Trials@uspto.gov
`571-272-7822
`
`
`Paper No. 8
`Entered: November 20, 2017
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`AT&T SERVICES, INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`VOIP-PAL.COM, INC.,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`Case IPR2017-01383
`Patent 9,179,005 B2
`____________
`
`
`Before JOSIAH C. COCKS, JENNIFER MEYER CHAGNON, and
`JOHN A. HUDALLA, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`CHAGNON, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`
`
`DECISION
`Denying Institution of Inter Partes Review
`37 C.F.R. § 42.108
`
`
`
`
`
`571-272-7822
`
`
`Paper No. 8
`Entered: November 20, 2017
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`AT&T SERVICES, INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`VOIP-PAL.COM, INC.,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`Case IPR2017-01383
`Patent 9,179,005 B2
`____________
`
`
`Before JOSIAH C. COCKS, JENNIFER MEYER CHAGNON, and
`JOHN A. HUDALLA, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`CHAGNON, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`
`
`DECISION
`Denying Institution of Inter Partes Review
`37 C.F.R. § 42.108
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2017-01383
`Patent 9,179,005 B2
`
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`AT&T Services, Inc. (“Petitioner”)1 filed a Petition for inter partes
`review of claims 74–79, 83, 84, 88, 89, 92, 94–96, 98, and 99
`(“the challenged claims”) of U.S. Patent No. 9,179,005 B2 (Ex. 1001,
`“the ’005 patent”). Paper 1 (“Pet.”). Petitioner relies on the Declaration of
`James Bress (Ex. 1003) to support its positions. Voip-Pal.com, Inc. (“Patent
`Owner”)2 filed a Preliminary Response. Paper 5 (“Prelim. Resp.”).
`We have authority to determine whether to institute inter partes
`review. See 35 U.S.C. § 314(b); 37 C.F.R. § 42.4(a). Upon consideration of
`the Petition and the Preliminary Response, and for the reasons explained
`below, we determine that the information presented does not show a
`reasonable likelihood that Petitioner would prevail with respect to any of the
`challenged claims. See 35 U.S.C. § 314(a). Accordingly, no trial is
`instituted.
`
`A. Related Proceedings
`The parties indicate that the ’005 patent is the subject of the following
`district court proceedings: Voip-Pal.com, Inc. v. Verizon Wireless Services,
`LLC & AT&T Corp., Case No. 2:16-cv-00271 (D. Nev.); Voip-Pal.com, Inc.
`v. Apple, Inc., 2-16-cv-00260 (D. Nev.); and Voip-Pal.com, Inc. v. Twitter,
`Inc., 2-16-cv-02338 (D. Nev.). Pet. 2; Paper 4, 1.
`Petitioner concurrently filed a petition for inter partes review of other
`claims of the ’005 patent. Pet. 2; Paper 4, 1; AT&T Services, Inc. v.
`
`1 Petitioner identifies several additional entities as real parties-in-interest.
`See Pet. 1–2.
`2 Patent Owner identifies Digifonica (International) Limited as an additional
`real party-in-interest. Paper 4, 1.
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`IPR2017-01383
`Patent 9,179,005 B2
`
`Voip-Pal.com, Inc., Case IPR2017-01384. Petitioner also filed a petition for
`inter partes review of related U.S. Patent No. 8,542,815 B2
`(“the ’815 patent”). Paper 4, 1; AT&T Services, Inc. v. Voip-Pal.com, Inc.,
`Case IPR2017-01382.
`The parties also identify the following proceedings, filed by
`Apple, Inc., to which Petitioner is not a party:
`IPR2016-01198, challenging the ’005 patent;
`IPR2016-01201, challenging the ’815 patent;
`IPR2017-01398, challenging the ’005 patent;
`IPR2017-01399, challenging the ’815 patent.
`Pet. 3; Paper 4, 1.
`
`B. The ’005 Patent
`The ’005 patent is titled “Producing Routing Messages for Voice Over
`IP Communications.” Ex. 1001, at [54]. In particular, the ’005 patent
`relates to producing a routing message for routing calls in a communication
`system, where the routing message is based on call classification criteria that
`are used to classify a particular call as a public network call or a private
`network call. Ex. 1001, at [57]. Figure 7 of the ’005 patent is reproduced
`below.
