`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`APPLE INC.
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`VOIP-PAL.COM, INC.
`Patent Owner
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2016-01198
`Patent 9,179,005
`
`
`
`PETITIONER’S REPLY TO PATENT OWNER’S RESPONSE
`PURSUANT TO 37 C.F.R. § 42.120
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Voip-Pal Ex. 2020
`IPR2017-01398
`
`
`
`
`
`I.
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................... 1
`
`IPR2016-01198
`U.S. Patent No. 9,179,005
`
`II. ARGUMENT ................................................................................................... 3
`
`A) CHU ‘366 AND CHEN ARE PRIOR ART—PATENT OWNER
`FAILED TO PROVE A JUNE 2005 ACTUAL REDUCTION TO
`PRACTICE ................................................................................................. 3
`
`I) PATENT OWNER HAS FAILED TO ESTABLISH THE
`PROFFERED DIGIFONICA SOURCE CODE WAS
`OPERATIONAL IN JUNE 2005. ........................................................ 4
`
`II) PATENT OWNER HAS FAILED TO ESTABLISH THE
`DIGIFONICA SYSTEM WAS OPERATIONAL FOR THE
`FEATURES REQUIRED BY CHALLENGED CLAIMS .............. 10
`
`III) PATENT OWNER HAS FAILED TO ESTABLISH THE
`PROFFERED DIGIFONICA SOURCE CODE PRACTICED THE
`CHALLENGED CLAIMS. ................................................................ 12
`
`B) PETITIONER’S PRIOR ART COMBINATIONS RENDER
`OBVIOUS EACH OF THE CHALLENGED CLAIMS. ..................... 15
`
`I) PATENT OWNER’S SUGGESTION THAT CHU ‘684 REQUIRES
`SPECIAL DIALING CONVENTIONS FINDS NO SUPPORT IN
`THE RECORD ..................................................................................... 16
`
`(1) PSTN CALLS IN CHU ‘684 DO NOT REQUIRE A PREFIX
`DIGIT .......................................................................................... 17
`
`(2) IP CALLS IN CHU ‘684 DO NOT REQUIRE PRIVATE
`NUMBERS ................................................................................. 21
`
`(3) PATENT OWNER’S SECONDARY CRITIQUE—THAT
`THE DIALING PLAN OF CHU ‘684 IS NOT USER-
`SPECIFIC—IGNORES PETITIONER’S PROPOSED
`COMBINATIONS ENTIRELY ............................................... 23
`
`III. CONCLUSION ............................................................................................. 24
`
`
`
`i
`
`
`
`
`
`Cases
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`
`
`Cooper v. Goldfarb, 154 F.3d 1321, 1327 (Fed. Cir. 1998) ..................................... 6
`
`Newkirk v. Lulejian, 825 F.2d 1581, 1582 (Fed. Cir. 1987) ..................................... 6
`
`Senju Pharmaceutical Co. v. Lupin Ltd., 780 F.3d 1337, 1347 (Fed. Cir. 2015) ... 26
`
`UMC Elecs. Co. v. United States, 816 F.2d 647, 652 (Fed. Cir. 1987) .................... 6
`
`Rules
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.120 .................................................................................................... 1
`
`37 C.F.R. §§ 42.24(c).............................................................................................. 33
`
`
`
`ii
`
`
`
`
`
`
`I. INTRODUCTION
`
`Voip-Pal focuses its opposition almost exclusively on establishing an actual
`
`reduction to practice that it alleges occurred on June 6, 2005, nearly 17 months
`
`before the provisional patent application was actually filed. Voip-Pal’s swear-
`
`behind effort suffers from a common deficiency—it relies on witness testimony
`
`that Voip-Pal could not corroborate. Voip-Pal points to Exhibit 2014 as the source
`
`code that embodied its reduction to practice. Presenting source code is not enough,
`
`however. Voip-Pal must demonstrate that the source code (a) worked for its
`
`intended purpose and (b) was coextensive with the Challenged Claims. Voip-Pal
`
`has done neither. With respect to the first point, Voip-Pal relies exclusively on
`
`witness testimony that it cannot corroborate and that is extremely biased with
`
`witnesses with enormous personal stakes in this proceeding. Voip-Pal did not
`
`compile and execute the code, despite having the code in its possession. Voip-Pal
`
`did not present a single test log or other record of testing, despite having such
`
`records in its possession. Voip-Pal did not provide a single detail as to any call that
`
`was successfully connected using the source code version in Exhibit 2014. In fact,
`
`the documentary record shows only that the source code in Exhibit 2014 was an
`
`incomplete work as of June 6, 2005, a work that continued to be edited, modified,
`
`and added to for a lengthy period thereafter.
