`________________
`
`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 PRELIMINARY RESPONSE
`TO PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-001262
`Patent 7,764,777
`
`
`
`
`Paper No. 11
`
`
`
` I.
`
`II.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`INTRODUCTION .................................................................................. 1
`
`SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT .............................................................. 1
`
`DISCUSSION OF THE PSTN AND OVERVIEW OF THE ’777
`PATENT ................................................................................................. 2
`
`LEGAL STANDARDS.........................................................................10
`
`Standard for Review ..........................................................................10
`
`Obviousness .......................................................................................10
`
`Claims Cannot be Found Obvious if an Element is Absent ...........11
`
`to Combine or Modify Must Have Rational
`Reason
`Underpinning ..................................................................................11
`
`Broadest Reasonable Interpretation ...................................................12
`
`BRI Cannot be so Broad to Include Elements That Have Been
`Disclaimed or Disavowed .................................................................14
`
`GENERAL DISCLAIMER OF CONTROLLERS CONNECTED TO
`EDGE SWITCHES ...............................................................................22
`
`Disparaging Statements in the ’777 Patent ........................................22
`
`Applicants’ Statements in the Prosecution History to Distinguish
`over Schwab ......................................................................................27
`
`’777 Patent Prosecution - First Response to an Office Action .......27
`
`to an Office
`’777 Patent Prosecution - Second Response
`Action .............................................................................................29
`
`ii
`
`III.
`
`IV.
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`C.
`
`D.
`
`V.
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-001262
`Patent 7,764,777
`
`
`
`
`Paper No. 11
`
`
`
`C.
`
`VI.
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`VII.
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`VIII.
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Scope of General Disclaimer .............................................................33
`
`CLAIM CONSTRUCTIONS ................................................................34
`
`“Switching Facility”...........................................................................34
`
`“controlling device” ...........................................................................40
`
`“In Communication With”/“Coupled To” .........................................41
`
`SUMMARY OF THE REFERENCES .................................................43
`
`Summary of Archer............................................................................43
`
`Summary of Chang ............................................................................45
`
`ARGUMENTS ......................................................................................47
`
`Devices
`Edge
`and
`Switches
`Edge
`of
`Disclaimer
`(Grounds 1 and 2) .............................................................................48
`
`Archer Fails to Disclose a “controlling device in communication
`with a switching facility” (Grounds 1 and 2) ...................................50
`
`Archer’s Converters are not Switching Facilities ...........................51
`
`Server Processor’s Alleged Indirect Communication with a
`Tandem Switch ...............................................................................54
`
`A POSA would not Connect Archer’s “Converters” to a Tandem
`Switch .............................................................................................54
`
`Chang Does Not Suggest the Independent Challenged Claims
`(Ground 3) .........................................................................................56
`
`CONCLUSION .....................................................................................59
`
`iii
`
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`
`3.
`
`C.
`
`IX.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-001262
`Patent 7,764,777
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Paper No. 11
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`Cases:
`
`Apple Inc. v. Virnetx Inc.,
`Case IPR2014-00481, Paper No. 35, (PTAB August 24, 2015) ....................... 13
`
`
`Bicon, Inc. v. Straumann Co.,
`441 F.3d 945 (Fed. Cir. 2006) ........................................................................... 35
`
`
`CFMT, Inc. v. YieldUp Int’l Corp.,
`349 F.3d 1333 (Fed. Cir. 2003) ......................................................................... 11
`
`
`Chi. Bd. Options Exch., Inc. v. Int’l Secs. Exch., LLC,
`677 F.3d 1361 (Fed. Cir. 2014) .................................................................... 16-18
`
`
`Edmund Optics, Inc. v. Semrock, Inc.,
`Case IPR2014-00599, Paper 72, (PTAB September 16, 2015) ......................... 14
`
`
`GE Lighting Solutions, LLC v. AgiLight, Inc.,
`750 F.3d 1304 (Fed. Cir. 2014) ......................................................................... 15
`
`
`Google Inc., et al. v. Arendi S.A.R.L.,
`Case IPR 2014-00452, Paper 31, (PTAB August 18, 2015) ............................. 15
`
`
`Graham v. John Deere Co. of Kansas City,
`383 U.S. 1 (1966) ............................................................................................... 11
