Case IPR2016-01262
`Patent 7,764,777
`
`
`
`Paper No. 21
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`________________
`
`BRIGHT HOUSE NETWORKS, LLC
`WIDEOPENWEST FINANCE, LLC
`KNOLOGY OF FLORIDA, INC.
`BIRCH COMMUNICATIONS, INC.,
`
`Petitioners
`
`v.
`
`FOCAL IP, LLC,
`
`Patent Owner
`
`________________
`
`Case IPR2016-01262
`Patent Number: 7,764,777
`________________
`
`
`
`
`PATENT OWNER’S REQUEST FOR REHEARING
`UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Patent 7,764,777
`
`
`
`Paper No. 21
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`________________
`
`BRIGHT HOUSE NETWORKS, LLC
`WIDEOPENWEST FINANCE, LLC
`KNOLOGY OF FLORIDA, INC.
`BIRCH COMMUNICATIONS, INC.,
`
`Petitioners
`
`v.
`
`FOCAL IP, LLC,
`
`Patent Owner
`
`________________
`
`Case IPR2016-01262
`Patent Number: 7,764,777
`________________
`
`
`
`
`PATENT OWNER’S REQUEST FOR REHEARING
`UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-01258
`Patent 7,764,777
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Paper No. 15
`
` I.
`
`II.
`
`III.
`
`IV.
`
`V.
`
`VI.
`
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`INTRODUCTION .................................................................................. 1
`
`RELIEF REQUESTED ........................................................................... 1
`
`LEGAL STANDARD ............................................................................. 1
`
`BECAUSE THE BOARD MISAPPREHENDED OR OVERLOOKED
`THE CLAIM LANGUAGE OF THE CHALLENGED CLAIMS
`REGARDING “SWITCHING FACILITY” AND PATENT OWNER’S
`ARGUMENTS REGARDING THE CONSTRUCTION OF
`“SWITCHING FACILITY”, THE DECISION WAS CLEARLY
`ERRONEOUS ........................................................................................ 2
`
`BECAUSE THE BOARD MISAPPREHENDED OR OVERLOOKED
`THE SPECIFICATION’S TEACHINGS AND DISCLAIMERS, THE
`DECISION WAS CLEARLY ERRONEOUS ....................................... 5
`
`CONCLUSION .....................................................................................15
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`ii
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-01258
`Patent 7,764,777
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Paper No. 15
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`
`Cases:
`
`Arnold P’ship v. Duda,
`362 F.3d 1338 (Fed. Cir. 2004) ............................................................................. 2
`
`
`Chi. Bd. Options Exch., Inc. v. Int’l Secs. Exch., LLC,
`677 F.3d 1361 (Fed. Cir. 2014) ............................................................................. 6
`
`
`In re Baker Hughes, Inc.,
`215 F.3d 1297 (Fed. Cir. 2000) ............................................................................. 6
`
`
`In re Gartside,
`203 F.3d 1305 (Fed. Cir. 2000) ............................................................................. 2
`
`
`In re Man Mach. Interface Techs. LLC,
`822 F.3d 1282 (Fed. Cir. 2016) .............................................................. 3, 9, 14-15
`
`
`Microsoft Corp. v. Proxyconn, Inc.,
`789 F.3d 1292 (Fed. Cir. 2015) ............................................................................. 6
`
`
`PPC Broadband, Inc. v. Corning Optical Commc’ns. RF, LLC,
`815 F.3d 747 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (emphasis in original) .......................................... 5
`
`
`SAS Institute, Inc. v. ComplementSoft, LLC,
`825 F.3d 1341 (Fed. Cir. 2016) ............................................................................. 5
`
`
`SciMed Life Sys., Inc. v. Advanced Cardiovascular Sys., Inc.,
`242 F.3d 1337 (Fed. Cir. 2001) ............................................................................. 6
`
`
`Star Fruits S.N.C. v. United States,
`393 F.3d 1277 (Fed. Cir. 2005) ............................................................................. 2
`
`
`TD Ameritrade v. Trading Techs. Int’l, Inc.,