`
`Similarly, Voip-Pal relies heavily on the Smart421 Report (Exhibit 2003) to
`
`
`
`1
`
`
`
`
`
`demonstrate the alleged functionality of the source code in Exhibit 2014. Its
`
`reliance on this report is baffling because the report concluded that the code was
`
`only a little over half complete and that “it was not easy to ascertain which features
`
`were already implemented in the live service, as opposed to those that were able to
`
`be added in a future release.” Ex. 2003 at 12. Voip-Pal’s other exhibits fare no
`
`better and include no actual description or verification of the features that allegedly
`
`were in operation in June 2005. Voip-Pal went to great lengths to stitch together a
`
`narrative that ultimately does not appear accurate. The more plausible narrative
`
`based on the evidence is that whatever Patent Owner had on June 6, 2005, it was
`
`not nearly complete and there is no evidence that it was operational for any of the
`
`purposes described and claimed in the Challenged Patent.
`
`Voip-Pal’s two substantive criticisms of Petitioner’s proposed rejections also
`
`fail to withstand scrutiny. Its first critique relies on its own expert’s opinion that
`
`Chu ’684 would require specific dialing conventions because it’s a PBX system.
`
`But Voip-Pal’s expert has no telephony expertise, never worked on a PBX system,
`
`and his conclusion is directly opposed to the express teachings of Chu ’684. Voip-
`
`Pal’s second critique—that Chu ‘684’s enterprise-wide dial plans fail to teach the
`
`claimed calling profile—simply mischaracterizes Petitioner’s proposed rejections.
`
`The proposed combinations rely on the calling profiles taught by its secondary
`
`references (Chu ’366 and Chen), not the dial plans in Chu ‘684.
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`
`
`II. ARGUMENT
`
`a) Chu ‘366 and Chen are Prior Art—Patent Owner Failed to Prove a
`June 2005 Actual Reduction to Practice
`
`Attempting to swear behind Chu ‘366 and Chen, Patent Owner shouldered
`
`
`
`the burden of establishing that the Digifonica system was actually reduced to
`
`practice in June 2005. Thus, Patent Owner must establish that (1) Digifonica
`
`constructed an embodiment that met every claim limitation of the Challenged
`
`Claims; and (2) the Digifonica system actually worked for its intended purpose
`
`coextensive with said claim limitations. Cooper v. Goldfarb, 154 F.3d 1321, 1327
`
`(Fed. Cir. 1998). It is well settled that “[t]here cannot be a reduction to practice . .
`
`. without a physical embodiment which
`
`includes all
`
`limitations of
`
`the
`
`claim.” UMC Elecs. Co. v. United States, 816 F.2d 647, 652 (Fed. Cir. 1987). “It
`
`is equally well established that every limitation of the [claim] must exist in the
`
`embodiment and be shown to have performed as intended.” Newkirk v. Lulejian,
`
`825 F.2d 1581, 1582 (Fed. Cir. 1987).
`
`
`
`Patent Owner has failed on all accounts. Specifically, Patent Owner has not
`
`demonstrated that the proffered RBR source code was operational for all pertinent
`
`functionalities in June 2005; Patent Owner has not demonstrated that the
`
`Digifonica system worked for its intended purposes in June 2005; and Patent
`
`Owner has not demonstrated that the proffered RBR source code embodied every
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`
`
`limitation of the Challenged Claims.
`
`
`
`With respect to the final point and to focus the Board’s analysis, each
`
`Challenged Claim is directed to generating routing messages for routing
`
`communications between a caller and a callee. Ex. 1001, ‘005 Patent at
`
`Preambles for Independent Claims 1, 26, 50, 74, 94, and 99. Each requires
`
`“producing a private network routing message for receipt by a call controller, said
`
`private network routing message identifying an address, on the private network,
`
`associated with the callee.”1 Id. at Claim 1. These limitations require generating a
`
`routing message that includes a network address associated with the callee. As
`
`detailed further in section iii below, Patent Owner has failed to establish that the
`
`RBR code generated such a message.