`
`
`Honeywell Int’l, Inc. v. ITT Indus., Inc.,
`452 F.3d 1312 (Fed. Cir. 2006) .................................................................... 19-21
`
`
`Innogenetics, N.V. v. Abbott Labs.,
`512 F.3d 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2008) ......................................................................... 11
`
`
`In re Baker Hughes, Inc.,
`215 F.3d 1297 (Fed. Cir. 2000) ......................................................................... 12
`
`
`
`iv
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-001262
`Patent 7,764,777
`
`
`
`
`Paper No. 11
`
`
`In re Kahn,
`
`441 F.3d 977 (Fed. Cir. 2006) ........................................................................... 11
`
`In re Man Mach. Interface Techs. LLC,
`822 F.3d 1282 (Fed. Cir. 2016) ......................................................................... 14
`
`
`In re Rijckaert,
`9 F.3d 1531 (Fed. Cir. 1993) ............................................................................. 11
`
`
`In re Royka,
`490 F.2d 981 (C.C.P.A. 1974) ........................................................................... 11
`
`
`Kingston Tech. Co., Inc. v. Imation Corp.,
`Case IPR2015-00066, Paper 19, (PTAB March 24, 2016) ............................... 14
`
`
`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) .................................. 14
`
`
`Microsoft Corp. v. Multi-Tech Sys., Inc.,
`357 F.3d 1340 (Fed. Cir. 2004) ......................................................................... 13
`
`
`Microsoft Corp. v. Proxyconn, Inc.,
`789 F.3d 1292 (Fed. Cir. 2015) .............................................................. 12-13, 15
`
`
`Openwave Sys., Inc. v. Apple Inc.,
`808 F.3d 509 (Fed. Cir. 2015) ...................................................................... 18-19
`
`
`Phillips v. AWH Corp.,
`415 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005) .................................................................... 13-14
`
`
`PPC Broadband, Inc. v. Corning Optical Commc’ns. RF, LLC,
`815 F.3d 747 (Fed. Cir. 2016) ........................................................................... 12
`
`
`Reckitt Benckiser Pharms., Inc. v. Teva Pharms. USA, Inc.,
`2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 84276 (D. Del. June 29, 2016) .................................... 16
`v
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-001262
`Patent 7,764,777
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Paper No. 11
`
`
`Saffran v. Johnson & Johnson,
`712 F.3d 549 (Fed. Cir. 2013) ........................................................................... 16
`
`
`SAS Institute, Inc. v. ComplementSoft, LLC,
`825 F.3d 1341 (Fed. Cir. 2016) ......................................................................... 12
`
`
`SciMed Life Sys., Inc. v. Advanced Cardiovascular Sys., Inc.,
`242 F.3d 1337 (Fed. Cir. 2001) ........................................................ 16, 18, 21-22
`
`
`Smith v. Snow,
`294 U.S. 1 (1935) ............................................................................................... 14
`
`
`Sony Corp. et al. v. Memory Integrity, LLC,
`Case IPR2015-00158, Paper 35, (PTAB May 19, 2016) .................................. 14
`
`
`Tempo Lighting, Inc. v. Tivoli, LLC,
`742 F. 3d 973 (Fed. Cir. 2014) .......................................................................... 13
`
`
`The Scotts Co. LLC v. Encap, LLC,
`Case IPR2013-00110, Paper 79, (PTAB June 24, 2014) .................................. 14
`
`
`TriVascular, Inc. v. Samuels,
`812 F. 3d 1056, 2016 U.S. App. LEXIS 1949 (Fed. Cir. 2016) ........................ 12
`
`
`Rules and Statutes:
`37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b) ............................................................................................. 12
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.108(c) .............................................................................................. 10
`
`35 U.S.C. § 103(a) .................................................................................................. 10
`
`35 U.S.C. § 314(a) .................................................................................................. 10
`
`
`
`
`
`vi
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-001262
`Patent 7,764,777
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Paper No. 11
`
`LIST OF EXHIBITS
`
`Declaration of Regis J. “Bud” Bates (“BatesDec”)
`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 of U.S. Patent No. 7,764,777 (“’777ProsHist”)
`Harry Newton, Newton’s Telecom Dictionary, (23rd ed. 2007)
`
`
`2001
`2002
`2003
`2004
`2005
`2006
`
`
`
`
`
`vii
`
`
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`Petitioner filed this Petition seeking inter partes review of Claims 18, 21,
`23, 25-26, 28-31, 37, 38, 41, 45 and 46 of the ’777 Patent (the “Challenged
`Claims”) based on three grounds. As set forth herein, (i) the Challenged Claims
`are patentable over the references cited in Grounds 1 and 2 because the Archer
`reference discloses a system whose configuration was expressly disclaimed by
`Applicants from the scope of their invention, and (ii) claims 45 and 46 are
`patentable over the reference cited in Ground 3 because Petitioner has not shown
`that Chang discloses the “controlling device” element of these claims. Further,
`Petitioner failed to meet its burden, by a preponderance of the evidence, that any of
`the Challenged Claims are obvious because the Petition does not demonstrate
`reasons, with rational underpinning, to combine the references.
