throbber

`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`
`APPLE INC.
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`VOIP-PAL.COM, INC.
`Patent Owner
`____________
`
`
`Case No. TBD
`U.S. Patent No. 8,542,815
`____________
`
`
`
`
`
`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW
`OF U.S. PATENT NO. 8,542,815
`
`
`
`
`
`Voip-Pal Ex. 2001
`IPR2017-01398
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,542,815
`
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`I. INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................... 1
`
`II. SUMMARY OF THE ’815 PATENT ............................................................. 1
`
`A. Description of the Alleged Invention of the ’815 Patent ............................... 1
`
`B. Summary of the Prosecution History of the ’815 Patent ................................ 3
`
`C. The Earliest Possible Priority Date for the Challenged Claims ..................... 4
`
`III. REQUIREMENTS FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW UNDER 37 C.F.R.
`§ 42.104 .......................................................................................................... 4
`
`A. Grounds for Standing Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(a) ...................................... 4
`
`B. Identification of Challenge Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b) and Relief
`Requested ....................................................................................................... 5
`
`C. Claim Construction Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(3) ..................................... 6
`
`1. “Username” is any unique identifier associated with a user ..................... 6
`
`2. Constructions pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 112, ¶ 6 ........................................ 7
`
`(a)
`
`“receiving means” ............................................................................ 7
`
`(b) “means for locating” and “means for accessing” ............................. 7
`
`(c)
`
`“means for determining” and “means for classifying” .................... 8
`
`(d) Claim 28 “means for producing” ..................................................... 8
`
`(e) Claim 93 “means for producing” ..................................................... 9
`
`(f)
`
`“formatting means” ........................................................................ 10
`
`(g) “means for causing” ....................................................................... 11
`
`D. Level of Skill of a Person Having Ordinary Skill in the Art ........................ 11
`
`
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,542,815
`
`IV. THERE IS A REASONABLE LIKELIHOOD THE CHALLENGED
`CLAIMS OF THE ’815 PATENT ARE UNPATENTABLE ...................... 12
`
`A. Chu ’684 in view of Chu ’366 renders the Challenged Claims Obvious
`Under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) ............................................................................. 12
`
`B. Chu ’684 in view of Chen renders the Challenged Claims Obvious Under 35
`U.S.C. § 103(a) ............................................................................................. 37
`
`V. MANDATORY NOTICES UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(A)(1) ....................... 58
`
`A. Real Party-In-Interest and Related Matters .................................................. 58
`
`B. Lead and Back-Up Counsel Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(3-4) ...................... 58
`
`C. Payment of Fees Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.103 ................................................. 59
`
`VI. CONCLUSION ............................................................................................. 59
`
`
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,542,815
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`Petitioner Apple Inc. (“Petitioner”) requests an Inter Partes Review (“IPR”)
`
`of claims 1, 7, 27-28, 34, 54, 72-74, 92-93, and 111 (collectively, the “Challenged
`
`Claims”) of U.S. Patent No. 8,542,815 (“the ’815 Patent”) issued on September 24,
`
`2013 to Clay Perreault, et al. (“Applicants”). Exhibit 1001, ’815 Patent. As
`
`demonstrated by Petitioner below, the purportedly distinguishing feature of the
`
`’815 Patent of using attributes about a caller to determine whether a call is routed
`
`to a private or public network was present in the prior art.
`
`II.
`
`SUMMARY OF THE ’815 PATENT
`
`A. Description of the Alleged Invention of the ’815 Patent
`
`The ’815 Patent generally describes a telephony system in which calls are
`
`classified as either public network calls or private network calls and routing
`
`messages are generated to route calls accordingly. See Ex. 1001 at Abstract. A
`
`call routing controller receives a request to establish a call from a calling party,