`Case No. CBM2014-00137, Paper No. 34 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 2, 2015)..................... 2
`
`
`
`
`
`
`iii
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-01258
`Patent 7,764,777
`
`
`
`
`Paper No. 15
`
`
`Tempo Lighting, Inc. v. Tivoli, LLC,
`742 F.3d 973, 977 (Fed. Cir. 2014) ....................................................................... 3
`
`
`Regulations:
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.71 (c) .............................................................................................. 1-2
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.71 (d) ................................................................................................ 1
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`iv
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-01262
`Patent 7,764,777
`
`
`
`Paper No. 21
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.71 (c)-(d), Patent Owner FOCAL IP, LLC requests
`a rehearing of the Board’s Decision granting institution of inter partes review
`entered January 3, 2017 (Paper No. 19) (“Decision”) regarding Claims 18, 21, 23,
`25, 26, 28-31, 37, 38, 41, 45, and 46 of the ’777 Patent (collectively, the “Challenged
`Claims”). The Decision was based upon erroneous claim constructions of
`“switching facility,” “in communication with”/”coupled to,” and “controlling
`device.”
`
`II. RELIEF REQUESTED
`
`The Board misapprehended or overlooked Patent Owner’s argument as to the
`construction of the terms “switching facility,” “in communication with”/”coupled
`to,” and “controlling device” of the Challenged Claims. Accordingly, pursuant to
`37 C.F.R. § 42.71 (c)-(d), Patent Owner requests that the Board reconsider its
`Decision of the Challenged Claims in light of the proper constructions of these terms,
`as proposed by Patent Owner, and deny instituting inter partes review of the
`Challenged Claims of the ’777 Patent.
`
`III.
`
` LEGAL STANDARD
`A request for rehearing is appropriate when the requesting party believes “the
`Board misapprehended or overlooked” a matter that was previously addressed in the
`record. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d). The request “must specifically identify all matters
`the party believes the Board misapprehended or overlooked, and the place where
`each matter was previously addressed in a motion, an opposition, or a reply.” Id. In
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-01258
`Patent 7,764,777
`
`
`
`
`Paper No. 15
`
`
`reviewing such a request, the “panel will review the decision for an abuse of
`discretion.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.71 (c). An abuse of discretion occurs where the decision
`is based on an erroneous interpretation of the law, or on erroneous facts. See Star
`Fruits S.N.C. v. United States, 393 F.3d 1277, 1281 (Fed. Cir. 2005); Arnold P’ship
`v. Duda, 362 F.3d 1338, 1340 (Fed. Cir. 2004); In re Gartside, 203 F.3d 1305, 13-
`15-16 (Fed. Cir. 2000). Abuse also occurs “if a factual finding is not supported by
`substantial evidence, or if the decision represents an unreasonable judgment in
`weighing relevant factors.” TD Ameritrade v. Trading Techs. Int’l, Inc., CBM2014-
`00137, Paper No. 34 at 3 (Feb. 2, 2015).
`
`IV. BECAUSE THE BOARD MISAPPREHENDED OR OVERLOOKED
`THE CLAIM LANGUAGE OF THE CHALLENGED CLAIMS
`REGARDING “SWITCHING FACILITY” AND PATENT OWNER’S
`ARGUMENTS REGARDING THE CONSTRUCTION OF “SWITCHING
`FACILITY”, THE DECISION WAS CLEARLY ERRONEOUS
`The Board misapprehended or overlooked the requirements of the Challenged
`Claims regarding the term “switching facility” and Patent Owner’s arguments as to
`the same. Accordingly, the Board’s Decision was based on an erroneous conclusion
`of law or clearly erroneous factual findings, and inter partes review of the
`Challenged Claims should be denied in light of the proper construction for
`“switching facility.”
