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
`________________
`
`DECLARATION OF REGIS J. “BUD” BATES IN SUPPORT OF PATENT
`OWNER’S PRELIMINARY RESPONSE
`
`BHN, ET AL. v. FOCAL IP, LLC
`FOCAL IP, LLC EX2001 - 1
`Bates Declaration
`IPR2016-01262
`
`

`
`Declaration of Regis J. “Bud” Bates
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`I.
`
`II.
`
`QUALIFICATIONS ......................................................................................... 1
`
`PERSON OF ORDINARY SKILL .................................................................. 4
`
`III. LEGAL UNDERSTANDING .......................................................................... 4
`
`A. ANTICIPATION ........................................................................................... 5
`
`B. OBVIOUSNESS ........................................................................................... 6
`
`C. BROADEST REASONABLE INTERPRETATION ................................... 8
`
`IV. DISCUSSION OF THE PSTN AND OVERVIEW OF THE ’777
`PATENT .......................................................................................................... 9
`
`V. GENERAL DISCLAIMER OF CONTROLLERS CONNECTED TO EDGE
`SWITCHES ...................................................................................................17
`
`A. Disparaging Statements in the ’777 Patent .................................................17
`
`B. Applicants’ Statements in the Prosecution History to Distinguish over
`Schwab ........................................................................................................22
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`’777 Patent Prosecution - First Response to an Office Action .................22
`
`’777 Patent Prosecution - Second Response to an Office Action ............24
`
`C.
`
`Scope of General Disclaimer .......................................................................28
`
`VI. CLAIM CONSTRUCTIONS .........................................................................29
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`“Switching Facility” ....................................................................................29
`
`“Controlling Device” ...................................................................................35
`
`“In Communication With” / “Coupled To” ................................................35
`
`ii
`
`BHN, ET AL. v. FOCAL IP, LLC
`FOCAL IP, LLC EX2001 - 2
`Bates Declaration
`IPR2016-01262
`
`

`
`Declaration of Regis J. “Bud” Bates
`
`VII. SUMMARY OF THE REFERENCES ..........................................................37
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`Summary of Archer .....................................................................................37
`
`Summary of Chang ......................................................................................39
`
`VIII. ARGUMENTS ...............................................................................................41
`
`A. Disclaimer of Edge Switches and Edge Devices (Grounds 1 and 2) ..........42
`
`B. Archer Fails to Disclose a “controlling device in communication with a
`switching facility” (Grounds 1 and 2) .........................................................44
`
`1. Archer’s Converters are not Switching Facilities ....................................45
`
`2. Server Processor’s Alleged Indirect Communication with a Tandem
`Switch .......................................................................................................47
`
`3. A POSA would not Connect Archer’s “Converters” to a Tandem
`Switch .......................................................................................................48
`
`C. Chang Does Not Suggest
`Independent Challenged Claims
`the
`(Ground 3) ...................................................................................................50
`
`IX. CONCLUSION ..............................................................................................52
`
`iii
`
`BHN, ET AL. v. FOCAL IP, LLC
`FOCAL IP, LLC EX2001 - 3
`Bates Declaration
`IPR2016-01262
`
`

`
`I, Regis J. “Bud” Bates, declare as follows:
`1.
`My name is Regis J. “Bud” Bates, and I have been retained as an
`expert witness for Inter Partes Review of IPR2016-01262.
`2.
`This report contains statements of my opinions formed to date and the
`bases and reasons for those opinions. I may offer additional opinions based on
`further review of materials in this case, including opinions and/or testimony of
`other expert witnesses.
`3.
`I understand that this Declaration is being submitted along with Patent
`Owner’s Preliminary Response.
`4.
`Capitalized terms found in this Declaration that are not defined herein
`have the meaning given them in Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response.
`5.
`In preparing this Declaration, I have reviewed the Petition, the
`declaration that accompanies the Petition (hereinafter referred to as “Petitioner’s
`Declaration”), and the exhibits that have been submitted with the aforementioned
`filings.
`This Declaration is a statement of my opinions on issues related to the
`6.
`validity of the Challenged Claims of the ’777 Patent.
`I am of the opinion that the Challenged Claims of the ’777 Patent are
`7.
`patentable for the reasons discussed below.
`
`I.
`
`QUALIFICATIONS
`This section summarizes my career history, education, publications, and
`8.
`other relevant qualifications. My full curriculum vitae is attached as Appendix A to
`this report.
`
`BHN, ET AL. v. FOCAL IP, LLC
`FOCAL IP, LLC EX2001 - 4
`Bates Declaration
`IPR2016-01262
`
`