`
`which includes an identifier of the called party. Id. at 1:54-56. Call routing
`
`controller then compares the called party identifier with attributes of the calling
`
`party identifier, and may reformat the called party identifier depending on the
`
`result of this comparison. Id. at 2:8-25. Based on the comparison of attributes of
`
`the calling party and the called party identifier, the call routing controller next
`1
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,542,815
`
`determines whether the called party is a subscriber to a private network. Id. at
`
`2:45-47, 2:65-3:2. If so, a routing message is generated so that the call can be
`
`directed to the private network node serving the called party. Id. at 1:59-62. If the
`
`called party is not on the private network, the call is classified as a public network
`
`call and a routing message is generated so that the call can be directed through a
`
`gateway to a public network. Id. at 1:62-64.
`
`More specifically, the ’815 Patent describes a calling party utilizing a Voice
`
`over Internet Protocol (“VoIP”) telephone who is able to call (1) other VoIP
`
`subscribers on a private packet-based network or (2) standard public switched
`
`telephone network (“PSTN”) customers on the public telephone network. Id. at
`
`1:15-64. To identify a single destination the calling party is attempting to reach, the
`
`’815 Patent teaches that modifications to the dialed digits may be necessary. Fig.
`
`8B illustrates a variety of modifications, which include, as an example, prepending
`
`the calling party’s country code and area code to the dialed digits when the called
`
`party dials a local number. Id. at Fig. 8B. With the formatted number, a direct-
`
`inward-dial bank (“DID”) table is referenced to determine if the called party is a
`
`subscriber to the private packet network. Id. If not, the call is directed to a PSTN
`
`gateway and the formatted number is used to connect the call over the public
`
`PSTN to the called party. Id.
`
`
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,542,815
`
`B.
`
`Summary of the Prosecution History of the ’815 Patent
`
`The ’815 Patent issued from U.S. Patent Application No. 12/513,147 (“the
`
`’147 Application”), which claims priority to International Application No.
`
`PCT/CA2007/001956, which was filed on November 1, 2007 and claims priority to
`
`Provisional Application No. 60/856,212 (“the ’212 Provisional”), filed on
`
`November 2, 2006. See Ex. 1001.
`
`All claims presented in the ’147 Application were subject to a single Office
`
`Action, rejecting them as unpatentable pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over U.S.
`
`Patent No. 6,798,767 to Alexander et al. (“Alexander”). Ex. 1002, Office Action
`
`dated March 1, 2013, at 156. Applicants significantly amended the rejected claims
`
`in an Office Action Response dated April 29, 2013. The result of these
`
`amendments was that each claim in the ’147 Application newly required a
`
`comparison of the called party identifier (e.g., the dialed digits) to at least one
`
`attribute associated with the caller (e.g., the caller’s area code) prior to determining
`
`whether the call should be classified as a private network call or public network
`
`call. Id., Office Action Response dated April 29, 2013, at 96-125. Distinguishing
`
`Alexander from the newly amended claims, the Applicants explained “that
`
`Alexander indicates no call classification per se, but simply looks up the callee
`
`number [and] fails to disclose or suggest any criteria that are used in conjunction
`3
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,542,815
`
`with the comparison involving calling attributes of the caller recited in the clause
`
`discussed above to classify a call.” Id. at 129 (emphasis in original). The Examiner
`
`issued a Notice of Allowance on July 16, 2013 and the Applicants submitted
`
`allegedly non-substantive amendments on August 9, 2013, which were initialed by
`
`the Examiner on August 21, 2013.
`
`C.
`
`The Earliest Possible Priority Date for the Challenged Claims
`
`The ’815 Patent claims priority to the ’212 Provisional, filed on November
`
`2, 2006. For the purposes of this IPR, it is assumed that all Challenged Claims are
`
`entitled to this earliest priority date without waiving future arguments that certain
`
`claim elements are not supported by the disclosure in the ’212 Provisional.
`
`III. REQUIREMENTS FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW UNDER 37 C.F.R.
`§ 42.104
`
`Each requirement for IPR of the ’815 Patent is satisfied under §42.104.
`
`A. Grounds for Standing Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(a)
`
`Petitioner certifies that the ’815 Patent is available for IPR and that the
`
`Petitioner is not barred or estopped from requesting IPR challenging the claims of
`