`In its Decision, the Board recognized that the preamble of the Challenged
`Claims is limiting, but the Board failed to analyze the claim language regarding
`“switching facility”, especially as this term relates to the term “edge switch.”
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-01258
`Patent 7,764,777
`
`
`
`
`Paper No. 15
`
`
`Decision at 6-9. Specifically, the Board quoted a claim limitation from Claim 18
`within the preamble:
`
`The preamble of that claim recites “processing an incoming call from a
`switching facility on a communication network that comprises edge
`switches for routing calls to subscribers within a local geographic area
`and switching facilities for routing calls to edge switches, or other
`switching facilities local or in other geographic areas.”
`
`Decision at 7. The Board’s only analysis of the claims is directed to the subset of
`the claim describing the functionality of “switching facilities” without any analysis
`or recognition of how Claim 18 distinguishes the term “edge switch” from the term
`“switching facility.” Id.
`Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the Board’s analysis must give
`“primacy to the language of the claims, followed by the specification.” Paper No.
`11 at 13 citing Tempo Lighting, Inc. v. Tivoli, LLC, 742 F.3d 973, 977 (Fed. Cir.
`2014). Instead, the Board’s claim construction analysis primarily relied on extrinsic
`evidence and the prosecution history without considering the most important factors
`-- the language of the claims and the specification. Decision at 6-9. As explained
`in more detail below in Section V, the specification also fully supports Patent
`Owner’s construction. “The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim term
`cannot be so broad as to include a configuration expressly disclaimed in the
`specification.” Paper No. 11 at 14 citing In re Man Mach. Interface Techs. LLC,
`822 F.3d 1282, 1286 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-01258
`Patent 7,764,777
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Paper No. 15
`
`Patent Owner proposed a construction for “switching facility” which excluded
`edge switches and edge devices. Paper No. 11 at 34. Patent Owner’s argument
`regarding the proper construction of “switching facility” first analyzed the claim
`language of a representative claim. Id. at 35-36. Patent Owner noted that the claim
`language expressly distinguishes that a “switching facility” is not an “edge switch.”
`Id. at 35. A quick reading of the relevant limitation shows that the claim language
`expressly distinguishes a “switching facility” from an “edge switch” in at least two
`instances. Id. In the first instance, the representative claim recites “a communication
`network that comprises edge switches … and switching facilities …” Id. (emphasis
`added). In the second instance, the claim recites “switching facilities for routing
`calls to edge switches, or other switching facilities …” Id. (emphasis added).
`Patent Owner further highlighted that the representative claim recites
`functionality for a “switching facility” that is different than the claimed functionality
`for an “edge switch.” Id. The preamble of the representative claim defines the
`architecture of a PSTN by reciting that the claimed “network” includes “edge
`switches” that are “for routing calls to subscribers within a local geographic area,”
`and “switching facilities” that are “for routing calls to edge switches, or other
`switching facilities local or in other geographic areas.” Id. (emphasis in original).
`Edge switches can only communicate within a local geographic area, as recited by
`the claim, because edge switches “connect calling parties to called parties only
`within a local geographic area.” See Paper No. 11 at 36 and related argument at 34-
`40. Other switches that are not edge switches make up the interior of the network
`4
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-01258
`Patent 7,764,777
`
`
`
`
`Paper No. 15
`
`
`and are not directly connected to subscribers or edge devices, but are instead
`connected to edge switches or other interior switches. Id. at 34-40.
`Respectfully, based on the claim language alone, the Board’s construction
`regarding “switching facility” was based on an erroneous conclusion of law or
`clearly erroneous factual findings, and inter partes review of the Challenged Claims
`should be denied in light of the proper construction for “switching facility.”