`
`Declaration of Regis J. “Bud” Bates
`
`I have been involved in and with the telecommunications industry for 50
`9.
`years and have seen the development and growth of the various technologies,
`infrastructure, legal, regulatory, and technical services.
`10. Notably, I am the author of 20 books which outline the use of Voice and
`Data technologies used throughout the industry. As author of this book, I am
`uniquely situated to opine upon the state of the Telephone Networks, as well as the
`conclusions that both parties in this proceeding draw therefrom.
`11.
`I am the founder and president of TC International Consulting, Inc.
`(TCIC), based in Heber, Arizona. I have held this position since the inception of
`the company in October 1989. TCIC is a full service consulting and training firm
`specializing in communications and computer convergence.
`12. My role is to assist our client companies with the analysis of options,
`selection of vendors or products to meet their strategic goals, and training for
`technologies including voice, telephone systems, data networks, video, Internet,
`wireless, wireless local area networks (LAN), voice over Internet Protocol (VoIP)
`systems and services, fiber optics, and infrastructure. We have been responsible for
`selecting and implementing over 100 private branch exchange (PBX) systems for
`our client companies. TCIC develops and conducts training for corporate users,
`equipment manufacturers, and Telephone and Internet carriers.
`13.
`From September 1986 to October 1989, I was the chief information
`officer at Pepper, Hamilton, and Scheetz in Philadelphia, PA. My responsibilities
`included the complete automation of the law firm’s multiple offices around the
`country.
`
`2
`
`BHN, ET AL. v. FOCAL IP, LLC
`FOCAL IP, LLC EX2001 - 5
`Bates Declaration
`IPR2016-01262
`
`

`
`Declaration of Regis J. “Bud” Bates
`
`From September 1979 to September 1986, I was the telecommunications
`14.
`manager at Air Products and Chemicals, Inc. My responsibilities were to design,
`select, analyze and implement voice and data communications projects at U.S. and
`international sites.
`senior
`the
`I was
`to September 1979,
`15.
`From April 1977
`telecommunications manager for manufacturing and international sites at Data
`General Corporation
`in Westboro, MA. I was responsible for selecting
`telecommunications equipment for sites across the world, selecting services (voice,
`data and fax traffic) from common carriers, and selecting appropriate means and
`protocols to use these goods and services.
`16.
`From September 1974 to April 1977, I was the manager of administrative
`services at a retail chain in Canton, MA called Hills Department Stores. There, I
`was responsible for communications matters including voice, data, fax, telex, and
`teletype.
`From April 1972 to September 1974, I worked as the telecommunications
`17.
`and facilities manager at Damon Corporation, a conglomerate that included
`medical-biological development, veterinary products, clinical labs, security
`manufacturing, and hobby craft. My responsibilities included voice and data
`communications for a variety of locations across the country.
`18.
`From September 1966 to April 1972, I was a captain in the U.S. Army
`Signal Corps. My assignments took me to many locations, including a deployment
`in Vietnam, where I worked in mobile and fixed-site communication environments
`using radio-based troposcatter systems.
`
`3
`
`BHN, ET AL. v. FOCAL IP, LLC
`FOCAL IP, LLC EX2001 - 6
`Bates Declaration
`IPR2016-01262
`
`

`
`Declaration of Regis J. “Bud” Bates
`
`In addition to these formal roles, I have consulted for and provided
`19.
`training courses to over 20 major organizations, including Cisco, Motorola
`Solutions, Nortel Networks, the University of California at Berkeley, and Fidelity
`Investments, as well as the U.S. Army, Electronic proving Grounds, Central
`Intelligence Agency, Federal Bureau of Investigation, and National Security
`Agency.
`I received a Bachelor of Sciences degree in Business Management in
`20.
`1979 from Stonehill College in Easton, MA with additional work towards my
`Masters of Business Administration from Lehigh University in Bethlehem, PA and
`St. Joseph’s College in Philadelphia, PA. I completed all the coursework but not
`the thesis for an MBA.
`21.
`I have authored or co-authored 20 books on telecommunications
`technologies, and have authored 9 magazine articles.
`
`II.
`
`PERSON OF ORDINARY SKILL
`22. While I am not expressing an opinion at this time on whether Petitioner’s
`declarant’s definition of a person of ordinary skill in the art is correct, I am
`adopting it for the limited purposes of this Declaration.
`
`III. LEGAL UNDERSTANDING
`23. Although I am not an attorney and do not intend to testify about legal
`issues, my opinions are also informed by my understanding of the relevant law. I
`understand that the Patent Office will find a patent claim invalid in an inter partes
`review if it concludes that it is more likely than not that the claim is invalid.
`
`4
`
`BHN, ET AL. v. FOCAL IP, LLC
`FOCAL IP, LLC EX2001 - 7
`Bates Declaration
`IPR2016-01262
`
`