`the ’815 Patent. Specifically, Petitioner states: (1) Petitioner is not the owner of the
`
`’815 Patent; (2) Petitioner has not filed a civil action challenging the validity of
`
`
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,542,815
`
`any claim of the ’815 Patent; and (3) this Petition is not filed one year or more after
`
`Petitioner was served with a complaint alleging infringement of the ’815 Patent.
`
`B.
`
`Identification of Challenge Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b) and Relief
`Requested
`
`In view of the prior art, evidence, and claims charts, claims 1, 7, 27-28, 34,
`
`54, 72-74, 92-93, and 111 of the ’815 Patent are unpatentable and should be
`
`cancelled. 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(1).
`
`1.
`
`The Grounds For Challenge
`
`Based on the prior art references identified below, IPR of the Challenged
`
`Claims should be granted. 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(2).
`
`Proposed Statutory Rejections for the ’815 Patent
`
`Claims 1, 7, 27-28, 34, 54, 72-74, 92-93, and 111 are obvious
`under § 103(a) over U.S. Patent No. 7,486,684 to Chu et al. (“Chu
`’684”) in view of U.S. Patent No. 8,036,366 to Chu (“Chu ’366”).
`Claims 1, 7, 27-28, 34, 54, 72-74, 92-93, and 111 are obvious
`under § 103(a) over U.S. Patent No. 7,486,684 to Chu et al. (“Chu
`’684”) in view of U.S. Patent Publication No. 2007/0064919 to
`Chen et al. (“Chen”).
`
`Reference
`Exhibit No.
`1003, 1004
`
`1003, 1005
`
`
`Section IV identifies where each element of the Challenged Claims is found in the
`
`prior art patents. 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(4). The exhibit numbers of the supporting
`
`evidence relied upon to support the challenges are provided above and the
`
`relevance of the evidence to the challenges raised are provided in Section IV. 37
`
`
`
`
`
`5
`
`
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,542,815
`
`C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(5). Exhibits 1001 – 1006 are also attached.
`
`C. Claim Construction Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(3)
`
`A claim subject to IPR receives the “broadest reasonable construction in
`
`light of the specification of the patent in which it appears.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b).
`
`With the below-noted exceptions, Petitioner proposes as the broadest reasonable
`
`construction, for purposes of IPR only, that the claim terms of the ’815 Patent be
`
`given their ordinary and customary meaning that the term would have to one of
`
`ordinary skill in the art. The claim construction analysis is not, and should not be
`
`viewed as, a concession by Petitioner as to the proper scope of any claim term in
`
`any litigation. Moreover, these assumptions are not a waiver of any argument in
`
`any litigation that claim terms in the ’815 Patent are indefinite or otherwise invalid.
`
`1.
`
`“Username” is any unique identifier associated with a user
`
`Claims 1, 27, and 28 recite a “username” associated with a caller that is part
`
`of “a caller dialing profile.” Though the ’815 Patent provides little detail regarding
`
`its structure or purpose, the patent does describe an exemplary username that
`
`comprises a “twelve digit number” “assigned upon subscription or registration”
`
`that “includes . . . a unique number code 74.” Ex. 1001, ’815 Patent at 15:9-12.
`
`Accordingly, at least under the broadest reasonable interpretation, “username” in
`
`
`
`
`
`6
`
`
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,542,815
`
`the Challenged Claims should be interpreted to include any unique identifier
`
`associated with a user.
`
`2.
`
`Constructions pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 112, ¶ 6
`
`Claims 28, 34, 93, and 111 include limitations in means-plus function
`
`format, which creates a rebuttable presumption that the Patent Owner intended to
`
`invoke § 112, ¶ 6. Corresponding structure for each means-plus-function limitation
`
`is identified below, and Petitioner proposes that the claimed functions recited in
`
`each of these limitations be given its ordinary and customary meaning that the term
`
`would have to one of ordinary skill in the art under the broadest reasonable
`
`interpretation.
`
`(a)
`
`“receiving means”
`
` Claim 28 recites a “receiving means for receiving a caller identifier and a
`
`callee identifier, in response to initiation of a call by a calling subscriber.” At least
`
`under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the corresponding structure that
`
`performs this recited function is I/O port 208. Ex. 1001, ’815 Patent at 17:26-37,
`
`FIG. 7.
`
`(b)
`
`“means for locating” and “means for accessing”
`
` Claim 28 recites a “means for locating a caller dialing profile comprising a
`
`username associated with the caller and a plurality of calling attributes associated
`7