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`IPR2017-01383
`Patent 9,179,005 B2
`
`
`
`Figure 7, reproduced above, illustrates routing controller (RC) 16, which
`facilitates communication between callers and callees. Id. at 14:32–33,
`17:26–27. RC processor circuit 200 of routing controller (RC) 16 includes
`processor 202, program memory 204, table memory 206, buffer
`memory 207, and I/O port 208. Id. at 17:27–31. Routing controller 16
`queries database 18 (shown in Figure 1) to produce a routing message to
`connect caller and callee. Id. at 14:18–25, 14:32–42. Program memory 204
`includes blocks of code for directing processor 202 to carry out various
`functions of routing controller 16. Id. at 17:47–49. One such block of code
`is RC request message handler 250, which directs routing controller 16 to
`produce a routing message in response to an RC request message. Id. at
`17:49–53.
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`IPR2017-01383
`Patent 9,179,005 B2
`
`
`According to the ’005 patent, in response to a calling subscriber
`initiating a call, the routing controller:
`receiv[es] a callee identifier from the calling subscriber, us[es]
`call classification criteria associated with the calling subscriber
`to classify the call as a public network call or a private network
`call[,] and produc[es] a routing message identifying an address
`on the private network, associated with the callee[,] when the call
`is classified as a private network call and produc[es] a routing
`message identifying a gateway to the public network when the
`call is classified as a public network call.
`Id. at 14:32–42.
`Figures 8A through 8D of the ’005 patent illustrate a flowchart of an
`RC request message handler process, executed by the RC processor circuit.
`Id. at 11:3–4. Figure 8B of the ’005 patent is reproduced below.
`
`
`Figure 8B, reproduced above, illustrates a portion of the RC request message
`handler process, and in particular illustrates steps for performing checks on
`
`
`
`5
`
`
`
`IPR2017-01383
`Patent 9,179,005 B2
`
`the callee identifier. Id. at 19:53–57. Blocks 257, 380, 390, 396, 402
`“establish call classification criteria for classifying the call as a public
`network call or a private network call” based on, for example, “whether the
`callee identifier has certain features such as an international dialing digit, a
`national dialing digit, an area code[,] and a length that meet certain criteria.”
`Id. at 22:46–48, 22:58–61. After blocks 257, 380, 390, 396, processor 202
`“reformat[s] the callee identifier . . . into a predetermined target format,”
`which enables block 269 to classify the call as public or private, depending
`on whether the callee is a subscriber to the system. Id. at 22:49–54, 22:61–
`23:19, 20:23–35; see also id. at 18:63–19:30 (describing callee profiles).
`Similarly, block 402 “directs the processor 202 of FIG. 7 to classify the call
`as a private network call when the callee identifier complies with a
`predefined format, i.e. is a valid user name and identifies a subscriber to the
`private network.” Id. at 22:64–23:3.
`
`C. Illustrative Claim
`Of the challenged claims, claims 74, 94, and 99 are independent.
`Claims 75–79, 83, 84, 88, 89, and 92 depend from claim 74, and claims 95,
`96, and 98 depend from claim 94. Independent claim 74 of the ’005 patent
`is reproduced below, and is illustrative of the challenged claims.
`74. A method of routing communications in a packet
`switched network in which a first participant identifier is
`associated with a first participant and a second participant
`identifier
`is associated with a second participant
`in a
`communication, the method comprising:
`after the first participant has accessed the packet switched
`network to initiate the communication, using the first participant
`identifier to locate a first participant profile comprising a
`plurality of attributes associated with the first participant;
`
`
`
`6
`
`
`
`IPR2017-01383
`Patent 9,179,005 B2
`
`
`when at least one of the first participant attributes and at
`least a portion of the second participant identifier meet a first
`network classification criterion, producing a first network
`routing message for receipt by a controller, the first network
`routing message identifying an address in a first portion of the
`packet switched network, the address being associated with the
`second participant, the first portion being controlled by an entity;
`and
`
`when at least one of the first participant attributes and at
`least a portion of the second participant identifier meet a second
`network classification criterion, producing a second network
`routing message for receipt by the controller, the second network
`routing message identifying an address in a second portion of the
`packet switched network, the second portion not controlled by
`the entity.