`
`Declaration of Regis J. “Bud” Bates
`
`A.
`
`ANTICIPATION
`I have read 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 (a)-(g) and have been advised by counsel of
`24.
`the requirements to prove “anticipation” of a patented invention under these
`statutory provisions. I have been advised that if each and every element or step of
`a claim is disclosed within the “four corners” of a single prior art reference, that
`claim is said to be anticipated by that prior art reference and is invalid under 35
`U.S.C. § 102.
`25.
`I understand that anticipation requires that a single reference disclose all
`the elements, as arranged in the claim. I further understand that the prior art
`reference must clearly and unequivocally disclose the claimed invention or direct
`those skilled in the art to the claimed invention without any need for picking,
`choosing, and combining various disclosures not directly related to each other by
`the teachings of the cited reference.
`26.
`I also have been advised that a prior art reference can disclose a claim
`feature because the feature is expressly described, or because the feature is inherent
`in the disclosure. I understand that something is inherent in a prior art reference if
`the missing descriptive matter must be necessarily present, and it would be so
`recognized by one of ordinary skill in the art. I also understand that inherency
`cannot be established by probabilities or possibilities, and that the mere fact that
`something may result from a given set of circumstances is not sufficient to show
`inherency.
`
`5
`
`BHN, ET AL. v. FOCAL IP, LLC
`FOCAL IP, LLC EX2001 - 8
`Bates Declaration
`IPR2016-01262
`
`

`
`Declaration of Regis J. “Bud” Bates
`
`B.
`
`OBVIOUSNESS
`I have also been advised by counsel of the legal standards that apply to
`27.
`invalidity for obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103. I understand that a patent claim
`may be invalid under 35 U.S.C. § 103 if the differences between the claimed
`subject matter and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would
`have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary
`skill in the art to which the subject matter pertains. I understand that obviousness is
`a question of law and that the following factors must be evaluated to determine
`whether a party challenging a patent claim’s validity has met its burden of proof
`that the claimed invention is obvious: (1) the scope and content of the prior art; (2)
`the differences between the claims and the prior art; (3) the level of ordinary skill
`in the art; and (4) objective indicia of nonobviousness.
`28.
`I understand that to reach a proper determination under 35 U.S.C. § 103,
`one must step backward in time and into the shoes worn by the hypothetical
`“person of ordinary skill in the art” (“POSA”) when the invention was unknown
`and just before it was made. In view of all factual information, one must then make
`a determination whether the claimed invention “as a whole” would have been
`obvious at that time to that person of ordinary skill in the art. Knowledge of the
`applicants’ disclosure must be put aside in reaching this determination, yet kept in
`mind in order to determine the differences between the claimed subject matter as a
`whole and the content of the prior art.
`29.
`If a single element of the claim is absent from the prior art, alone, or in
`combination, the claims cannot be considered obvious.
`
`6
`
`BHN, ET AL. v. FOCAL IP, LLC
`FOCAL IP, LLC EX2001 - 9
`Bates Declaration
`IPR2016-01262
`
`

`
`Declaration of Regis J. “Bud” Bates
`
`30. Because obviousness is determined from the perspective of a person of
`ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention, I have been informed by
`counsel to consider any distortion caused by hindsight bias, to guard against
`
`slipping into the use of hindsight, to be cautious of opinions that rely upon after‐
`
`the-fact reasoning, and to avoid the temptation to read into the prior art the
`teachings of the invention at issue. The determination of obviousness is not
`whether a person could, with full knowledge of the patented device, reproduce it
`from prior art or known principles. The question is whether it would have been
`obvious, without knowledge of the patentee’s achievement, to produce the same
`thing that the patentee produced. This judgment must be made without the benefit
`of hindsight. It is improper to take concepts from other devices and change them in
`
`light of the now‐known template of the patented device, without some direction
`
`that would render it obvious to do so.
`31.
`I understand that a claim is not proven obvious merely by demonstrating
`that each of the claim elements was independently known in the prior art. I
`understand that most, if not all, inventions rely on building blocks long since
`uncovered and claimed discoveries, and, almost of necessity, will likely be
`combinations of elements that were already known. A party challenging validity
`must show that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reason to
`combine the teachings of the prior art to achieve the claimed invention and would
`have had a reasonable expectation of success in doing so.
`32.
`I have also been informed by counsel that an inference that a claimed
`combination would not have been obvious is especially strong where the prior art’s
`7
`
`BHN, ET AL. v. FOCAL IP, LLC
`FOCAL IP, LLC EX2001 - 10
`Bates Declaration
`IPR2016-01262
`
`