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,542,815
`
`with the caller.” Claim 93 recites a “means for accessing a database of caller
`
`dialing profiles wherein each dialing profile associates a plurality of calling
`
`attributes with a respective subscriber, to locate a dialing profile associated with
`
`the caller, in response to initiation of a call by a calling subscriber.” At least under
`
`the broadest reasonable interpretation, the corresponding structure that performs
`
`these recited functions is RC processor circuit 200 programmed to implement the
`
`algorithm illustrated in cell 254 of Fig. 8A. Id. at 19:30-37, FIGS. 7, 8A.
`
`(c)
`
`“means for determining” and “means for classifying”
`
`Claim 28 recites “means for determining a match when at least one of said
`
`calling attributes matches at least a portion of said callee identifier,” “means for
`
`classifying the call as a public network call when said match meets public network
`
`classification criteria,” and “means for classifying the call as a private network call
`
`when said match meets private network classification criteria.” At least under the
`
`broadest reasonable interpretation, the corresponding structure that performs these
`
`recited functions is processor 202 programmed to implement one or more branches
`
`of the algorithm illustrated in Fig. 8B. Id. at 19:50-20:25, FIGS. 7 and 8B.
`
`(d) Claim 28 “means for producing”
`
`Claim 28 recites “means for producing a private network routing message
`
`for receipt by a call controller, when the call is classified as a private network call,
`8
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,542,815
`
`said private network routing message identifying an address, on the private
`
`network, associated with the callee” and “means for producing a public network
`
`routing message for receipt by a call controller, when the call is classified as a
`
`public network call, said public network routing message identifying a gateway to
`
`the public network.” Figs. 8A, 8C and 8D detail, among other functions,
`
`algorithms which produce network routing messages. However, because Fig. 8D
`
`and its corresponding description in the specification do not illustrate the basic
`
`process of generating a public network routing message identifying a gateway,
`
`Petitioner has identified the claimed function as the corresponding algorithm. At
`
`least under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the corresponding structure that
`
`generates routing messages as described in these recited functions is processor 202
`
`of RC processor circuit 200, programmed to implement (1) the algorithm
`
`illustrated in cell 350 of Fig. 8A or cell 644 of Fig. 8C for private routing messages
`
`and (2) the claimed function of “producing a public network routing message” for
`
`public routing messages. Id. at 20:27-48, 24:43-67, 26:37-45, FIGS. 7, 8A, 8C, 8D,
`
`16, 25, 32.
`
`(e) Claim 93 “means for producing”
`
`Claim 93 recites “means for producing a private network routing message
`
`for receipt by a call controller, said private network routing message identifying an
`9
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,542,815
`
`address, on a private network, through which the call is to be routed, when at least
`
`one of said calling attributes and at least a portion of a callee identifier associated
`
`with the callee match and when the match meets a private network classification
`
`criterion, the address being associated with the callee” and “means for producing a
`
`public network routing message for receipt by a call controller, said public network
`
`routing message identifying a gateway to a public network when at least one of said
`
`calling attributes and said at least said portion of said callee identifier associated with
`
`the callee match and when the match meets a public network classification criterion.”
`
`These limitations merely combine the functions recited in the Claim 28 limitations
`
`described above in Sections III.C.2(c-d). Accordingly, at least under the broadest
`
`reasonable interpretation, the corresponding structures for these Claim 93 limitations
`
`are the same as the structures identified for Claim 28.
`
`(f)
`
`“formatting means”
`
`Claim 34 recites a “formatting means for formatting said callee identifier
`
`into a pre-defined digit format to produce a re-formatted callee identifier.” At least
`
`under the broadest reasonable construction, the corresponding structure that
`
`performs these recited functions is processor 202 of RC processor circuit 200
`
`programmed to implement one or more branches of the algorithm illustrated in Fig.
`
`8B. Id. at 19:55-63, 21:33-43, 21:54-61, 22:4-13, FIGS. 7, 8B.
`10
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,542,815
`
`(g)
`
`“means for causing”
`
`Claim 111 recites a “means for causing the private network routing message or