`Ex. 1001, 43:41–65.
`
`D. The Applied References
`Petitioner relies on the following references in the asserted grounds.
`Pet. 4.
`
`Reference
`U.S. Patent No. 6,240,449 B1
`(“Nadeau”)
`U.S. Appl. Pub. No. 2004/0218748 A1
`(“Fisher”)
`U.S. Patent No. 6,594,254 B1
`(“Kelly”)
`U.S. Patent No. 6,674,850 B2
`(“Vu”)
`
`Date
`
`Exhibit
`
`May 29, 2001
`
`Ex. 1005
`
`Nov. 4, 2004
`
`Ex. 1006
`
`July 15, 2003
`
`Ex. 1007
`
`Jan. 6, 2004
`
`Ex. 1008
`
`
`
`7
`
`
`
`IPR2017-01383
`Patent 9,179,005 B2
`
`
`E. The Asserted Grounds
`Petitioner sets forth its challenges to claims 74–79, 83, 84, 88, 89, 92,
`94–96, 98, and 99 as follows. Pet. 4.
`
`References
`Fisher and Vu
`Nadeau and Kelly
`
`Basis Claims Challenged
`§ 103
`74–79, 83, 84, 88, 89, 92, 94–96, 98, 99
`§ 103
`74–79, 83, 84, 88, 89, 92, 94–96, 98, 99
`
`II. ANALYSIS
`A. Claim Construction
`In an inter partes review, claim terms in an unexpired patent are given
`their broadest reasonable construction in light of the specification of the
`patent in which they appear. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b); Cuozzo Speed
`Techs., LLC v. Lee, 136 S. Ct. 2131, 2144–46 (2016) (upholding the use of
`the broadest reasonable interpretation standard). Under the broadest
`reasonable construction standard, claim terms generally are given their
`ordinary and customary meaning, as would be understood by one of ordinary
`skill in the art in the context of the entire disclosure. See In re Translogic
`Tech., Inc., 504 F.3d 1249, 1257 (Fed. Cir. 2007). The claims, however,
`“should always be read in light of the specification and teachings in the
`underlying patent,” and “[e]ven under the broadest reasonable interpretation,
`the Board’s construction ‘cannot be divorced from the specification and the
`record evidence.’” Microsoft Corp. v. Proxyconn, Inc., 789 F.3d 1292, 1298
`(Fed. Cir. 2015) (citations omitted) (overruled on other grounds by Aqua
`Prods. v. Matal, 872 F.3d 1290 (Fed. Cir. 2017)). Further, any special
`definition for a claim term must be set forth in the specification with
`reasonable clarity, deliberateness, and precision. See In re Paulsen, 30 F.3d
`
`
`
`8
`
`
`
`IPR2017-01383
`Patent 9,179,005 B2
`
`1475, 1480 (Fed. Cir. 1994). In the absence of such a definition, however,
`limitations are not to be read from the specification into the claims. In re
`Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 1184 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
`Petitioner “interprets all . . . claim terms . . . in accordance with their
`plain and ordinary meaning under the [broadest reasonable interpretation]
`for purposes of this proceeding.” Pet. 14. Patent Owner does not propose
`express construction of any claim term. See generally Prelim. Resp. Upon
`review of the parties’ contentions and supporting evidence, for purposes of
`this Decision, we need not provide express construction for any claim term.
`See, e.g., Wellman, Inc. v. Eastman Chem. Co., 642 F.3d 1355, 1361 (Fed.
`Cir. 2011) (“[C]laim terms need only be construed ‘to the extent necessary
`to resolve the controversy.’”) (quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. &
`Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999)).
`
`B. Principles of Law
`A claim is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) 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. See KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 406
`(2007). The question of obviousness is resolved on the basis of underlying
`factual determinations including: (1) the scope and content of the prior art;
`(2) any differences between the claimed subject matter and the prior art;
`(3) the level of ordinary skill in the art; and (4) objective evidence of
`
`
`
`9
`
`
`
`IPR2017-01383
`Patent 9,179,005 B2
`
`nonobviousness.3 See Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 17–18
`(1966). We analyze the asserted grounds of unpatentability in accordance
`with these principles.