`
`Declaration of Regis J. “Bud” Bates
`
`teachings undermine the very reason being proffered as to why a person of
`ordinary skill would have combined the known elements. A reference may be said
`to "teach away" when a person of ordinary skill, upon reading the reference, would
`be discouraged from following the path set out in the reference, or would be led in
`a direction divergent from the path that was taken by the applicant. Where a
`proposed modification or combination for the prior art would change the principle
`of operation of the prior art being modified or render the prior art unsatisfactory for
`its intended purpose then the teachings of the references are not sufficient to render
`the claims at issue obvious.
`33.
`I have been informed by counsel that a party challenging the claims of a
`patent must present evidence sufficient to establish some articulated, rational
`reason to select and combine the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed
`invention with a reasonable expectation of success, which is sometimes referred to
`as a prima facie conclusion, or case, of obviousness.
`
`C.
`
`BROADEST REASONABLE INTERPRETATION
`The Board interprets claims in an unexpired patent using the broadest
`34.
`reasonable interpretation (“BRI”) in light of the specification of the patent in which
`they appear. Under a broadest reasonable interpretation, words of the claim must
`be given their plain meaning, unless such meaning is inconsistent with the
`specification and prosecution history. Under this standard, claims should always
`be read in light of the specification and teachings in the underlying patent claim. A
`construction under BRI cannot be divorced from the specification and the record
`evidence, and must be consistent with the one that those skilled in the art would
`8
`
`BHN, ET AL. v. FOCAL IP, LLC
`FOCAL IP, LLC EX2001 - 11
`Bates Declaration
`IPR2016-01262
`
`

`
`Declaration of Regis J. “Bud” Bates
`
`reach. The construction must be reasonable in light of the totality of the written
`description and the claims. I have also been informed by counsel that the
`prosecution history may be an important component of intrinsic evidence in
`construing claims, even when a broadest reasonable construction standard applies.
`35.
`I understand that the broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim term
`cannot be so broad as to include a configuration expressly disclaimed or disavowed
`in the specification. Claim terms are given their plain meaning unless the
`specification or prosecution history evidences that the patentee acted as his own
`lexicographer or disavowed claim scope.
`
`IV. DISCUSSION OF THE PSTN AND OVERVIEW OF THE ’777
`PATENT
`36. Before discussing ’777 Patent, a general description of the public
`telephone network is in order. The public telephone network is often associated
`with the acronym PSTN (Public Switched Telephone Network). While Petitioner
`and Patent Owner disagree over what is and is not included in the PSTN, there are
`areas of agreement. All parties seemingly agree that the core networks of
`“traditional” telecommunications companies (e.g., AT&T) used to route voice calls
`from one phone to another are part of the PSTN. For example, a voice call from a
`“wired” analog telephone in California on an AT&T network to another “wired”
`analog telephone in New York on a Verizon network will traverse the PSTN.
`
`9
`
`BHN, ET AL. v. FOCAL IP, LLC
`FOCAL IP, LLC EX2001 - 12
`Bates Declaration
`IPR2016-01262
`
`

`
`Declaration of Regis J. “Bud” Bates
`
`To connect phones in distant locations, the PSTN employs various
`37.
`equipment to route calls. This equipment includes switches and databases, and is
`arranged in a hierarchical fashion:
`
`10
`
`BHN, ET AL. v. FOCAL IP, LLC
`FOCAL IP, LLC EX2001 - 13
`Bates Declaration
`IPR2016-01262
`
`

`
`Declaration of Regis J. “Bud” Bates
`
`See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PSTN_network_topology. 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.
`38. 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). As a point of reference, in
`1984 (the year AT&T was broken up into the “Baby Bells”), there were 10 class 1
`centers, 67 class 2 centers, and 200 class 3 centers. Ray Horak, Communications
`Systems & Networks 159-61, (2nd ed. 2000) (Ex. 2002).
`11
`
`BHN, ET AL. v. FOCAL IP, LLC
`FOCAL IP, LLC EX2001 - 14
`Bates Declaration
`IPR2016-01262
`
`