`
`the public network routing message to be communicated to a call controller to effect
`
`routing of the call.” At least under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the
`
`corresponding structure that performs this recited function is processor 202 of RC
`
`processor circuit 200, programmed to perform the algorithms illustrated in cell 381
`
`of FIG. 8A, cell 646 of FIG. 8C, and cell 568 of FIG. 8D. Id. at 20:27-48, 24:43-
`
`67, 26:40-41, FIGS. 7, 8A, 8C, 8D.
`
`D.
`
`Level of Skill of a Person Having Ordinary Skill in the Art
`
`A person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the ’815 Patent would
`
`have been a person having at least a bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering, or
`
`in a related field, with at least 2-4 years of industry experience in designing or
`
`developing packet-based and circuit-switched
`
`telecommunication systems.
`
`Additional industry experience or technical training may offset less formal
`
`education, while advanced degrees or additional formal education may offset lesser
`
`levels of industry experience. See Ex. 1006, Houh Declaration, at ¶ 18.
`
`
`
`
`
`11
`
`
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,542,815
`
`IV. THERE IS A REASONABLE LIKELIHOOD THE CHALLENGED
`CLAIMS OF THE ’815 PATENT ARE UNPATENTABLE
`
`Systems and methods for placing calls to either a private network or the
`
`public PSTN were prevalent well before November 2, 2006. The following prior
`
`art references disclose each limitation of the Challenged Claims either alone or in
`
`combination with another reference. As such, the Challenged Claims are
`
`unpatentable. Included in the claim charts below are exemplary citations to the
`
`prior art references.
`
`A.
`
`Chu ’684 in view of Chu ’366 renders the Challenged Claims
`Obvious Under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,486,684 to Chu, et al. (“Chu ’684”) was filed on Sept. 30,
`
`2003 and therefore qualifies as prior art with regard to the ’815 Patent at least under 35
`
`U.S.C. § 102(e). U.S. Patent No. 8,036,366 to Chu (“Chu ’366”) was filed on Aug. 4,
`
`2006 and therefore qualifies as prior art with regard to the ’815 Patent under 35 U.S.C.
`
`§ 102(e). Neither reference was cited during prosecution. See Ex. 1002.
`
`The system disclosed in the specification of Chu ’684 is nearly identical in form
`
`and function to that described by the ’815 Patent. Both Chu ’684 and the ’815 Patent
`
`describe telecommunications systems in which a VoIP subscriber can place a call to
`
`either another VoIP subscriber on a private packet-based network or to a customer on
`
`the public PSTN. Compare Ex. 1003, Chu ’684 at 2:33-64 with Ex. 1001, ’815 Patent
`
`
`
`
`
`12
`
`
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,542,815
`
`at 1:12-64. Additionally, both Chu ’684 and the ’815 Patent describe call setup
`
`procedures in which a call processor analyzes attributes of the caller and information
`
`identifying the callee (e.g., dialed digits) to determine whether the call should be routed
`
`to a destination on the private packet network or the public PSTN. Compare Ex. 1003,
`
`Chu ’684 at 8:65-9:1 (“At step 608, after receiving all the dialed digits from the phone
`
`101, server 110 consults its dial plan to determine whether the call is local, to another
`
`on-net phone, or to a phone that is on the PSTN.”) with Ex. 1001, ’815 Patent at Fig.
`
`8B and 1:54-59 (“The process involves, in response to initiation of a call by a calling
`
`subscriber, receiving a caller identifier and a callee identifier. The process also involves
`
`using call classification criteria associated with the caller identifier to classify the call
`
`as a public network call or a private network call.”). Finally, both Chu ’684 and the
`
`’815 Patent describe routing a call directly to a callee on a private packet network or
`
`through a gateway when the callee is on the public PSTN. Compare Ex. 1003, Chu
`
`’684 at 9:1-38 (Where “the call is to another on-net phone in another location. . . [the]
`
`soft-switch 220 determines the . . . IP address of the egress packet switch.”) and 13:15-
`
`23 (“From the dialed digits [ ], ingress soft-switch 220, determines that this call is for
`
`the PSTN. From the same dialed digits, the soft-switch also determines the egress
`
`PSTN gateway 1302 and its controlling soft-switch 1304. The ingress soft-switch 220
`
`will proceed the call signaling and control as described previously. The gateway 1302
`13
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,542,815
`
`acts as an ‘egress packet switch’”) with Ex. 1001, ’815 Patent at 1:59-64 (“The process
`
`further involves producing a routing message identifying an address, on the private
`
`network, associated with the callee when the call is classified as a private network call.
`
