party identity.
`
`6
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case IPR2016-01262
`Patent 7,764,777
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Paper No. 30
`
`
`
`
`’777 Pat., 1:40-46 and Fig. 2; BatesDec, ¶38. The extrinsic and intrinsic evidence
`confirm that (1) edge switches are connected directly to subscribers or edge devices
`via end-lines (i.e., there are copper wires (or other media) that run directly between
`the edge switches and subscribers); and (2) tandem switches are not directly
`connected to subscribers or edge devices, but are instead connected to edge switches
`and other tandem switches. BatesDec, ¶38; Lavian Dec. of IPR2016-1256 (Ex.
`2030), ¶¶105-106; Lavian Dep. (Ex. 2029) at 31:5-32:16.
`Petitioners largely agree with how a tandem switch functions in the PSTN. In
`a Related IPR, Petitioner BHN states, “[t]he PSTN consists of switches known as
`
`tandem switches or class 4 switches (switching facilities in the claims) which serve
`to interconnect between different geographical regions and edge switches or class 5
`switches, which connect to end-user devices, like telephones, within a local
`7
`
`
`
`

`

`Case IPR2016-01262
`Patent 7,764,777
`
`
`
`
`Paper No. 30
`
`
`geographic area.” -01261 Pet. (Ex. 2023) at 29 (emphasis added). In a different
`Related IPR, Petitioner Cisco states, “[c]lass 3 switches are also known as tandem
`
`switches and generally provide long distance calling links by interconnecting
`between edge switches and other tandem switches.” -01254 Pet. (Ex. 2024) at 7
`(emphasis added). In yet another Related IPR, Petitioner YMax states that “[w]hen
`a telephone call is placed on the PSTN, the call typically travels from the caller’s
`phone to the edge switch in the caller’s local central office. Unless the recipient is
`in the same geographical area and directly connected to the same central office, the
`
`call is then typically routed to one or more tandem switches (in sequence), until it
`reaches the edge switch that is directly connected to the recipient’s phone, and
`finally to the recipient’s phone.” -01260 Pet. (Ex. 2025) at 13 (emphasis added);
`BatesDec, ¶39; Lavian Dec. of IPR2016-1256 (Ex. 2030), ¶¶41-43; Lavian Dep. (Ex.
`2029) at 23:11-25:11.
`At the time of the invention, the PSTN utilized the Signaling System 7 (“SS7”)
`protocol to set up calls.1 SS7 signaling flows between one CO and another, including
`all switches in between (e.g., tandem switches). SS7 signaling does not flow past
`COs to edge devices, as edge devices are not equipped to process and respond to
`SS7 signaling. BatesDec, ¶40.
`
`
`1 “Setting up” calls refers to the exchange of control signaling that causes the
`establishment of a path over which voice data can flow. BatesDec, ¶40.
`8
`
`
`
`

`

`Case IPR2016-01262
`Patent 7,764,777
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Paper No. 30
`
`B.
`The ’777 Patent
`Generally, the ’777 Patent relates to the provision of call control features in
`the PSTN. Call forwarding (e.g., transferring a voice call originally directed to 703-
`555-1212 to an alternate telephone number) is an exemplary call control feature.
`The ’777 Patent discloses a Tandem Access Controller (“TAC”) that implements
`call control features. The TAC is a combination of computing hardware and
`software that is appropriately programmed to process calls. ’777 Pat., 4:32-44;
`BatesDec, ¶41.
`The Background section acknowledges that, at the time of the invention,
`various devices existed to provide call control features. One novel and important
`aspect of the ’777 Patent concerns where in the PSTN such call control features are
`implemented. As discussed in more detail below, the ’777 Patent expressly
`recognizes that prior art call control devices were attached to an edge device (e.g.,
`phones and PBXs) or an edge switch located in a CO. ’777 Pat., 1:47-62 and 2:35-
`49. These prior art edge devices received and answered a call on one line, then
`dialed out on another line, and then connected the two lines together. BatesDec, ¶42.
`By contrast, the ’777 Patent discloses connecting the TAC to a tandem switch
`(hence the name Tandem Access Controller). Id., ¶43. This arrangement allows
`calls to be intercepted and processed before they are handed off to the CO (edge
`switch) associated with the called party. Stated differently, instead of a call being
`passed to a destination CO, then on to a controller connected to the CO that would
`perform a call control feature, the TAC processes the call at a tandem switch before
`
`
`
`9
`
`