`
`Declaration of Regis J. “Bud” Bates
`
`39. 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.
`Class 4 centers are also referred to as toll centers, and tandem switches are also
`referred to as Class 4 switches or toll switches. As a point of reference, in 1984,
`there were approximately 940 tandem switches. Id.
`40.
`Tandem switches have been defined as:
`High-capacity switch[es] positioned in the physical core, or backbone, of
`[the PSTN], where [they] serve to interconnect edge switches, or Central
`Office (CO) switches.
`
`Ray Horak, Webster’s New World Telecom Dictionary (2008), 474 (“Telecom.
`Dict.”) (Ex. 2003); and
`[N]etwork switches that serve in partnership with lesser switches, linking
`them together. In other words and in the classic sense, tandem switches
`serve no end users directly; rather, they serve to interconnect switches
`over dedicated interoffice trunks, forming a fully interconnected and toll-
`free metropolitan calling area in the process.
`
`Ray Horak, Telecommunications and Data Communications (2007), 212 (Ex.
`2004). The ’777 Patent refers to a “PSTN tandem switch” as “exchanges that
`direct telephone calls (or other traffic) to central offices [] or to other tandem
`switches.” ’777 Patent, 4:43-46.
`41. As stated above, tandem switches serve to interconnect Class 5 offices
`that contain edge switches. Edge switches are sometimes referred to as central
`
`12
`
`BHN, ET AL. v. FOCAL IP, LLC
`FOCAL IP, LLC EX2001 - 15
`Bates Declaration
`IPR2016-01262
`
`

`
`Declaration of Regis J. “Bud” Bates
`
`offices (“COs”), and vice versa. In 1984, there were thousands of COs containing
`edge switches in the U.S. 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].
`
`Ex2002 at 159; and
`. . . 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.
`
`Ex2003 at 102.
`42.
`These dictionary definitions are consistent with the disclosures of tandem
`switches and edge switches in the ’777 Patent:
`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.
`
`13
`
`BHN, ET AL. v. FOCAL IP, LLC
`FOCAL IP, LLC EX2001 - 16
`Bates Declaration
`IPR2016-01262
`
`

`
`Declaration of Regis J. “Bud” Bates
`
`’777 Patent, 1:40-46 and Fig. 2. The most salient points regarding tandem
`switches and edge switches, as confirmed by both extrinsic and intrinsic
`evidence, are (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.
`
`to have a voice
`is able
`the PSTN, before one subscriber
`In
`43.
`communication with another subscriber, the call must be “set up.” Setting-up a
`call refers to the exchange of control signaling that causes the establishment of a
`path over which voice data can flow. In the PSTN, voice paths are established on
`demand, as needed, in order to conserve resources.
`
`14
`
`BHN, ET AL. v. FOCAL IP, LLC
`FOCAL IP, LLC EX2001 - 17
`Bates Declaration
`IPR2016-01262
`
`

`
`Declaration of Regis J. “Bud” Bates
`
`44. At the time of the inventions, the PSTN utilized the Signaling System 7
`(“SS7”) protocol to set up calls. 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.
`45. Generally, the ’777 Patent relates to the provision of call control features
`in a public telephone network. 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 Patent, 4:32-43.
`46.
`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 Patent 1:47-62; 2:35-
`49. These prior art edge devices receive a call on one line, dial out on another line,
`and connect the two lines together.
`47. By contrast, the ’777 Patent discloses connecting the TAC to a tandem
`switch (hence the name Tandem Access Controller). This arrangement allows
`calls to be intercepted and processed before they are handed off to the CO (edge
`15
`
`BHN, ET AL. v. FOCAL IP, LLC
`FOCAL IP, LLC EX2001 - 18
`Bates Declaration
`IPR2016-01262
`
`