`The process also involves producing a routing message identifying a gateway to the
`
`public network when the call is classified as a public network call.”).
`
`While Chu ’684 discloses using attributes of the caller (e.g., the caller’s dial
`
`plan) and information identifying the callee (e.g., dialed digits) to determine whether a
`
`call should be terminated to a callee on the private packet network or on the public
`
`PSTN, some of the Challenged Claims also describe specific scenarios in which the
`
`callee identifier (e.g., dialed digits) is modified based on certain attributes of the called
`
`party before determining whether the call is public or private. Fig. 8B from the ’815
`
`Patent illustrates these scenarios:
`
`
`
`
`
`14
`
`
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,542,815
`
`
`
`
`
`Modifying a callee identifier (e.g., dialed digits) using attributes of the caller,
`
`however, was also well known in the prior art. As an example, Chu ’366 taught
`
`precisely the same dialed digit comparison and modification as the ’815 Patent. Fig.
`
`6 from Chu ’366 illustrates the striking similarity between the prior art and Fig. 8B
`
`from the ’815 Patent:
`
`
`
`
`
`15
`
`
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,542,815
`
`
`
`As these figures illustrate, both Chu ’366 and the ’815 Patent check dialed digits for
`
`International Dialing Digits (IDD), National Dialing Digits (NDD), and a number of
`
`formatting rules. Additionally, both illustrate using caller attributes such as country
`
`code and area code to reformat the dialed digits into a standard format such as E.164.
`
`
`
`
`
`16
`
`
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,542,815
`
`Chu ’366 explains why such comparison and reformatting is necessary in a
`
`VoIP system. Namely, “E.164 [ ] provides a uniform means for identifying any
`
`telephone number in the world to any telephony user in the world. . . . When making
`
`telephone calls via a traditional PSTN, a subscriber is able to enter abbreviated numbers
`
`for local and national telephone calls. For example, for a local call in the United States,
`
`a user may simply enter the seven digit telephone number without an E.164 prefix, the
`
`country code or the area code. Local and national calls are possible with PSTN systems
`
`because the fixed-line phones from which such calls are made are hardwired directly to
`
`the local PSTN center. By contrast, there is no such concept of local, long distance or
`
`national calls when making a call via Internet telephony. VoIP calls use the Internet,
`
`which is world-wide and not tied to any single location.” Ex. 1003, Chu ’366 at 1:18-
`
`47. By using caller attributes to reformat dialed digits into an E.164 compatible
`
`number, “a user is able to enter telephone numbers for VoIP telephone calls as they
`
`would according to a traditional telephone numbering plan for land-line telephone
`
`calls.” Id. at 2:1-4. In other words, both Chu ’366 and the ’815 Patent allow VoIP
`
`customers to enter dialed digits as if they were calling from a standard PSTN telephone,
`
`and the system then reformats the number using attributes of the caller (e.g., national
`
`and area codes).
`
`
`
`
`
`17
`
`
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,542,815
`
`There is significant overlap between Chu ’684 and Chu ’366. Both
`
`references teach telecommunications systems in which VoIP subscribers can place
`
`calls to a customer on the public PSTN. Compare Ex. 1003, Chu ’684 at 8:65-9:1
`
`(“At step 608, after receiving all the dialed digits from the phone 101, server 110
`
`consults its dial plan to determine whether the call is local, to another on-net phone, or
`
`to a phone that is on the PSTN.”) with Ex. 1004, Chu ’366 at 14:30-33 (“[T]here is
`
`shown a system for communications between a computing environment 202 including
`
`the application program according to the present system and a PSTN telephone 216.”).
`
`Both references also teach a process in which dialed digits and caller attributes are used
`
`to determine where the call should be routed. Compare Ex. 1003, Chu ’684 at 8:65-9:1
`
`(“At step 608, after receiving all the dialed digits from the phone 101, server 110
`
`consults its dial plan to determine whether the call is local, to another on-net phone, or
`
`to a phone that is on the PSTN.”) with Ex. 1004, Chu ’366 at Fig. 6. Finally, both
`
`references expressly reference E.164 as an international standard dial plan. Compare
`
`Ex. 1003, Chu ’684 at 3:59-61 (“[E]ach IP phone [may be] assigned its own E.164
`
`number (the international standard dial plan) and receiving calls from the PSTN
`
`directly.”) with Ex. 1004, Chu ’366 at 1:18-20 (“E.164 [ ] provides a uniform means for
`
`identifying any telephone number in the world to any telephony user in the world.”).
`
`
`
`
`
`18
`
`
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,542,815