`
`V. BECAUSE THE BOARD MISAPPREHENDED OR OVERLOOKED
`THE SPECIFICATION’S TEACHINGS AND DISCLAIMERS, THE
`DECISION WAS CLEARLY ERRONEOUS
`In addition to misapprehending or overlooking the language of the Challenged
`Claims, the Board also misapprehended or overlooked Patent Owner’s arguments
`regarding the teachings of the invention and disclaimers expressly disclosed in the
`specification. Paper No. 11 at 1-10, 22-34, including internal citations to the Bates
`Declaration. It is important to note that there are practical limits to how “broad” an
`interpretation may be. Paper No. 11 at 12. “Above all, [it] must be reasonable in
`light of the claims and specification.” Id. at 12-13 citing 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 have endorsed the Board’s use of the broadest
`reasonable interpretation standard in IPR proceedings, we also take care to not read
`‘reasonable’ out of the standard.”). Under a broadest reasonable interpretation,
`“claims should always be read in light of the specification and teachings in the
`
`
`
`5
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-01258
`Patent 7,764,777
`
`
`
`
`Paper No. 15
`
`
`underlying patent claim.” Paper No. 11 at 12 citing 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.” Paper No. 11 at 12
`citing In re Baker Hughes, Inc., 215 F.3d 1297, 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2000).
`
`In its Decision, the Board focused on “switching facility” not being expressly
`discussed in the specification, but the Board failed to analyze the specification’s
`express disclosure of the invention’s novel architecture of not applying call features
`by or through an edge switch or edge device, including the specification’s express
`disclaimers and disparagement of prior art systems applying call features by or
`through an edge switch or edge device. Decision at 6-9. “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.” Paper No. 11 at 15-16 citing 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)).
`The specification of the ’777 Patent recognizes that prior art systems and
`methods applied call control features through an edge switch or an edge device.
`Paper No. 11 at 22. The ’777 Patent disparages these prior art attempts as suffering
`6
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-01258
`Patent 7,764,777
`
`
`
`
`Paper No. 15
`
`
`from various shortcomings that the present inventions specifically seek to remedy.
`Id. Indeed, Applicants repeatedly criticized applying call control features through
`an edge switch or an edge device, and in fact distinguished their inventions over such
`prior art. Id. By making such statements, Applicants unequivocally disclaimed call
`processing systems that applied call control features through an edge switch, or call
`processing systems that were themselves an edge device, from the scope of their
`inventions. Id.
`Applicants’ disparaging statements begin in the Background of the Invention
`section of the ’777 Patent. Id. at 22-23. In discussing various prior art systems and
`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; Paper No. 11 at 23; 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,
`
`
`
`7
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-01258
`Patent 7,764,777
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Paper No. 15
`
`signaling limitations prevent full control, by the subscriber or the
`system, over the call.
`
`’777 Patent, 1:54-62; BatesDec, ¶52; Paper No. 11 at 23.
`In addition to these disparaging statements, Applicants further distinguish
`their invention from call processing systems 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
`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; BatesDec, ¶53; Paper No. 11 at 23-24.
`
`In sum, the ’777 Patent’s 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
`
`
`
`8
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-01258
`Patent 7,764,777
`
`
`
`
`Paper No. 15
`
`
`(in order to handle incoming and outgoing calls simultaneously). Paper No. 11 at
`24. A POSA could not possibly read the passages preceding the “Detailed
`Description of The Invention” and comprehend that call processing systems coupled
`to edge switches, or that were an edge device, are within the scope of Applicants’
`claims. Id.; BatesDec, ¶54.
`It is unreasonable and clear error to construe the claims so broadly to include
`configurations expressly disclaimed in the specification. 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.” Paper No.
`11 at 14 citing In re Man Mach. Interface Techs. LLC, 822 F.3d 1282, 1286 (Fed.
`Cir. 2016); see also Patent Owner’s analysis of other Federal Circuit cases applying
`reasonable claim scope based on disclaimers in the specification at Paper No. 11 at
`15-22.