`
`SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT
`II.
`After analyzing the claim language, specification, and prosecution history, a
`
`person of skill in the art (a “POSA”) would clearly understand that (i) Applicants
`disclaimed application of call control features through an edge switch or an edge
`device; and (ii) the Challenged Claims’ “controlling device” cannot be coupled to
`an edge switch or edge device.
`
`With respect to Grounds 1 and 2, U.S. Patent No. 6,683,870 to Archer
`(“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
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-001262
`Patent 7,764,777
`
`
`
`
`Paper No. 11
`
`
`independent claims 18, 37, 45 and 46’s requirement of “a controlling device in
`communication with the switching facility.” Additionally, both Archer and U.S.
`Patent No. 5,958,016 to Chang et al. (“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.”
`
`With respect to Ground 3, Chang does not teach, suggest or disclose claim
`45 and 46’s requirement of a “controlling device” (claims 45 and 46). Applicant
`points to Chang’s SCP or ISCP as satisfying this claim requirement. However,
`Chang’s SCP and ISCP are nothing more than a database with no ability to receive,
`route or block calls.
`
`III. DISCUSSION OF THE PSTN AND OVERVIEW OF THE ’777
`
`PATENT
`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.
`EX2001 (“BatesDec”), ¶36.
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-001262
`Patent 7,764,777
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Paper No. 11
`
`To connect phones in distant locations, the PSTN employs various
`equipment to route calls. This equipment includes switches and databases, and is
`arranged in a hierarchical fashion:
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-001262
`Patent 7,764,777
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Paper No. 11
`
`
`
`
`
`BatesDec, ¶37. 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). 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).
`4
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-001262
`Patent 7,764,777
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Paper No. 11
`
`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.; BatesDec, ¶39.
`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 “PSTN tandem switches” as “exchanges that
`direct telephone calls (or other traffic) to central offices [] or to other tandem
`switches.” ’777 Patent, 4:43-46; BatesDec, ¶40.
`As stated above, tandem switches serve to interconnect Class 5 offices that
`contain edge switches. Edge switches are sometimes referred to as central offices
`
`
`
`5
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-001262
`Patent 7,764,777
`
`
`
`
`Paper No. 11
`
`
`(“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; BatesDec, ¶41.
`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.
`
`6
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-001262
`Patent 7,764,777
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Paper No. 11
`
`
`
`
`’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. BatesDec, ¶42.
`In the PSTN, before one subscriber is able to have a voice 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
`
`
`
`7
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-001262
`Patent 7,764,777
`
`
`
`
`Paper No. 11
`
`
`voice data can flow. In the PSTN, voice paths are established on demand, as
`needed, in order to conserve resources.
`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. Id., ¶¶43-4.
`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.
`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. BatesDec, ¶46.
`8
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-001262
`Patent 7,764,777
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Paper No. 11
`
`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
`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. Id., ¶47.
`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). BatesDec, ¶48.
`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. BatesDec, ¶49.
`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
`9
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-001262
`Patent 7,764,777
`
`
`
`
`Paper No. 11
`
`
`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
`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; BatesDec, ¶50.