`
`Declaration of Regis J. “Bud” Bates
`
`switch) associated with the called party. Stated differently, instead of a call being
`passed to a destination CO, then on to a controller connected to the CO which
`would a perform call control feature, the TAC processes the call at a tandem switch
`before it is ever routed to the destination CO.
`48.
`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 Patent 2:12-16
`(discussing this scenario).
`49.
`In a call forwarding scenario using the present invention, the TAC
`intercepts the call at the Class 4 level before it reaches the destination CO edge
`switch. As a result, the call from called party to the calling party is processed by
`the TAC before it reaches the CO associated with the called number. The TAC
`then initiates call signaling to set up the call to the forwarding number, and
`connects the original call to the one arranged by the TAC. This process is invisible
`to the called and calling parties, and incurs less tolls than the prior art solutions
`discussed in the ’777 Patent. ’777 Patent, 4:52-67.
`50. Another advantage regarding the TAC’s placement at a tandem switch
`concerns call quality. 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 Patent, 5:1-3).
`The prior art call forwarding solution suffers from this degradation twice: once
`from the calling party’s call to the controller connected to the CO, and once from
`16
`
`BHN, ET AL. v. FOCAL IP, LLC
`FOCAL IP, LLC EX2001 - 19
`Bates Declaration
`IPR2016-01262
`
`

`
`Declaration of Regis J. “Bud” Bates
`
`the controller’s call to the forwarding number. On the other hand, 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
`Patent, 1:54-62; 2:35-46.
`
`V.
`
`GENERAL DISCLAIMER OF CONTROLLERS CONNECTED TO
`EDGE SWITCHES
`
`A.
`
`Disparaging Statements in the ’777 Patent
`The intrinsic record of the ’777 Patent recognizes that prior art systems
`51.
`and methods applied call control features through an edge switch or an edge
`device. The ’777 Patent disparages these prior art attempts as suffering from
`various shortcomings that the present inventions specifically seek to remedy.
`Indeed, Applicants1, both in the specification and the prosecution history,
`repeatedly criticized applying call control features through an edge switch or an
`edge device, and in fact distinguished their inventions over such prior art. By
`making such statements, Applicants unequivocally disclaimed controllers that
`applied call control features through an edge switch, or controllers that were
`themselves an edge device, from the scope of their inventions.
`52. Applicants’ disparaging statements begin in the Background of the
`Invention section of the ’777 Patent. In discussing various prior art systems and
`
`1 I will refer to those that drafted and prosecuted the ’777 Patent as
`“Applicants.”
`
`17
`
`BHN, ET AL. v. FOCAL IP, LLC
`FOCAL IP, LLC EX2001 - 20
`Bates Declaration
`IPR2016-01262
`
`

`
`Declaration of Regis J. “Bud” Bates
`
`their perceived disadvantages, Applicants specifically disparage the application of
`call control features at an edge switch:
`
`There are also edge devices in each of the public telephone company’s
`central offices which provide local control, but offer an extremely
`limited number of features and do not provide true 3rd-party call
`control.
`
`’777 Patent, 1:31-35; and
`
`In the past, numerous devices have been built that allow the
`connection of two lines together at an edge switch. These devices can
`be used to add features to a telephone network by receiving a call on
`one line and then dialing out on another line. The problem with these
`devices is that, because they are connected through an edge switch,
`transmission losses and impairments occur, degrading the overall
`connection. In addition, signaling limitations prevent full control, by
`the subscriber or the system, over the call.
`
`Id., 1:54-62.
`53.
`In addition to these disparaging statements, Applicants further distinguish
`their invention from controllers that are edge devices, and note the numerous
`disadvantages of applying call control features using an edge device:
`In addition to these [1-800] services, there are edge devices that
`perform some of the same services. Edge devices such as phones and
`PBXs that include voice mail, inter-active voice response, call
`forwarding, speed calling, etc., have been used to provide additional
`call control. These devices allow the phone user direct control over
`18
`
`BHN, ET AL. v. FOCAL IP, LLC
`FOCAL IP, LLC EX2001 - 21
`Bates Declaration
`IPR2016-01262
`
`

`
`Declaration of Regis J. “Bud” Bates
`
`incoming and outgoing calls. The disadvantage of edge devices is that
`they add cost, degrade voice and transmission quality, can be difficult
`to program, are not easily programmed remotely, can require the user
`to pay for two lines, provide lower quality of service, and cannot
`provide the same level of functionality as a system that controls the
`PSTN directly.
`
`’777 Patent, 2:35-46.
`54.
`In sum, the ’777 Patent specification expressly recognizes that prior art
`systems and methods provided call control features through an edge switch or an
`edge device, but notes that there are numerous disadvantages with carrying out call
`control features in this manner; namely, the addition of costs, voice quality
`problems, and the requirement of a user to pay for the use of multiple telephone
`lines (in order to handle incoming and outgoing cal