`In contrast to the criticized prior art solution of providing call features through
`an edge switch or edge device, the specification is replete with commentary
`describing the benefits of connecting to switches other than edge switches:
`A preferred embodiment of the inventive system described herein
`connects at the tandem, thereby eliminating these problems [the
`problems identified in 1:54-62 regarding the provision of call features
`at an edge switch].
`
`’777 Patent, 1:63-65; Paper No. 11 at 24-25;
`
`
`
`9
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-01258
`Patent 7,764,777
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Paper No. 15
`
`Connecting directly to the PSTN tandem switch (or embedding the
`system into the tandem switch) eliminates the signal degradation
`problems previously described [i.e., those associated with connecting
`at a CO].
`
`’777 Patent, 3:31-34; Paper No. 11 at 25; and
`FIG. 1 illustrates the tandem access controller (TAC) in one
`embodiment of the present invention connected to the existing PSTN
`tandem switch, the TAC providing features for the subscriber’s
`telephone as requested by the subscriber via the web.
`
`’777 Patent, 3:61-65; Paper No. 11 at 25.
`It is unreasonable and clear error to construe the claims so broadly to eliminate
`the objectives of the invention, such as signal degradation and toll charges associated
`with applying call features through an edge switch or edge device, as described
`above. See, e.g., Paper No. 11 at 8-10. Yet, construing “switching facility” to
`include edge switches does just that.
`The Board overlooked or misconstrued Patent Owner’s arguments regarding
`the novel architecture disclosed and taught by the ’777 Patent. The ’777 Patent is
`consistent in showing the claimed call processing system or controlling device
`always being directly connected to a tandem switch, not an edge switch, to access
`the PSTN. Paper No. 11 at 26. For example, Fig. 1 of the ’777 Patent shows Tandem
`Access Controller call processing system 10 (controlling device) connected to PSTN
`Tandem Switch 16, not CO 17 or 18 (edge switch). Id.
`
`
`
`
`10
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-01258
`Patent 7,764,777
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Paper No. 15
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`This is also true for Figs. 2, 7, and 8 of the ’777 Patent - TACs 10 (controlling
`devices) are directly connected to PSTN tandem switches 16, not COs 17 and 18
`(i.e., edge switches). BatesDec, ¶56; Paper No. 11 at 26. As discussed above, the
`specification criticizes and disclaims a direct connection to a CO or edge switch.
`Yet, construing “switching facility” as including edge switches would bring within
`the scope of the ‘777 Patent of allowing the call processing system/controlling
`device to be connected to an edge switch – something disparaged in the ’777 Patent.
`The Board misapprehended or overlooked the express teachings of the
`specification and disclaimers expressly disclosed in the specification. See generally
`Decision. Indeed, the Board failed to even analyze the disclosure of the specification
`in this regard. Id. Specifically, the Board misapprehended or overlooked that the
`’777 Patent makes clear that applying call features through an edge switch or edge
`11
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-01258
`Patent 7,764,777
`
`
`
`
`Paper No. 15
`
`
`device is (1) known in the prior art, and (2) suffers from problems which the present
`invention seeks to remedy. Paper No. 11 at 26. In addition, every embodiment of
`the ’777 Patent (1) illustrates a call processing system/controlling device connected
`to a tandem switch (i.e., “switching facility”), and (2) describes the benefits of this
`configuration over the prior art. Id. at 26-27. A POSA could not possibly read the
`’777 Patent specification and believe that call processing systems/controlling
`devices connected to edge switches, or that are edge devices, are within the scope of
`Applicants’ inventions. BatesDec, ¶57; Paper No. 11 at 27. Respectfully, the
`Board’s claim construction of the term “switching facility” as including edge
`switches and edge devices is therefore based on an erroneous conclusion of law or
`clearly erroneous factual findings, and inter partes review should be denied on the
`Challenged Claims in light of the proper construction.