`
`C. Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art
`Petitioner asserts that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have
`“at least a bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering, or a related field, with
`at least 2–4 years of industry experience in designing or developing packet-
`based and circuit-switched systems. More or less industry experience or
`technical training may offset more or less formal education or advanced
`degrees.” Pet. 13 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 52–53). Patent Owner does not
`propose an alternative level of ordinary skill in the art. See generally Prelim.
`Resp. For purposes of this Decision, we adopt Petitioner’s proposal
`regarding the level of ordinary skill in the art. The level of ordinary skill in
`the art further is reflected by the prior art of record. See Okajima v.
`Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001); In re GPAC Inc.,
`57 F.3d 1573, 1579 (Fed. Cir. 1995); In re Oelrich, 579 F.2d 86, 91
`(CCPA 1978).
`
`D. The Asserted Prior Art
`
`1. Nadeau (Ex. 1005)
`Nadeau relates to telephony systems that “provide subscribers with
`communication sessions across a variety of network domains, such as the
`
`
`3 The parties have not directed our attention to any objective evidence of
`non-obviousness.
`
`
`
`10
`
`
`
`IPR2017-01383
`Patent 9,179,005 B2
`
`Public Switched Telephone Network (PSTN), the Mobile network and the
`Internet.” Ex. 1005, 1:7–12. Figure 1 of Nadeau is reproduced below.
`
`
`Figure 1, reproduced above, “is a block diagram of a multi-domain
`communication session disposition system incorporating an Automatic Call
`Setup [ACS] service.” Id. at 6:1–3. Each of PSTN network domain 100 and
`Internet domain 102 “issue[s] and receive[s] communications that can be
`telephone related messages or data.” Id. at 6:47–54. ACS subscribers may
`originate calls through either PSTN Originating Point Functional Element
`
`
`
`11
`
`
`
`IPR2017-01383
`Patent 9,179,005 B2
`
`(OPFE) 104 (e.g., a phone in the PSTN network) or Internet OPFE 112 (e.g.,
`a multimedia PC). Id. at 6:58–65. PSTN Detection Point Functional
`Element (DPFE) 106 and Internet DPFE 114 are each responsible for
`identifying call requests that require ACS treatment. Id. at 6:59–7:1.
`Internet DPFE 114 is a voice over Internet Protocol (VoIP) client. Id. at
`12:39. If ACS treatment is needed in the PSTN domain, PSTN DPFE 106
`will suspend call processing and originate a request for instructions to
`Service Logic Controller (SLC) 122 via PSTN Gateway Functional Element
`(GWFE) 108, which is responsible for “mediat[ing] the instruction
`requests/responses from/to the DPFE to/from the SLC.” Id. at 7:1–5, 7:13–
`15. Internet GWFE 116 performs the same function in the Internet domain
`and likewise links Internet DPFE 114 with SLC 122. Id. at 7:15–19, Fig. 1.
`SLC 122 is a server that “includes a memory for storage of program
`elements [for] implementing different functions necessary to the disposition
`of communication sessions.” Id. at 7:31–34. SLC 122 also includes a
`central processing unit and mass storage unit holding a Subscriber Database.
`Id. at 7:34–37. SLC 122 provides call processing instructions to DPFEs
`106, 114. Id. at 7:22–23. Call processing instructions are determined by
`consulting the Subscriber Database for a particular caller’s service profile,
`which includes a list of conditions and events to be used to process that
`caller’s incoming calls. Id. at 7:22–27, 7:36–40. SLC 122 further is coupled
`to Gatekeeper Functional Element (GKFE) 118 in the Internet domain for
`mapping pseudo-addresses into IP addresses. Id. at 4:6–42, 7:41–8:6.
`When a call originating from one domain terminates on the other
`domain, the ACS system forwards the call to PSTN/IP gateway 124 for
`proper bridging. Id. at 11:29–31. Information on how to complete the call
`
`
`
`12
`
`
`
`IPR2017-01383
`Patent 9,179,005 B2
`
`also is sent to PSTN/IP gateway 124 by SLC 122. Id. at 11:31–33, 12:7–18,
`13:34–41, Figs. 1, 3, 4.