`
`IV. LEGAL STANDARDS
`Standard for Review
`A.
`The Board may grant a petition for inter partes review only where “the
`information presented in the petition . . . shows that there is a reasonable likelihood
`that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged
`in the petition.” 35 U.S.C. § 314(a); 37 C.F.R. § 42.108(c).
`
`B. Obviousness
`Section 103 of the Patent Act provides that “[a] patent may not be obtained .
`. . if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented 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 said
`subject matter pertains.” 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). The obviousness analysis requires a
`
`
`
`10
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-001262
`Patent 7,764,777
`
`
`
`
`Paper No. 11
`
`
`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 be ascertained. Graham v. John Deere Co. of
`Kansas City, 383 U.S. 1, 17-18 (1966).
`
` Claims Cannot be Found Obvious if an Element is Absent
`1.
`If a single element of the claim is absent from the prior art, the claims cannot
`be considered obvious. See CFMT, Inc. v. YieldUp Int’l Corp., 349 F.3d 1333,
`1342 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (“[O]bviousness requires a suggestion of all limitations in a
`claim.”) (citing In re Royka, 490 F.2d 981, 985 (C.C.P.A. 1974)); In re Rijckaert, 9
`F.3d 1531, 1534 (Fed. Cir. 1993) (reversing obviousness rejection where prior art
`did not teach or suggest all claim limitations).
`
`Reason to Combine or Modify Must Have Rational
`2.
`Underpinning
`
`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
`
`
`
`11
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-001262
`Patent 7,764,777
`
`
`
`
`Paper No. 11
`
`
`skill would have thought of either combining two or more references or modifying
`one to achieve the patented method”).
`
`C. Broadest Reasonable Interpretation
`The Board interprets claims in an unexpired patent using the broadest
`reasonable interpretation (BRI) in light of the specification of the patent in which
`they appear. 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b). “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.” TriVascular, Inc. v.
`Samuels, 812 F. 3d 1056, 1062, 2016 U.S. App. LEXIS 1949, *7 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
`Under this standard, “claims should always be read in light of the specification and
`teachings in the underlying patent claim.” Microsoft Corp. v. Proxyconn, Inc., 789
`F.3d 1292, 1298 (Fed. Cir. 2015). “[T]he Board’s construction ‘cannot be
`divorced from the specification and the record evidence,’ and ‘must be consistent
`with the one that those skilled in the art would reach.’” Id. The construction must
`be “reasonable in light of the totality of the written description.” In re Baker
`Hughes, Inc., 215 F.3d 1297, 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2000).
`It is important to note that there are practical limits to how “broad” an
`interpretation may be. “Above all, [it] must be reasonable in light of the claims
`and specification.” PPC Broadband, Inc. v. Corning Optical Commc’ns. RF, LLC,
`815 F.3d 747, 755 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (emphasis in original); see also SAS Institute,
`Inc. v. ComplementSoft, LLC, 825 F.3d 1341, 1348 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (“While we
`
`
`
`12
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-001262
`Patent 7,764,777
`
`
`
`
`Paper No. 11
`
`
`have endorsed the Board’s use of the broadest reasonable interpretation standard in
`IPR proceedings, we also take case to not read ‘reasonable’ out of the standard.”).
`The Federal Circuit has indicated that the prosecution history may be an
`important component of intrinsic evidence in construing claims, even when a
`broadest reasonable construction standard applies. Apple Inc. v. Virnetx Inc.,
`IPR2014-00481, Paper No. 35 (citing Tempo Lighting, Inc. v. Tivoli, LLC, 742 F.
`3d 973, 977 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (“In claim construction, this court gives primacy to
`the language of the claims, followed by the specification. Additionally, the
`prosecution history, while not literally within the patent document, serves as
`intrinsic evidence for purposes of claim construction. This remains true in
`construing patent claims before the PTO.”)); see also Microsoft Corp. v.
`Proxyconn, Inc., 789 F.3d 1292, 1298 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (“The PTO should also
`consult the patent’s prosecution history in proceedings in which the patent has
`been brought back to the agency for a second review.”) (citing Tempo Lighting,
`742 F.3d at 977); Microsoft Corp. v. Multi-Tech Sys., Inc., 357 F.3d 1340, 1349
`(Fed. Cir. 2004).