`Additionally, the Board misapprehended or overlooked the Applicants’
`arguments presented in the prosecution history of the ’777 Patent. The Board’s
`analysis regarding “switching facility” in the prosecution history of the ’777 Patent
`is limited to a footnote provided by the Applicants. Decision at 8. However, the
`Board wholly failed to consider the clarifying remarks presented by the Applicants
`in the main body of its arguments explaining the novelty of the invention. For
`example, the Board failed to consider the clarifying remarks of Applicants’ novel
`architecture where the footnote is found:
`Applicants’ architecture permits subscribers (called parties or third
`parties) to access call routing operations at the switching facilities (also
`
`
`
`12
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-01258
`Patent 7,764,777
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Paper No. 15
`
`referred to as tandem switching facilities1) that interconnect end office
`switches to other geographic areas that are not local to an end office
`switch.
`
`’777ProsHist, Ex2005 at 82; Paper No. 11 at 35-39. Applicants’ remark that
`“switching facilities … interconnect end office switches to other geographic areas
`that are not local to an end office switch” is consistent with Patent Owner’s proposed
`construction and the claim language itself that “switching facilities” cannot include
`edge switches (end office switch). Paper No. 11 at 35-39. Likewise, the sentence
`preceding the one quoted above further confirms this construction – “Applicant’s
`architecture is not only distinct, but a significant improvement over Schwab or any
`of the other art asserted by the Examiner [] of record, because it facilities [sic]
`application of ‘features’ to call routing operations anywhere in the network
`(geographic areas beyond the local geographic area).” ’777ProsHist, Ex2005 at 82;
`Paper No. 11 at 32-33, 35-36, 40. As discussed, Schwab’s architecture is the same
`as what is disparaged in the Background of the Invention section of the ’777 Patent
`– a microprocessor-based system connected to an edge switch for applying call
`control features. Paper No. 11 at 32-33, 36, and 41-42. This record demonstrates a
`clear and unambiguous disclaimer of using call processing systems connected to
`edge switches, or that are edge devices, to apply call control features.
`In a similar manner, the Board also misapprehended or overlooked the express
`teachings of the specification and disclaimers expressly disclosed in the specification
`regarding the construction of “coupled to” and “in communication with” regarding
`
`
`
`13
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-01258
`Patent 7,764,777
`
`
`
`
`Paper No. 15
`
`
`whether the “controlling device,” recited in representative Claim 18, can be “in
`communication with” or “coupled to” the “switching facility” through an “edge
`switch.” Decision at 9-10. A proper BRI construction of “coupled to”/”in
`communication with” must reflect that the “controlling device” cannot be “coupled
`to” or “in communication with” the “switching facility” through an “edge switch.”
`Paper No. 11 at 41-43. This construction gives meaning to Applicants’ statements
`distinguishing claims using the “coupled to” and “in communication with” language
`from Schwab. Id. Moreover, this construction also reflects Applicants’ disclaimer
`of controllers that applied call control features through an edge switch. Id. (citing to
`Section V in the POPR regarding the specification’s teaching and disclaimers
`presented herein). It is unreasonable and clear error to construe the claims so broadly
`to include configurations expressly disclaimed in the specification. Paper No. 11 at
`14 citing In re Man Mach. Interface Techs. LLC, 822 F.3d at 1286 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
`
`For analogous reasons, the Board also misapprehended or overlooked the
`express teachings of the specification and disclaimers expressly disclosed in the
`specification regarding the construction of “controlling device.” Decision at 10-11.
`Applicants disclaimed a controller that applies call control features through an edge
`switch, or that is itself an edge device. Paper No. 11 at 40-41 (citing to Section V in
`the POPR regarding the specification’s teaching and disclaimers presented herein).
`Thus, under a BRI analysis, a “controlling device” cannot apply call control features
`through an edge switch, or be an edge device. Paper No. 11 at 40-41. It is
`
`
`
`14
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-01258
`Patent 7,764,777
`
`
`
`
`Paper No. 15
`
`
`unreasonable and clear error to construe the claims so broadly to include
`configurations expressly disclaimed in the specification. Paper No. 11 at 14 citing
`In re Man Mach. Interface Techs. LLC, 822 F.3d 1282, 1286 (Fed. Cir. 2016); see
`also Patent Owner’s analysis of other Federal Circuit cases applying reasonable
`claim scope based on disclaimers in the specification at Paper No. 11 at 15-22.