`

`Case IPR2016-01262
`Patent 7,764,777
`
`
`
`
`Paper No. 30
`
`
`it is ever routed to the destination CO. Further, the TAC “is not an edge device such
`as a PBX or central office (CO) switch . . . .” ’777 Pat., 5:1-3; BatesDec, ¶43.
`This novel arrangement has several advantages. The first advantage concerns
`costs. Calls coming into and out of controllers connected to COs incurred charges
`for each incoming and outgoing call. See ’777 Pat., 2:12-17 (discussing this
`scenario). BatesDec, ¶44. Using a TAC instead avoids these costs. See ’777 Pat.,
`4:52-67; BatesDec, ¶44.
`Another advantage regarding the TAC’s placement at a tandem switch
`concerns call quality. BatesDec, ¶45. Running an analog voice signal from an edge
`switch to an edge device over copper wire degrades the quality of the signal. An
`edge device is a device connected to an edge switch, typically on a customer’s
`premises, such as a private branch exchange (PBX) or a generic telephone. See ’777
`Pat., 5:1-3. Handling calls at the tandem level maintains the quality of the call, as it
`is processed within the PSTN, where the signal may be in digital form and/or carried
`over high-quality lines (as compared to the end lines that carry a call from a CO to
`a phone). ’777 Pat., 1:54-65, 2:35-49; BatesDec, ¶45.
`
`IV. LEGAL STANDARDS
`A. Obviousness
`The obviousness analysis requires a number of threshold inquiries. The level
`of a POSA must be established, the scope and content of the prior art must be
`determined, and any differences between the prior art and the claims at issue must
`
`
`
`10
`
`

`

`Case IPR2016-01262
`Patent 7,764,777
`
`
`
`
`Paper No. 30
`
`
`be ascertained. Graham v. John Deere Co. of Kansas City, 383 U.S. 1, 17-18 (1966).
`The conclusion of obviousness based on a combination of references must be
`supported with explicit analysis of a reason to combine those references. KSR Int’l
`Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007). The Federal Circuit has stated that
`such reasons must be more than “mere conclusory statements; instead, there must be
`some articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning to support the legal
`conclusion of obviousness.” In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988 (Fed. Cir. 2006); accord
`Innogenetics, N.V. v. Abbott Labs., 512 F.3d 1363, 1374 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (agreeing
`with the district court’s reasoning that “some kind of motivation must be shown from
`some source, so that the jury can understand why a person of ordinary skill would
`have thought of either combining two or more references or modifying one to
`achieve the patented method”).
`
`V. The ’777 Patent Contains an Unmistakable Disclaimer of Subject
`Matter and Claim Scope for Call Controllers Connected to an Edge
`Switch or Edge Device.
`A. Disparaging the Prior Art is Sufficient to Disclaim Claim Scope.
`The PTAB follows Federal Circuit authority and legal standards when
`determining whether a patentee has made a disclaimer (or disavowal) of subject
`matter or claim scope. See, e.g., Sony Corp. v. Memory Integrity, LLC, Case
`IPR2015-00158, Paper 35 (PTAB May 19, 2016); Scotts Co. v. Encap, LLC, Case
`IPR2013-00110, Paper 79 (PTAB June 24, 2014); LG Electronics., Inc. v. Advanced
`Micro Devices, Inc., Case IPR2015-00324, Paper 39 (PTAB May 23, 2016);
`
`
`
`11
`
`

`

`Case IPR2016-01262
`Patent 7,764,777
`
`
`
`
`Paper No. 30
`
`
`Kingston Tech. Co. v. Imation Corp., Case IPR2015-00066, Paper 19 (PTAB March
`24, 2016); Edmund Optics, Inc. v. Semrock, Inc., Case IPR2014-00599, Paper 72
`(PTAB Sept. 16, 2015).
`Under the applicable Federal Circuit authority, a disclaimer of claim scope
`that is plainly set forth in the patent specification trumps all other evidence - even
`unambiguous claim language that has a broader ordinary meaning. “Where the
`specification makes clear that the invention does not include a particular feature, that
`feature is deemed to be outside the reach of the claims of the patent, even though the
`
`language of the claims, read without reference to the specification, might be
`considered broad enough to encompass the feature in question.” Chi. Bd. Options
`Exch., Inc. v. Int’l Secs. Exch., LLC, 677 F.3d 1361, 1372 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (emphasis
`added); see also SciMed Life Sys., Inc. v. Advanced Cardiovascular Sys., Inc., 242
`F.3d 1337, 1341 (Fed. Cir. 2001).
`“While disavowal must be clear and unequivocal, it need not be explicit.”
`Poly-America, L.P. v. API Indus., Inc., 839 F.3d 1131, 1136 (Fed. Cir. 2016); see
`also Trs. of Columbia Univ. v. Symantec Corp., 811 F.3d 1359, 1363-64 (Fed. Cir.
`2016); Saffran v. Johnson & Johnson, 712 F.3d 549, 559 (Fed. Cir. 2013)
`(“applicants rarely submit affirmative disclaimers along the lines of ‘I hereby
`disclaim the following . . .’”).
`Where the patent specification discloses certain prior art configurations,
`criticizes or disparages those configurations, and discloses modifications to the prior
`art configurations to overcome technical deficiencies of the prior art, the Federal
`12
`
`
`
`

`

`Case IPR2016-01262
`Patent 7,764,777
`
`
`
`
`Paper No. 30
`
`
`Circuit has held that the patent specification amounts to a disclaimer or disavowal
`of claim coverage for the prior art configuration. See, e.g. In re Man Mach. Interface
`Tech’s, 822 F.3d 1282, 1286 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (finding disclaimer and rejecting a
`broader claim construction based on statements in the specification disparaging and
`distinguishing the prior art); Openwave Sys., Inc. v. Apple Inc., 808 F.3d 509, 514
`(Fed. Cir. 2015) (finding disclaimer where the specification was “rife with remarks
`that disparage and, therefore, disclaim mobile devices that incorporate computer
`modu