`Additionally, the Federal Circuit has found it reasonable to infer that the
`Patent Office would not have issued an invalid patent—particularly in cases
`involving prior art that the Patent Office expressly considered during original
`examination. See Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1327 (Fed. Cir. 2005)
`(“[W]e have looked to whether it is reasonable to infer that the PTO would not
`have issued an invalid patent, and that the ambiguity in the claim language should
`13
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-001262
`Patent 7,764,777
`
`
`
`
`Paper No. 11
`
`
`therefore be resolved in a manner that would preserve the patent’s validity.”)
`Under Phillips and Supreme Court jurisprudence, an issued patent is entitled to an
`interpretation that preserves its validity: “In such circumstances, if the claim were
`fairly susceptible of two constructions, that should be adopted which will secure to
`the patentee his actual invention, rather than to adopt a construction fatal to the
`grant.” Smith v. Snow, 294 U.S. 1, 14 (1935).
`
`D. BRI Cannot be so Broad to Include Elements That Have Been
`
`Disclaimed or Disavowed
`The Federal Circuit has held that “[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). The PTAB follows Federal Circuit authority regarding
`disclaimer (or disavowal) when analyzing claims in an IPR context using the BRI
`standard. See, e.g., Sony Corp. et al. v. Memory Integrity, LLC, Case IPR2015-
`00158, Paper 35 (PTAB May 19, 2016); The Scotts Co. LLC v. Encap, LLC, Case
`IPR2013-00110, Paper 79 (PTAB June 24, 2014) (applying Federal Circuit
`authority regarding disclaimer, and finding disclaimer based on statements made
`during prosecution, in the context of a BRI analysis); LG Electronics., Inc. v.
`Advanced Micro Devices, Inc., Case IPR2015-00324, Paper 39 (PTAB May 23,
`2016); Kingston Tech. Co., Inc. v. Imation Corp., Case IPR2015-00066, Paper 19
`(PTAB March 24, 2016); Edmund Optics, Inc. v. Semrock, Inc., Case IPR2014-
`00599, Paper 72 (PTAB September 16, 2015).
`
`
`
`14
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-001262
`Patent 7,764,777
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Paper No. 11
`
`Although the disclaimers at issue in this case are fully supported by the
`specification alone, the prosecution history also evidences the disclaimers. With
`respect to disclaimers made in by an applicant in the prosecution history, the Final
`Written Decision in the matter of Google Inc., et al. v. Arendi S.A.R.L., Case IPR
`2014-00452, Paper 31, pp. 16-20 (PTAB August 18, 2015), is instructive. There,
`the PTAB performed claim construction using the BRI standard. Patent Owner
`argued that the prosecution history of the claim term at issue presented a case of
`“clear disavowal.” Petitioner argued that the PTAB should not consider
`prosecution history when construing claims in an inter parties review. Citing to
`Microsoft Corp. v. Proxyconn, Inc., 789 F.3d 1292, 1298 (Fed. Cir. 2015), the
`PTAB acknowledged that “the Federal Circuit has admonished that ‘[t]he PTO
`should also consult the patent’s prosecution history in proceedings in which the
`patent has been brought back to the agency for a second review.’” Accordingly, the
`PTAB analyzed the prosecution history to determine whether the Patent Owner’s
`disclaimed subject matter.
`Turning to Federal Circuit authority concerning disclaimer, 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. GE
`Lighting Solutions, LLC v. AgiLight, Inc., 750 F.3d 1304, 1309 (Fed. Cir. 2014).
`The standard for finding disavowal requires that either the specification or
`prosecution history indicate that the invention does not include a particular feature.
`Id. “Where the specification makes clear that the invention does not include a
`15
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-001262
`Patent 7,764,777
`
`
`
`
`Paper No. 11
`
`
`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) (citing SciMed Life Sys., Inc. v. Advanced Cardiovascular
`Sys., Inc., 242 F.3d 1337, 1341 (Fed. Cir. 2001)). “Disavowal need not be
`explicitly stated as long as a POSA would understand—after reading the claims,
`specification, and prosecuti