`Respectfully, the Board’s decision on claim construction regarding “controlling
`device” to apply call control features through an edge switch, or be an edge device,
`is therefore based on an erroneous conclusion of law or clearly erroneous factual
`findings, and inter partes review should be denied in light of the proper construction.
`
`VI. CONCLUSION
`For the foregoing reasons, the Decision to Institute should be modified to
`reflect the proper constructions, and the Petition should be denied and a trial should
`not be instituted in light of the proper constructions.
`
`Dated: January 17, 2017
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`15
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Respectfully Submitted,
`
`/s/ Brent N. Bumgardner
`Brent N. Bumgardner
`
`Registration No. 48,476
`NELSON BUMGARDNER, P.C.
`3131 W. 7th Street, Suite 300
`Fort Worth, Texas 76107
`Telephone: (817) 377-3490
`Email: brent@nelbum.com
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-01258
`Patent 7,764,777
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Paper No. 15
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`I hereby certify that on this 17th day of January 2017, a copy of Patent Owner
`
`FOCAL IP, LLC’s Request for Rehearing has been served in its entirety via email
`
`on the following:
`
`Wayne Stacy
`BAKER BOTTS L.L.P.
`2001 Ross Avenue
`Dallas, TX 75201
`Phone: (214) 953-6678
`Facsimile: (214) 661-4678
`wayne.stacy@bakerbotts.com
`
`Sarah J. Guske
`BAKER BOTTS L.L.P.
`101 California Street, #3070
`San Francisco, CA 94111
`Phone: (415) 291-6205
`Facsimile: (415) 291-6305
`sarah.guske@bakerbotts.com
`
`May Eaton
`BAKER BOTTS L.L.P.
`1001 Page Mill Road
`Building One, Suite 200
`Palo Alto, CA 94304
`Phone: (650) 739-7520
`Facsimile: (650) 739-7620
`may.eaton@bakerbotts.com
`
`Patrick McPherson
`Duane Morris LLP
`505 9th St. NW, Ste 1000
`Washington DC 20004
`Tel: 202-776-5214
`Fax: 202-776-7801
`PDMcPherson@duanemorris.com
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`16
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-01258
`Patent 7,764,777
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Christopher Tyson
`Duane Morris LLP
`505 9th St. NW, Ste 1000
`Washington DC 20004
`Tel: 202-776-7851
`Fax: 202-776-7801
`CJTyson@duanemorris.com
`
`Kyle Lynn Elliott
`Spencer Fane LLP
`1000 Walnut, Suite 1400
`Kansas City, MO 64106
`Tel: 816-292-8150
`Fax: 816-474-3216
`sfbbaction@spencerfane.com
`
`
`Dated: January 17, 2017
`
`
`
`
`
`Paper No. 15
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Respectfully Submitted,
`
`/s/ Brent N. Bumgardner
`Brent N. Bumgardner
`
`Registration No. 48,476
`NELSON BUMGARDNER, P.C.
`3131 W. 7th Street, Suite 300
`Fort Worth, Texas 76107
`Telephone: (817) 377-3490
`Email: brent@nelbum.com
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`17
`
`
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
Still Working On It
This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.
Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.
A few More Minutes ... Still Working
It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.
Thank you for your continued patience.
This document could not be displayed.
We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
Set your membership
status to view this document.
With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll
get a whole lot more, including:
- Up-to-date information for this case.
- Email alerts whenever there is an update.
- Full text search for other cases.
- Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.
One Moment Please
The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.
Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.
Your document is on its way!
If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.
Sealed Document
We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.
If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.
Access Government Site