`
`2. Fisher (Ex. 1006)
`Fisher provides for “automatic[ally] and intelligent[ly] routing” calls
`to a PSTN or a VoIP network “based upon predetermined routing rules.”
`Ex. 1006 ¶ 6. Figure 1 of Fisher is reproduced below.
`
`
`
`Figure 1, reproduced above, “is a block diagram of a system for providing
`and using call routing rules to route telephone calls to a selected one of”
`PSTN or a VoIP network. Id. ¶ 12. As shown in Figure 1, system 100
`includes, among other things, customer premises equipment (CPE) 124,
`which includes a CPE dialing rules engine (CPEDRE) 128. Id. ¶¶ 21–23.
`CPE 124 includes interfaces 130, 134, 136 for receiving signals from various
`
`
`
`13
`
`
`
`IPR2017-01383
`Patent 9,179,005 B2
`
`telephones associated with CPE 124. Id. ¶ 24. CPE 124 also is coupled to
`PTSN 112 via gateway 126 and to Internet 106 and Corporate Intranet 140
`via gateway 132. Id. ¶ 23.
`CPEDRE 128 uses “routing rules and associated routing paths” (e.g.,
`Table 1) to route a telephone call one of PTSN 112, Internet 106, and
`Corporate Intranet 140. Id. ¶¶ 23, 29. Different CPEs may have different
`routing rules (id. ¶ 34), based on for example, reducing calling costs for the
`company, enhancing reliability of calls, or reducing calling costs for the
`service provider (id. ¶ 33). A “customer can often select one of a variety of
`calling plans, each usually having a different cost structure,” such as free
`long distance calls. Id. ¶ 35. As noted, the routing rules used by CPEDRE
`128 may be based on the calling plan selected by the customer. See id.
`¶¶ 29–36, 44–45.
`Table 1 of Fisher is reproduced below.
`
`
`
`
`
`14
`
`
`
`IPR2017-01383
`Patent 9,179,005 B2
`
`
`
`Table 1, reproduced above, shows exemplary routing rules, including e.g.,
`telephone number characteristics, telephone calls categories, and routing
`selections. Id. ¶¶ 29–31, 41. When CPEDRE 128 (202 in Fig. 2) receives a
`call from interface 130, 134, 136, the digits of the called telephone number
`are compared to telephone number characteristics to identify a match. Id.
`¶ 42; see also id. Fig. 4 (illustrating the matching process). If a match is
`found, the call is routed “to a selected one of the PSTN gateway 126 and the
`VoIP gateway 132 for transmission to the PSTN or the Internet
`accordingly.” Id.
`
`3. Kelly (Ex. 1007)
`Kelly relates to “a technique for enabling communication connections
`between circuit-switched communication networks and packet-switched data
`processing networks.” Ex. 1007, 1:59–63. The technique “enables
`traditional telephone numbers formatted as domain names to be resolved
`into network protocol addresses.” Id. at 3:45–47. Figure 6 of Kelly is
`reproduced below.
`
`
`
`15
`
`
`
`IPR2017-01383
`Patent 9,179,005 B2
`
`
`
`
`Figure 6, reproduced above, shows the steps used to resolve a telephone
`number to a network address of a gateway. Id. at 4:65–67. Upon receiving
`a traditional telephone number (e.g., “1-561-997-4001”) from a user,
`Internet telephone/WebPhone client 232 “reverses the number and appends
`the carrier’s domain name[,] resulting in a hybrid telephone/domain name
`having the form ‘4001-997-561-1.carrier.com.’” Id. at 6:58–67, 11:50–
`12:14. With reference to Figure 6, Kelly describes “a recursive process of
`resolving the telephone number domain name previously entered into the
`WebPhone client to the appropriate IP address of a gateway on a PSTN”:
`In step 1, the WebPhone client 232 forwards the telephone
`number domain name to primary name server 254 in packetized
`form via Internet 220 and ISP 250. Using a name packet, primary
`name server 254 queries the root name server of the domain
`name
`system
`(DNS)
`for
`the
`address
`of
`“4001.997.561.1.carrier.com” in step 2. The name server for the
`DNS root returns a reference to the name server for “.com” in
`step 3. Next, name server 254 queries the referenced name server
`
`
`
`16
`
`
`
`IPR2017-01383
`Patent 9,179,005 B2
`
`
`“.com” for the address of “4001.997.561.1.carrier.com” in
`step 4. In response, a referral to “carrier.com” is returned in
`step 5. Name server 254 then queries the name server
`“carrier.com” for “4001.997.561.1.carrier.com” in step 6.