`
`It would have been obvious to one of skill in the art to modify the system
`
`described by Chu ’684 with the specific dialed digit reformatting teachings of Chu
`
`’366. Given that the system of Chu ’684 already contains all the infrastructure
`
`needed to support such reformatting, the modification to Chu ’684 would be
`
`straightforward, not requiring undue experimentation, and would produce
`
`predictable results. Upon reading the disclosure of Chu ’684, a person of ordinary
`
`skill in the art would have recognized that allowing users to place calls as if they
`
`were dialing from a standard PSTN phone would be desirable, creating a system
`
`capable of supporting a more intuitive and user-friendly interface. See Ex. 1006,
`
`Houh Decl. at ¶¶ 35-39.
`
`One of ordinary skill would thus have appreciated that these improvements
`
`to Chu ’684 could be achieved by merely programming the system of Chu ’684 to
`
`analyze the dialed digits and reformat as necessary using caller attributes such as
`
`national and area code. Such modifications are simply a combination of the system
`
`of Chu ’684 with elements of Chu ’366 that would have yielded predictable results
`
`without requiring undue experimentation. See Ex. 1006, Houh Decl. at ¶ 38. Thus,
`
`it would have been natural and an application of nothing more than ordinary skill
`
`and common sense to combine Chu ’684 with the number reformatting of Chu ’366.
`
`Id.. Therefore, claims 1, 7, 27-28, 34, 54, 72-74, 92-93, and 111 of the ’815 Patent
`19
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,542,815
`
`are unpatentable under §103(a) as obvious over Chu ’684 in view of Chu ’366, as
`
`shown in the charts below.
`
`
`
`US Patent
`8,542,815
`1. A process for
`operating a call
`routing controller to
`facilitate
`communication
`between callers and
`callees in a system
`comprising a
`plurality of nodes
`with which callers
`and callees are
`associated, the
`process comprising:
`
`
`(a) in response to
`initiation of a call by
`a calling subscriber,
`receiving a caller
`identifier and a
`callee identifier;
`
`Obvious over Chu ’684 (Ex. 1003)
`in view of Chu ’366 (Ex. 1004)
`Chu ’684 teaches a process for operating a soft-switch (“call
`routing
`controller”)
`to
`facilitate
`telephone
`calls
`(“communication”) between callers and callees, each of which
`is associated with one of a plurality of network nodes.
`
`Chu ’684 describes “a novel method for establishing and
`managing voice call traffic in an VoIP IP virtual private
`network. The method comprises,
`in one embodiment,
`determining the relative location of a terminating point with
`respect to an originating point of a new communication
`containing the voice data, determining one or more IP addresses
`to egress the communication from the originating point to the
`terminating point.” Ex. 1003, Chu ’684 at 2:34-44.
`
`“An apparatus for IP-based VPN communications includes at
`least one soft-switch and at least one packet switch having an
`interface to said at least one soft-switch. The packet switch has a
`VPN processing module for selectively establishing a VPN
`based on a selection of originating and terminating IP addresses
`of voice calls passed to the at least one soft-switch and at least
`one packet switch. . . . The apparatus may further include a
`PSTN gateway connected to a gateway soft-switch and said at
`least one soft-switch for processing “off-net” calls.” Id. at 2:51-
`64; see also id. at 1:9-13.
`Chu ’684 teaches servers and soft-switches that receive
`subscriber identification (e.g., IP address and ID of IP phone
`connection to server) and dialed digits of the called party
`(“caller identifier and callee identifier”) when a caller initiates
`a call.
`
`“The soft-switch is the intelligence of the system. It contains all
`20
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,542,815
`
`the information regarding the subscribers' VPNs. For example, it
`keeps track of the VPN that a location belongs to, the dial plans
`of the subscribers, the VPN identifier for an VPN (or a particular
`interface) and the like.” Id. at 4:59-63.
`
`“At step 608, after receiving all the dialed digits from the phone
`101, server

This document is available on Docket Alarm but you must sign up to view it.


Or .

Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.

After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.

Accept $ Charge
throbber

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.

throbber

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.

Become a Member

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

We are redirecting you
to a mobile optimized page.





Document Unreadable or Corrupt

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket

We are unable to display this document.

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket