IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES
`REVIEW PURSUANT TO 37
`C.F.R. §42.100 ET SEQ.
`
`In re U.S. Patent No. 8,542,815
`
`Currently in Litigation Styled:
`VoIP-Pal.com, Inc. v. Apple Inc.
`Case No: 2:16-cv-00260-RFB-VCF
`
`Issued: September 24, 2013
`
`Application Filed: November 1, 2007
`
`Applicant: Clay Perreault, et al.
`
`Title: Producing Routing Messages for
`Voice Over IP Communications
`
`Mail Stop Inter Partes Review
`Commissioner for Patents
`P.O. Box 1450
`Alexandria, VA 22313-1450
`
`DECLARATION OF HENRY H. HOUH, PhD
`
`I. Introduction
`
`I, Henry H. Houh, Ph.D., declare:
`
`1.
`
`I am making this declaration at the request of Apple Inc. in the matter of the
`
`Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,542,815 (“the ’815 Patent”) to Perreault, et al.
`
`2.
`
`I am being compensated for my work in this matter. My compensation in no way
`
`depends upon the outcome of this proceeding.
`
`3.
`
`In the preparation of this declaration, I have studied:
`
`PETITIONER APPLE INC. EX. 1006-1
`
`Voip-Pal Ex. 2008
`IPR2017-01398
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1005;
`
`
`
`
`
`(1)
`
`(2)
`
`The ’815 Patent, Exhibit 1001;
`
`The prosecution history of the ’815 Patent, Exhibit 1002;
`
`(3) U.S. Patent No. 7,486,684 to Chu et al. (“Chu ’684”), Exhibit 1003;
`
`(4) U.S. Patent No. 8,036,366 to Chu (“Chu ’366”), Exhibit 1004;
`
`(5)
`
`4.
`
`(1)
`
`(2)
`
`U.S. Patent Publication No. 2007/0064919 to Chen et al. (“Chen”), Exhibit
`
`In forming the opinions expressed below, I have considered:
`
`The documents listed above,
`
`The relevant legal standards, including the standard for obviousness provided in
`
`KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007), and
`
`(3) My knowledge and experience based upon my work in this area, as described
`
`below.
`
`II. Qualifications and Professional Experience
`
`5.
`
`My complete qualifications and professional experience are described in my
`
`curriculum vitae, a copy of which can be found attached hereto as Appendix A. The following
`
`is a brief summary of my relevant qualifications and professional experience.
`
`6.
`
`I received a Ph.D. in Electrical Engineering and Computer Science from the
`
`Massachusetts Institute of Technology in 1998. I also received a Master of Science degree in
`
`Electrical Engineering and Computer Science in 1991, a Bachelor of Science Degree in
`
`Electrical Engineering and Computer Science in 1990, and a Bachelor of Science Degree in
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`PETITIONER APPLE INC. EX. 1006-2
`
`

`

`Physics in 1989.
`
`7.
`
`As further indicated in my C.V., I have worked in the electrical engineering and
`
`computer science fields, including in streaming audio and video, on several occasions. As part
`
`of my doctoral research at MIT from 1991-1998, I worked as a research assistant in the
`
`Telemedia Network Systems (TNS) group at the Laboratory for Computer Science. The TNS
`
`group built a high speed gigabit network and applications which ran over the network, such as
`
`remote video capture, processing, segmentation and search on computer terminals. In addition
`
`to helping design the core network components, designing and building the high speed links,
`
`and designing and writing the device drivers for the interface cards, I also set up the group’s
`
`web server, which at the time was one of the first several hundred web servers in existence.
`
`8.
`
` I authored or co-authored twelve papers and conference presentations on our
`
`group’s research. I also co-edited the final report of the gigabit networking research effort with
`
`the Professor (David Tennenhouse) and Senior Research Scientist of the group (David Clark),
`
`who is generally considered to be one of the fathers of the Internet Protocol.
`
`9.
`
`I started building web servers in 1993, having set up the web server for the MIT
`
`Telemedia, Networks, and Systems Group, to which I belonged. It was one of the first several
`
`hundred web servers in existence, and went on to provide what was likely one of the first live
`
`Internet video sessions initiated from a web site. I co-authored papers on our web server video
`
`system and on database-backed web sites for which I attended the first World Wide Web
`
`conference to present.
`
`10.
`
`From 1997 to 1999, I was a Senior Scientist and Engineer at NBX Corporation, a
`
`start-up that made business telephone systems that streamed packetized audio over data
`
`
`
`
`
`PETITIONER APPLE INC. EX. 1006-3
`
`

`

`networks instead of using traditional phone lines. NBX was later acquired by 3Com
`
`Corporation, and the phone system is still available and being used at tens of thousands of
`
`businesses or more. As part of my work at NBX, I designed the core audio reconstruction
`
`algorithms for the telephones, as well as the packet transmission algorithms. I also designed and
`
`validated the core packet transport protocol used by the phone system. The protocol is used
`
`millions of times daily currently. Two of the company founders and I received US Patent No.
`
`6,967,963 titled “Telecommunication method for ensuring on-time delivery of packets
`
`containing time sensitive data,” for some of the work I did there.
`
`11.
`
`Starting in 2001, I was architect for the next generation of web testing product
`
`by Empirix known as e-Test Suite. e-Test Suite is now owned by Oracle Corporation. e-Test
`
`provided functional and load testing for web sites. e-Test emulated a user's interaction with a
`
`web site and provided web developers with a method of creating various scripts and providing
`
`both functional testing (e.g., did the web site provide the correct response) and load testing (e.g.,
`
`could the web site handle 5000 users on its web site simultaneously). Among Empirix’s
`
`customers was H&R Block, who used e-Test Suite to test the tax filing functionality of their
`
`web site as whether the web site could handle a large expected load prior to the filing deadline.
`
`12. At Empirix, I also conceived, secured internal funding for, and managed the
`
`engineering for a new data platform test product known as the PacketSphere. The first
`
`capability the PacketSphere provided was to emulate a network so that lab testing could be done
`
`under conditions that mimicked the Internet, including configurable latency and packet loss.
`
`Later, PacketSphere provided the capability to generate large numbers of Voice-over-IP streams
`
`as well as measure the quality of the connection of VoIP streams. As part of my work, I
`
`continued to study the development of the Voice-over-IP market and worked with a number of
`
`
`
`
`
`PETITIONER APPLE INC. EX. 1006-4
`
`

`

`Empirix customers to understand their market and product testing needs. Sonus Networks, a
`
`leading manufacturer of Voice-over-IP equipment, was a long-time customer of Empirix and
`
`one of the first customers of the PacketSphere product.
`
`13. Around 2006, at BBN, I helped create a search engine for audio and video which
`
`could be searched based on spoken word content. Our system used speech recognition and
`
`natural language processing to create a search index of audio and video files posted publicly on
`
`the Internet. During the search process, audio and video with matching spoken words could be
`
`streamed to users. As the Vice President of Operations and Technology, I architected and
`
`helped build-out the back end of the system, which supported speech recognition, search
`
`indexing, and providing the capability for audio and video streaming in search results. Today, at
`
`RAMP Inc., the project has grown to a product that is used by media outlets such as ABC, CBS,
`
`NBC, Fox, and Reuters. In addition, during this time at BBN, I continued to be engaged with
`
`Voice-over-IP related projects through the time I left BBN.
`
`14. Around 2008-2009, while I was Chief Technology Officer at Eons, a venture
`
`backed company founded by Jeff Taylor, who also founded the hiring web site Monster.com,
`
`Eons launched an advertising network. Eons built a network of sites on which advertisements
`
`could be placed, fulfilled client advertisement purchases, and tracked delivery of clients’
`
`advertisements. In addition, we utilized the Solr search platform in order to index the millions
`
`of items of content added by Eons members, in order to make them searchable.
`
`15.
`
`I have also continued to develop web sites for various business projects, as well
`
`as setting up web sites on a volunteer basis for various groups that I am associated with.
`
`16.
`
`I am the author of several publications devoted to a wide variety of technologies
`
`
`
`
`
`PETITIONER APPLE INC. EX. 1006-5
`
`

`

`in the fields of electrical engineering and computer science. These publications are listed on my
`
`C.V. (App. A).
`
`17.
`
`In summary, I have extensive familiarity with systems, networks, architectures,
`
`and methods related
`
`to
`
`traditional circuit-switched
`
`telecommunications, packet-based
`
`telecommunications, and systems that merged the two technologies, and I am familiar with what
`
`the states of these technologies were at the relevant time of the ’815 Patent invention and
`
`before.
`
`III. Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art
`18.
`
`I am familiar with the knowledge and capabilities of persons of ordinary skill in
`
`packet-based and circuit-switched telecommunication systems in the period around November
`
`2006, the earliest claimed priority date for the ’815 Patent. I base this on my experience with
`
`VoIP starting with my streaming media work for my PhD thesis in the mid 1990’s, through my
`
`first post-degree job at NBX, which shipped the first PBX to work over a computer data
`
`network, and my later professional work in the early 2000’s developing VoIP test tools. One of
`
`ordinary skill in the art would have been familiar with VoIP gateways, which interfaced packet-
`
`based phone systems to the PSTN, softswitches, which provided call control and advanced
`
`features for VoIP phone systems, and the SIP and MGCP protocols, which provided signaling
`
`and device control for VoIP systems. One of ordinary skill in the art would also have been
`
`familiar with the types of features available in a VoIP system, such as the ability for VoIP
`
`phones to be moved around in a data network without reprogramming a switch, with
`
`softphones, which allowed users to use their computers as a telephone, and with toll bypass,
`
`where calls maybe placed out through remote gateways accessible over the data network to
`
`avoid long distance telephone charges.
`
`
`
`
`
`PETITIONER APPLE INC. EX. 1006-6
`
`

`

`19.
`
`In my opinion, the level of ordinary skill in the art that one would need in order
`
`to have the capability of understanding the scientific and engineering principles applicable to the
`
`’815 Patent is (i) a Bachelor degree (or higher degree) in an academic area emphasizing
`
`electrical engineering and (ii) 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.
`
`IV. Relevant Legal Standards
`20. Obviousness
`
`a.
`
`I have been asked to provide my opinions regarding whether the claims 1,
`
`7, 27-28, 34, 54, 72-74, 92-93, and 111 of the ’815 Patent would have been obvious to a person
`
`having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the alleged invention, in light of the prior art.
`
`b.
`
`I have been informed and understand that a patent claim is not patentable
`
`under 35 U.S.C. § 103 if the differences between the patent claim and the prior art are such that
`
`the claimed subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the claimed invention
`
`was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the subject matter pertains.
`
`Obviousness, as I have been informed, is based on the scope and content of the prior art, the
`
`differences between the prior art and the claim, the level of ordinary skill in the art, and, to the
`
`extent that they exist and have an appropriate nexus to the claimed invention (as opposed to prior
`
`art features), secondary indicia of non-obviousness.
`
`c.
`
`I have been informed that whether there are any relevant differences
`
`between the prior art and the claimed invention is to be analyzed from the view of a person of
`
`ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention. As such, my opinions below as to a person of
`
`
`
`
`PETITIONER APPLE INC. EX. 1006-7
`
`

`

`ordinary skill in the art are as of the time of the invention, even if not expressly stated as such;
`
`for example, even if stated in the present tense.
`
`d.
`
`In analyzing the relevance of the differences between the claimed
`
`invention and the prior art, I have been informed that I must consider the impact, if any, of such
`
`differences on the obviousness or non-obviousness of the invention as a whole, not merely some
`
`portion of it. The person of ordinary skill faced with a problem is able to apply his or her
`
`experience and ability to solve the problem and also look to any available prior art to help solve
`
`the problem.
`
`e.
`
`An invention is obvious if a person of ordinary skill in the art, facing the
`
`wide range of needs created by developments in the field, would have seen an obvious benefit to
`
`the solutions tried by the applicant. When there is a design need or market pressure to solve a
`
`problem and there are a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, it would be obvious to
`
`a person of ordinary skill to try the known options. If a technique has been used to improve one
`
`device, and a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that it would improve similar
`
`devices in the same way, using the technique would have been obvious.
`
`f.
`
`I have been informed that a precise teaching in the prior art directed to the
`
`subject matter of the claimed invention is not needed. I have been informed that one may take
`
`into account the inferences and creative steps that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have
`
`employed in reviewing the prior art at the time of the invention. For example, if the claimed
`
`invention combined elements known in the prior art and the combination yielded results that
`
`were predictable to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention, then this
`
`evidence would make it more likely that the claim was obvious. On the other hand, if the
`
`combination of known elements yielded unexpected or unpredictable results, or if the prior art
`
`
`
`
`
`PETITIONER APPLE INC. EX. 1006-8
`
`

`

`teaches away from combining the known elements, then this evidence would make it more likely
`
`that the claim that successfully combined those elements was not obvious.
`
`g.
`
`I have been informed that hindsight must not be used when comparing the
`
`prior art to the invention for obviousness.
`
`h.
`
`Obviousness may also be shown by demonstrating that it would have been
`
`obvious to modify what is taught in a single piece of prior art to create the subject matter of the
`
`patent claim. Obviousness may be shown by showing that it would have been obvious to
`
`combine the teachings of more than one item of prior art. In determining whether a piece of prior
`
`art could have been combined with other prior art or combined with or modified in view of other
`
`information within the knowledge of one of ordinary skill in the art, the following are examples
`
`of approaches and rationales that may be considered:
`
`•
`
`•
`
`•
`
`•
`
`•
`
`•
`
`Combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable
`results;
`Simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable
`results;
`Use of a known technique to improve similar devices (methods, or products) in
`the same way;
`Applying a known technique to a known device (method, or product) ready for
`improvement to yield predictable results;
`Applying a technique or approach that would have been "obvious to try"
`(choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a
`reasonable expectation of success);
`Known work in one field of endeavor may prompt variations of it for use in either
`the same field or a different one based on design incentives or other market forces
`if the variations would have been predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art; or
`
`
`
`
`
`PETITIONER APPLE INC. EX. 1006-9
`
`

`

`•
`
`Some teaching, suggestion, or motivation in the prior art that would have led one
`of ordinary skill to modify the prior art reference or to combine prior art reference
`teachings to arrive at the claimed invention.
`
`i.
`
`I have been informed that even if a prima facie case of obviousness is
`
`established,
`
`the
`
`final determination of obviousness must also consider "secondary
`
`considerations"
`
`if presented. In most
`
`instances,
`
`the patentee raises
`
`these secondary
`
`considerations of non-obviousness. In that context, the patentee argues an invention would not
`
`have been obvious in view of these considerations, which include: (a) commercial success of a
`
`product due to the merits of the claimed invention; (b) a long-felt, but unsatisfied need for the
`
`invention; (c) failure of others to find the solution provided by the claimed invention; (d)
`
`deliberate copying of the invention by others; (e) unexpected results achieved by the invention;
`
`(f) praise of the invention by others skilled in the art; (g) lack of independent simultaneous
`
`invention within a comparatively short space of time; (h) teaching away from the invention in the
`
`prior art.
`
`j.
`
`I have been informed and further understand that secondary considerations
`
`evidence is only relevant if the offering party establishes a connection, or nexus, between the
`
`evidence and the claimed invention. The nexus cannot be to prior art features. The establishment
`
`of a nexus is a question of fact.
`
`21. Claim Construction
`
`a.
`
`I have been informed that the first step in an invalidity analysis involves
`
`construing the claims, as necessary, to determine their scope. And, second, the construed claim
`
`language is then compared to the disclosure of the prior art. In proceedings before the USPTO, I
`
`have been informed that the claims of an unexpired patent are to be given their broadest
`
`
`
`
`
`PETITIONER APPLE INC. EX. 1006-10
`
`

`

`reasonable interpretation in view of the specification from the perspective of one skilled in the
`
`art. I have been informed that the ’815 Patent has not expired. In comparing the claims of the
`
`’815 Patent to the known prior art, I have carefully considered the ’815 Patent and the ’815
`
`Patent prosecution history based upon my experience and knowledge in the relevant field. For
`
`purposes of this proceeding I have applied the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim
`
`terms of the ’815 Patent that is generally consistent with the terms’ ordinary and customary
`
`meaning, as one skilled in the relevant field would have understood them. Because I have been
`
`informed that the claim construction standard in this proceeding differs from that used in U.S.
`
`district court litigation, nothing herein should be taken as an indication that I consider these
`
`constructions to control in a district court setting.
`
`b.
`
`I have been informed that a special claim construction analysis is applied
`
`to claim limitations drafted in means-plus-function format pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 112, ¶ 6.
`
`When construing a means-plus-function limitation, I understand that the claimed function must
`
`first be identified and then the corresponding structure that actually performs the claimed
`
`function must be identified from the specification. A means-plus-function claim term is limited
`
`to the disclosed structures and equivalents.
`
`c.
`
`I have been informed that where the disclosed structure for a means-plus-
`
`function limitation is a computer, or microprocessor, programmed to carry out an algorithm, the
`
`corresponding structure is not the general purpose computer or processor, but rather is a special
`
`purpose computer or processor programmed to perform the disclosed algorithm. In other words, I
`
`understand the disclosed algorithm is part of the corresponding structure for computer-
`
`implemented means-plus-function limitations.
`
`d.
`
`I have been informed that where a patent specification fails to adequately
`
`
`
`
`
`PETITIONER APPLE INC. EX. 1006-11
`
`

`

`disclose corresponding structure for a means-plus-function claim limitation, that claim is invalid
`
`as indefinite pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 112, ¶ 2. But I also understand that indefiniteness may not
`
`be challenged in an Inter Partes Review. Accordingly, though it is my opinion that certain
`
`means-plus-function claim limitations in the ‘815 Patent Challenged Claims may not have
`
`sufficiently described corresponding structure, I have assumed they are definite and have
`
`assessed their validity based on the specific structure actually disclosed.
`
`e.
`
`I have reviewed the proposed claim constructions in Section IV.B.2 of the
`
`Petition, agree with these proposed constructions, and have applied these constructions in my
`
`analyses herein.
`
`V. Overview of the ’815 Patent
`22.
`
`This overview is not meant to describe my full understanding of the ’815 Patent,
`
`but is only used to generally describe the relevant functionalities of the ’815 Patent.
`
`23.
`
`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 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
`
`
`
`
`
`PETITIONER APPLE INC. EX. 1006-12
`
`

`

`a routing message is generated so that the call can be directed through a gateway to a public
`
`network. Id. at 1:62-64.
`
`24. 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.
`
`25.
`
`Put simply, the ’815 Patent describes a system in which a VoIP subscriber may
`
`place calls to other VoIP subscribers or to phones on the PSTN. The described system also
`
`enables the calling party to enter dialed digits in a familiar manner as if the caller were placing a
`
`call on the PSTN, and the system reformats the dialed digits using caller attributes (e.g., country
`
`code, area code, etc.), determines whether the callee is on the private packet network or public
`
`PSTN, and routes the call accordingly.
`
`VI. State of the Relevant Art in 2006
`26.
`
`Circuit
`
`switched
`
`telecommunications
`
`networks,
`
`packet-switched
`
`communications networks, the Internet and the carriage of voice via IP packets over the Internet
`
`was well-known by 2006.
`
`
`
`
`
`PETITIONER APPLE INC. EX. 1006-13
`
`

`

`27.
`
`Telephonic communications dates to the 1800’s, where in 1877, Alexander
`
`Graham Bell received U.S. Patent No. 186,787 titled “Improvement in Electric Telegraphy”
`
`which disclosed a device which transmits voice over a circuit, in which a bell rings when the
`
`main circuit is opened.
`
`28.
`
`Packet communications dates to the 1960’s, and was demonstrated with the
`
`creation of the ARPANET, which was funded by the Advanced Research Projects Agency of the
`
`U.S. Department of Defense. By 1983, packetized speech was carried over the ARPANET and
`
`interfaced to the PSTN in a system demonstrated by Weinstein and Forgie.1 This system
`
`transported speech packets over the data network, and provided a packet/circuit interface
`
`between packet switches and the T1 digital carrier format of the telephone network. See
`
`Weinstein at p. 977. Around this time, Dialogic Inc. and Natural Microsystems Inc. were
`
`founded, and eventually these companies produced hardware and software for computer to
`
`telephone system integration. Computer telephony boards made by these vendors and others
`
`were used by the 1990’s to create Voice-over-IP systems.
`
`29.
`
`By the 1990’s the Internet Engineering Task Force, the body tasked with
`
`developing standards for the Internet, began to propose standards that focused on real-time
`
`applications such as VoIP. “RTP: A Transport Protocol for Real-Time Applications” was
`
`released as RFC 1889 in January 1996.2 In 1999, the IETF published “SIP: Session Initiation
`
`Protocol”3 which is used to establish sessions, or calls, and is used frequently by VoIP systems
`
`today. Both these protocols became widely used by the mid 2000’s.
`
`
`1 See Appendix B, Weinstein and Forgie, “Experience with Speech Communications,” IEEE Journal on Selected
`Areas in Communications, Vol. SAC-1, No. 6, December 1983.
`2 See Appendix C https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc1889 (excerpt)
`3 See Appendix D https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc2543 (excerpt)
`
`
`
`
`
`PETITIONER APPLE INC. EX. 1006-14
`
`

`

`30.
`
`In 1999, the global telecommunications manufacturer Siemens announced a
`
`VoIP gateway utilizing the Natural Microsystems Fusion platform4 order to “enable[] voice and
`
`real-time fax calls over IP-based networks.”5
`
`31.
`
`In the late 1990’s, business telephone systems (also known as private branch
`
`exchanges) that ran over data networks became available. NBX Corporation and Selsius
`
`Systems were among the first to release a PBX for small and medium sized businesses. Selsius
`
`was acquired by Cisco in 19986 and NBX was acquired by 3Com in 19997. Both 3Com and
`
`Cisco were major manufacturers of packet communications equipment.
`
`32.
`
`By 2000, companies were releasing full VoIP solutions utilizing gateways and
`
`softswitches. A softswitch is a computer running software that is able to complete calls and
`
`handle call features in a packet network that can include gateways to the PSTN. These solutions
`
`were promoted as a lower cost way to offer telecommunications services as well as lower cost
`
`long distance by providing long distance backhaul over the Internet or other data network.8
`
`Carrier-class gateways were available from manufacturers by the late 1990’s9 and carrier-class
`
`softswitches were available from manufacturers by the early 2000’s.10
`
`33.
`
`In the early 2000’s, Voice-over-IP commercial phone service became available.
`
`Vonage, incorporated in 2001, was one of the early pioneers of consumer VoIP. Such a system
`
`4 See Appendix E http://www.cnet.com/news/fusion-will-help-raise-net-voices/
`5 See Appendix F http://pressreleases.responsesource.com/news/3014/natural-microsystems-launches-new-ip-
`telephony-platform/
`6 See Appendix G http://www.cisco.com/chinese/warp/public/146/october98/9810p46-e.html
`7 See Appendix H http://www.nytimes.com/1999/02/23/business/company-news-3com-is-acquiring-nbx-for-100-
`million.html
`8 See Appendix I “nuVOICE – Next Generation VoIP Solutions,” August 16, 2000.
`9 See, e.g., Appendix J http://www.sonus.net/resources/press-releases/sonus-networks-gateway-switch-ip-
`telephony-suite-are-first-capacity
`10 See, e.g., Appendix K http://www.sonus.net/resources/press-releases/sonus-networks-psx6000-softswitch-sets-
`standard-scalability-reliability
`
`
`
`
`
`PETITIONER APPLE INC. EX. 1006-15
`
`

`

`is also known as an “over the top” system in that it is provides telephone service over a
`
`consumer’s Internet connection, and thus no phone lines are required into a subscriber’s
`
`residence. By 2005, Vonage announced that it had one million subscribers.11 Vonage provided
`
`features such as call forwarding, call waiting, area code selection (no matter the actual area code
`
`determined by one’s physical residence12), and voicemail, among others.13
`
`34.
`
`By November 2, 2006, the priority date of the ’815 patent, softswitches (also
`
`known as call controllers), gateways between an IP network and the PSTN, the use of the
`
`Internet or a data network for saving long distance toll charges, the ability to place calls within a
`
`private network as well as to the PSTN, and the ability for users to select profile-based features
`
`such as their area code, were well-known and widely used technologies.
`
`VII. Opinions Concerning Chu ’684 and Chu ’366
`35.
`
`I have been asked to consider whether claims 1, 7, 27-28, 34, 54, 72-74, 92-93,
`
`and 111 are obvious over Chu ’684 in view of Chu ’366. It is my opinion that they are indeed
`
`obvious and that the combination of Chu ’684 and Chu ’366 teaches all elements of claims 1, 7,
`
`27-28, 34, 54, 72-74, 92-93, and 111 as set forth in the claim chart for this combination in the
`
`Petition.
`
`36.
`
`For a number of reasons, 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. First, the references are in the same technological field and substantially overlap in
`
`relevant subject matter. For example, both references teach telecommunications systems in
`
`11 See Appendix L http://www.networkcomputing.com/networking/vonage-hits-one-million-
`subscribers/1486680870
`12 See Appendix M https://web.archive.org/web/20051210104545/http://vonage.com/avail.php
`13 See Appendix N
`https://web.archive.org/web/20051210104312/http://vonage.com/features.php?lid=nav_features
`
`
`
`
`
`PETITIONER APPLE INC. EX. 1006-16
`
`

`

`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.”). Additionally, both references 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.”).
`
`37.
`
`Second, the system of Chu ’684 already contains the infrastructure needed to
`
`support such reformatting. Chu ’684 expressly discloses geographically dispersed subscribers each
`
`o