`In response, a referral to “1.carrier.com” is returned in step 7.
`Name server 254 then queries the name server to “1.carrier.com,”
`for “4001.997.561.1.carrier.com” in step 8. In response a
`reference of “561.1.carrier.com”, is returned in step 9. Name
`server
`254
`then
`queries
`name
`server
`10
`for
`“561.1.carrier.com,”
`in
`step
`for
`“4001.997.561.1.carrier.com.” In response, a reference to
`“997.561.1.carrier.com” is returned in step 11. This last
`reference contains the IP address of the desired gateway which
`is then forwarded via Internet 220 and ISP 250 to WebPhone
`client 232 by name server 254 in step 12.
`Id. at 12:32–57.
`After step 12 of the telephone number domain name resolution
`process of Figure 6, “the call packet containing the entire telephone number
`domain name entry ‘4001.997.561.1.carrier.com’ is then sent to initiate a
`call session to the IP address of the gateway . . . , and the call is offered.” Id.
`at 13:22–26.
`
`4. Vu (Ex. 1008)
`Vu relates to “telecommunication switching systems, and in
`particular, to a unified access switch digit translation system for providing
`digit translation and call routing in a telecommunication system.” Ex. 1008,
`1:6–9. As described in Vu, a unified access switch would allow “various
`services to be switched to numerous other disparate networks.” Id. at 1:61–
`2:6. The digit translation system of Vu provides “an optimal digit
`translation and call processing system . . . that reduces the size of the
`[lookup] tables required for performing digit translation.” Id. at 2:21–24.
`
`
`
`17
`
`
`
`IPR2017-01383
`Patent 9,179,005 B2
`
`
`Vu teaches a “database of subscriber profiles . . . maintained within
`the unified access switch 10” (see Fig. 1), the database defining various
`services subscribed to by the subscribers. Id. at 3:36–39. Such services may
`include, for example, high bandwidth internet, voice services including local
`and long distance calling, cable television services, etc. See id. at 1:13–40.
`Unified access switch 10 uses the information in the database to “define
`appropriate routing procedures for respective call termination types and may
`be associated with voice as well as data services calls.” Id. at 3:39–41.
`When a call is made, the system uses the subscriber profile of the subscriber
`from which the call originates to determine, for example, whether the calling
`party is allowed to perform the type of call being placed, or whether the
`subscriber subscribes to any special routing services. See id. at 4:19–39,
`6:41–55.
`
`E. Obviousness in View of Fisher and Vu
`Petitioner asserts that claims 74–79, 83, 84, 88, 89, 92, 94–96, 98, and
`99 are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious in view of Fisher
`and Vu. Pet. 14–54. Patent Owner disagrees. Prelim. Resp. 7–32. We have
`reviewed the parties’ contentions and supporting evidence. Given the
`evidence on this record, and for the reasons explained below, we determine
`that the information presented does not show a reasonable likelihood that
`Petitioner would prevail on this asserted ground.
`
`1. Independent Claim 74
`
`a. Petitioner’s Contentions
`According to Petitioner, “[t]o the extent the preamble is limiting,
`Fisher-Vu teaches it.” Pet. 19; see also id. at 16–18 (claim chart regarding
`
`
`
`18
`
`
`
`IPR2017-01383
`Patent 9,179,005 B2
`
`claim 74 preamble). In particular, Petitioner points to CPEDRE 128/202 of
`Fisher, asserting that the CPEDRE “routes calls through an IP network, such
`as the Internet or corporate intranet (routing communications in a packet
`switched network).” Id. at 19 (citing Ex. 1006 ¶ 42). Petitioner also relies
`on Fisher’s caller, callee, and a called telephone number, respectively, as
`teaching the claimed “first participant,” “second participant,” and “second
`participant identifier.” Id. (citing 1006 ¶¶ 24, 43). Petitioner acknowledges
`that the combination does not explicitly disclose a caller identifier (i.e., a
`“first participant identifier”), but argues that a person of ordinary skill in the
`art would understand that there would be such an identifier, at least in the IP
`address of an IP telephone from which the caller places a call. Id. (citing
`Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 92–94, 207–209); see also id. at 19–20 (citing Ex. 1006 ¶¶ 23,
`29; Ex. 1008, 4:21–30; Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 207–208) (identifying additional
`purported reasons a “first participant identifier” would have been obvious in
`view of the asserted combination).
`Regarding the claim 74 step of “using the first participant identifier to
`locate a first participant profile comprising a plurality of attributes
`associated with the first participant,” Petitioner asserts that Fisher’s
`“CPEDRE, modified by the teachings of Vu . . . , locates caller-specific
`routing rules in the configuration manager.” Id. at 24 (citing Ex. 1006 ¶¶ 23,
`29; Ex. 1008, 4:21–30). Petitioner further contends that the “routing rules
`map telephone number characteristics to call categories and routing
`selections,” purportedly teaching “calling attributes associated with the
`caller.” Id. (citing Ex. 1006 ¶¶ 30–31; Ex. 1003 ¶ 213). Relying on
`testimony from Mr. Bress, Petitioner contends that “[a]lthough Fisher-Vu
`does not explicitly disclose that the CPEDRE uses the caller identifier to
`
`
`
`19
`
`
`
`IPR2017-01383
`Patent 9,179,005 B2
`
`locate the caller-specific routing rules, a [person of ordinary skill in the art]
`would understand that for the system to function, the caller-specific routing
`rules must be retrieved using a caller identifier,” because “if an identifier for
`the caller was not used, then it would not be possible to discern which set of
`caller-specific routing rules should be retrieved and referenced when a caller
`initiates a call.” Id. (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 215). For the claim 74 requirement
`that this locating a first participant profile occurs “after the first participant
`has accessed the packet switched network to initiate the communication,”
`Petitioner asserts that a caller initiates the call using an IP phone, and that a
`person of ordinary skill in the art “would understand that the IP phone
`accesses the CPEDRE through an IP connection that forms part of the packet
`switched network.” Id. at 23 (citing Ex. 1006 ¶¶ 24, 43; Ex. 1003 ¶ 212).
`Claim 74 further recites:
`when at least one of the first participant attributes and at
`least a portion of the second participant identifier meet a first
`network classification criterion, producing a first network
`routing message for receipt by a controller, the first network
`routing message identifying an address in a first portion of the
`packet switched network, the address being associated with the
`second participant, the first portion being controlled by an entity.
`According to Petitioner, the “CPEDRE compares portions of a called
`telephone number (portion of a second participant identifier) with telephone
`number characteristics (first participant attributes), such as area codes and
`country codes, in the routing rules to determine a match.” Pet. 30 (citing
`Ex. 1006 ¶¶ 40, 42, 48). Petitioner contends that the CPEDRE determines
`whether to route to a VoIP Gateway based on the routing selection for the
`matched telephone number characteristic. Id. (citing Ex. 1006 ¶¶ 42, 47,
`51). For teaching the claimed “meet[ing] a first network classification
`
`
`
`20
`
`
`
`IPR2017-01383
`Patent 9,179,005 B2
`
`criteria,” Petitioner relies on one of the use cases shown in Fisher’s
`Table 1—characteristic “N” categorized as a “local intra-company VoIP
`destination”—asserting that a person of ordinary skill in the art “would
`understand that such a call would be completed within the company over an
`IP network, such as the corporate intranet.” Id. at 30–31 (citing Ex. 1006
`¶¶ 23, 31, Table 1; Ex. 1003 ¶ 221).
`For the claimed “producing a first network routing message” that
`“identif[ies] an address in a first portion of the packet switched network, the
`address being associated with the second participant,” Petitioner contends
`Fisher’s “CPEDRE routes calls to the VoIP gateway (controller) according
`to the routing rules.” Id. at 31 (citing Ex. 1006 ¶ 40; Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 222–223).
`Petitioner contends that Fisher’s “CPEDRE provides the entire routing path
`(first network routing message) . . . , which would include an address
`associated with the callee (second participant).” Id. at 31–32 (citing
`Ex. 1006 ¶ 47; Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 225–226). For teaching the claimed “the first
`portion being controlled by an entity,” Petitioner asserts that a person of
`ordinary skill in the art “understood that the corporate intranet is controlled
`by a company (entity) that utilizes the corporate intranet.” Id. at 32 (citing
`Ex. 1003 ¶ 227).
`Claim 74 further recites:
`when at least one of the first participant attributes and at
`least a portion of the second participant identifier meet a second
`network classification criterion, producing a second network
`routing message for receipt by the controller, the second network
`routing message identifying an address in a second portion of the
`packet switched network, the second portion not controlled by
`the entity.
`
`
`
`21
`
`
`
`IPR2017-01383
`Patent 9,179,005 B2
`
`As discussed above, Petitioner contends that the CPEDRE compares
`portions of a called telephone number with phone number characteristics in
`the routing rules to determine a match. See Pet. 34 (referring back to the
`earlier discussion in the Petition). For teaching the claimed “meet[ing] a
`second network classification criterion,” Petitioner relies on other use cases
`shown in Fisher’s Table 1—characteristic “W” categorized as a “local
`partner VoIP destination” and characteristic “Z” categorized as an
`“international partner VoIP destination”—and asserts that a person of
`ordinary skill in the art “would understand such a call would be completed
`outside the company to a third party ‘partner’ IP network, which may be
`reachable over the Internet via an ISP (a ‘second network’).” Id. at 34–35
`(citing Ex. 1006 ¶¶ 23, 31, Table 1; Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 233–234).
`For the claimed “producing a second network routing message” that
`“identif[ies] an address in a second portion of the packet switched network,”
`Petitioner again relies on Fisher’s CPEDRE providing the “entire routing
`path,” including the address on the local partner VoIP network or the
`international partner VoIP network. Id. at 35–36 (citing Ex. 1006 ¶ 47;
`Ex. 1003 ¶ 233). For teaching the claimed “the second portion not [being]
`controlled by the entity,” Petitioner asserts that a person of ordinary skill in
`the art “understood that the partner VoIP networks are controlled by
`partners, and not the company (entity) that utilizes and controls the corporate
`intranet.” Id. at 36 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 233).
`Regarding combining the asserted references, Petitioner contends
`Fisher and Vu are from the same field of endeavor and are both concerned
`with routing VoIP calls. Pet. 14 (citing Ex. 1006 ¶¶ 4, 8; Ex. 1008, 1:54–
`2:6, 10:16–11:6). Petitioner further contends that a person of ordinary skill
`
`
`
`22
`
`
`
`IPR2017-01383
`Patent 9,179,005 B2
`
`in the art “would have considered Vu when implementing or improving
`Fisher.” Id. (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 194). Petitioner notes that Fisher’s CPEDRE
`may route calls based on routing rules that reduce the cost of making calls,
`but recognizes that Fisher “does not disclose that the routing rules are
`caller-specific.” Id. (citing Ex. 1006 ¶¶ 8, 33). Instead, in Fisher, “all
`callers who use the CPE are subject to the same set of routing rules.” Id.
`(citing Ex. 1006 ¶ 29). Petitioner argues that “[a]s a result, the routing rules
`may not reduce the cost of making calls for a user, especially if that user has
`a different calling plan or cost structure than the one used to generate the
`routing rules.” Id. at 14–15 (citing Ex. 1006 ¶ 35). Petitioner contends that
`Vu “teaches a unified access switch that maintains a database of
`caller-specific subscriber profiles,” which “define ‘appropriate routing
`procedures for respective call termination types.’” Id. at 15 (citing Ex. 1008,
`3:36–41, 4:25–28). In light of this, Petitioner contends a person of ordin
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