`
`i) Patent Owner Has Failed To Establish the Proffered Digifonica Source
`Code Was Operational in June 2005.
`
`As purported evidence of an actual reduction to practice in June 2005, Patent
`
`
`
`Owner relies on Digifonica RBR server source code (specifically, Version 361),
`
`Exhibit 2014. Exhibit 2014 is a document created by Dr. Mangione-Smith from an
`
`undislcosed source code repository. It is not the original source code file from
`
`2005. Instead, it is snippets of code that were purportedly cut-and-pasted by Dr.
`
`Mangione-Smith. While the printouts are dated June 6, 2005, that date was
`
`1 Although the Claim language differs slightly between claims, Patent Owner has
`mapped them identically to its Digifonica system evidence.
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`actually added as a header by Patent Owner’s counsel, not by Dr. Mangione-
`
`Smith or natively by the source code repository software. Ex. 1010, Mangione-
`
`Smith Trans., 45:8-21.
`
`
`
`Dr. Mangione-Smith never confirmed the proffered code actually worked at
`
`all, much less for its intended purposes. He did not run the software or test it in
`
`any way to confirm that the proffered code was actually operational. Id. at 47:25-
`
`49:14. Furthermore, the evidence shows that the Digifonica source code within
`
`the source code archive continued to be modified through August of 2009.
`
`Exhibit 2011, Purita Declaration (showing “last written” date for source code
`
`repository). Exhibit 2015 confirms that dozens upon dozens of revisions were
`
`made to the code in very near proximity to Version 361, suggesting a heavy
`
`amount of editing for at least the next year and a half (which was the only time
`
`frame provided in Exhibit 2015). Exhibit 2015, RBR Log Messages at 1 (showing
`
`revision history through October 2006). Indeed, six versions of code were saved
`
`within 24 hours of Version 361. The code was unquestionably a work in progress.
`
`In fact, independent 3rd party analysis of the Digifonica system in July 2005
`
`indicated that the overall system was only 56% “complete” with a 63% “surety”
`
`(which indicated how “sure” the 3rd party was that Digifonica’s system would
`
`5
`
`
`
`
`
`work for its intended purpose).2 Ex. 1011, Rutter Trans. at 23:1-22. This same
`
`third party also admitted that it had no idea how the system operated with regard
`
`to the features in the code, such as formatting of phone numbers or call routing.
`
`Id. at 31:14-32:4. Critically, Patent Owner has not presented a single piece of
`
`evidence to confirm that proffered Version 361 was fully operational as opposed
`
`to in some preliminary development phase. For purposes of its swear behind, not a
`
`single witness simply compiled the code, nor did any witness run the code to
`
`determine its operability and/or functionality. In short, there is no evidence that
`
`Patent Owner “executed the [proffered] code and that the code actually worked”
`
`with respect to the relevant claimed functionalities. IPR2015-00325, Paper 62 –
`
`Final Decision at 32.
`
`
`
`Patent Owner’s witness testimony does not cure this fundamental deficiency.
`
`Patent Owner relies on the testimony of three fact witnesses in support of its
`
`swear behind effort—David Terry, Johan Emil Viktor Bjorsell, and Clay Perrault.
`
`Most prominent in Patent Owner’s Response is its reliance on the testimony of
`
`Mr. Terry. Paper 17, Response at 45-46. Mr. Terry did not write the code and was
`
`not personally familiar with the code in 2005. Ex. 1012, Terry Trans. at 24:23-
`
`25:18. He did not test the system to confirm operation of the code in 2005. Id. at
`
`
`2 The same third party—Smart421—also admitted that “there was work to be
`done” with the Digifonica system and that the code “was still a work in progress.”
`Ex. 1011, Rutter Trans., 24:15-19; 25:1-5.
`
`
`
`6
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`39:21-41:7. He was not responsible for defining the relevant functionalities
`
`performed by the code. Id. at 59:19-22. In fact, his description of the system
`
`appears to be based on nothing more than hindsight knowledge coupled with his
`
`having been at Digifonica in 2005. Id. at 60:19-61:17. Mr. Terry’s declaration
`
`(Exhibit 2018) also references emails in Exhibit 2026 and 2027 (and a number of
`
`emails directed to other code versions) that indicate Version 361 had been
`
`deployed for testing. Neither of these emails indicates the system was complete,
`
`operational, or that the testing was successful for any particular functionalities.
`
`Mr. Terry did not testify as to any particular call for which the system was
`
`functional, as would be required to indicate whether the system was functional for
`
`the claimed functionalities. Mr. Terry lacks first hand knowledge of the
`
`Digifonica source code as it existed in 2005, his uncorroborated recollections are
`
`non-specific, and accordingly, he lacks a proper foundation for his conclusions.
`
`
`
`Patent Owner also relies on the testimony of Digifonica’s former CTO, Clay
`
`Perreault. Like Mr. Terry, Mr. Perreault did not write or test the Digifonica code,
`
`and did not have first hand knowledge of the code in June 2005. Ex. 1013,
`
`Perreault Trans. at 59:3-23. Further, he did not analyze the RBR source code
`
`even contemporaneously with preparing his declaration. Id. at 66:19-22. Instead,
`
`Mr. Perreault relied primarily on the Challenged Patent itself to form his
`
`understanding of how the Digifonica system allegedly operated as of June 2005.
`
`7
`
`
`
`
`
`Id. at 79:25-81:21 (confirming Challenged Patent was the “primary resource” to
`
`confirm his current understanding). Obviously, the Challenged Patent, which
`
`claims priority to a provisional application filed 17 months after the alleged actual
`
`reduction to practice, is not a reliable guide to what allegedly existed in June
`
`2005. Mr. Perreault’s recollections are polluted with after-the-fact review of the
`
`Challenged Patent and are further polluted by his incentive to generate his
`
`“recollection.” Mr. Perreault has a considerable stake in the outcome of the
`
`litigation against Petitioner, which Patent Owner has baselessly (but publicly)
`
`“valued” at $2.8 Billion.3 Ex. 1014, Complaint at 6. Specifically, Mr. Perrault has
`
`received two separate allotments of shares in Patent Owner—a first allotment of
`
`500,000 shares and a second allotment of 200,000 shares. Ex. 1013, Perreault
`
`Trans. at 34:18-23 and 37:14-17. Mr. Perrault’s testimony lacks foundation in
`
`personal knowledge and is heavily biased.
`
`
`
`Finally, Patent Owner relies on the testimony of Johan Emil Viktor Bjorsell.
`
`As with the other witnesses, Mr. Bjorsell could not confirm that any particular
`
`functionalities were tested and operational as of June 2005 and was not aware of
`
`any documentation detailing the same. Ex. 1015, Bjorsell Trans. at 83:15-86:5
`
`(confirming that test call details are required to determine whether certain
`
`functionalities were invoked and operational and confirming that he has not
`
`3 Voip-Pal also recently announced plans to increase its damages demand to more
`than $25 Billion. https://www.voip-pal.com/voip-pal-plans-to-increase-damages.
`
`
`
`8
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`identified any specific test call details from June 2005). In addition to this
`
`substantive deficiency, Mr. Bjorsell has more to gain from Voip-Pal’s lawsuit
`
`than any other declarant, and his testimony should be measured accordingly. Mr.
`
`Bjorsell was given one million shares in Voip-Pal and has “hopes and dreams”
`
`about a significant recovery. Id. at 25:5-28:6; 29:2-8. Any weight given to Mr.
`
`Bjorsell’s testimony must account for this significant bias.
`
`
`
`While Patent Owner’s witnesses each speak in terms of conclusive
`
`recollections, there is no evidence to connect Version 361 with any successful
`
`testing or successful operation that would corroborate such testimony. Emails
`
`indicating that Version 361 was sent to a staging node for testing are not
`
`indicative of the outcome of said testing or any specific functionalities that were
`
`tested. Nor are these emails indicative of the features within the code actually
`
`working for their intended purposes.
`
`
`
`One individual who potentially could answer these questions is the original
`
`author of the RBR source code, Fuad Arafa. Ex. 1016, 4-21-2017 Ltr from Kerry
`
`Taylor. Mr. Arafa was the original author of the RBR code on which Patent
`
`Owner relies for its attempted swear behind. See Ex. 2014, RBR Code at 1:23
`
`(indicating Fuad A. authored the RBR code); Ex. 1013, Perreault Trans. at 66:23-
`
`67:13 (confirming Mr. Arafa was “absolutely” responsible for writing the RBR
`
`code). Despite representing Mr. Arafa, Patent Owner did not rely on any
`
`9
`
`
`
`
`
`testimony from him. In fact, Patent Owner created numerous unreasonable
`
`impediments to Petitioner’s efforts to investigate Mr. Arafa’s knowledge,
`
`including a motion to compel simply to obtain his contact information. Ex. 1017,
`
`5-1-2017 Email from Kerry Taylor (demanding, among other requirements, a sur-
`
`reply in exchange for producing Mr. Arafa for deposition and a strict limitation on
`
`what Petitioner was allowed to discuss in any deposition of Mr. Arafa). Given the
`
`evidentiary gaps described above and the lack of first hand knowledge from its
`
`proffered witnesses, Patent Owner’s decision not to present testimony from Mr.
`
`Arafa is particularly suspicious.
`
`ii) Patent Owner Has Failed to Establish the Digifonica System Was
`Operational For the Features Required by Challenged Claims
`
`Unable to directly establish what source code and/or what features of the
`
`code were operational as of June 2005, Patent Owner attempts to create inferences
`
`based on witnesses’ recollection of system testing. Of course, not a single witness
`
`could recall any specific call that was placed on the Digifonica system in June
`
`2005 and there is no documentation of calls placed that would have invoked the
`
`claimed dialed digit reformatting that is central to the Challenged Claims. Such call
`
`details are absolutely necessary to establish a baseline of relevance for the
`
`proffered testing recollections. Similar to a case previously considered by the
`
`Board, Patent Owner here has not “proffer[ed] any meaningful test results, test
`
`
`
`10
`
`
`
`
`
`input or output files, simulation run logs, or input test parameters, which a person
`
`with ordinary skill in the art would have expected to see for testing.” IPR2015-
`
`00325, Paper 62 – Final Decision at 33.
`
`Patent Owner’s witnesses confirmed that it would be necessary to know the
`
`specific calls (e.g., caller and callee) placed on the Digifonica system to know
`
`whether certain functionality on the RBR server existed and was operational at the
`
`time of the testing. Ex. 1015, Bjorsell Trans. at 85:24-86:5. Interestingly, Mr.
`
`Perreault did suggest that he reviewed call records as part of preparing his
`
`declaration for this proceeding. Ex. 1013, Perreault Trans. at 57:18-20. However,
`
`none were produced. Because specific call details are necessary to confirm that the
`
`claimed functionality was invoked and operational, the absence of such call
`
`records renders Patent Owner’s evidence of generic calls entirely meaningless.
`
`Evidence that basic system operation had been secured in no way establishes that
`
`the system was fully operational for all functionality in the Challenged Claims.
`
`Similarly, Patent Owner’s heavy reliance on the Smart 421 Report is
`
`misplaced. That report establishes nothing about the actual operation of the code
`
`and merely confirms that some basic system operation was in place by June 2005,
`
`while simultaneously establishing that development work was ongoing. Paper 17,
`
`Response at 42-45. As the author of the Smart 421 Report confirmed, Smart 421
`
`analyzed only Digifonica’s general “approach” to software coding, not the
`
`
`
`11
`
`
`
`
`
`functionality of the software, and Smart 421 did not confirm any specific features
`
`existed in the code. Ex. 1011, Rutter Trans. at 16:14-21:2. Notably, the Smart 421
`
`Report concluded that “it was not easy to ascertain which features were already
`
`implemented in the live service, as opposed to those that were able to be added in a
`
`future release.” Ex. 2003 at 12. The Smart 421 witness even confirmed that he had
`
`no idea which version of code was in operation when they viewed the Digifonica
`
`system. Ex. 1011, Rutter Trans. at 16:17-24. The Smart 421 Report sheds no light
`
`whatsoever on which versions or portions of the Digifonica RBR Source code were
`
`in existence and operational as of June 2005.
`
`In sum, Patent Owner relies entirely on Version 361 of the RBR code, but
`
`Patent Owner did not compile and run Version 361 to confirm operational features.
`
`Instead, Patent Owner relies on emails indicating that Version 361 had been sent
`
`for testing, but Patent Owner presents no details about any such testing. Patent
`
`Owner has not established what particular features were complete as of June 2005,
`
`and importantly, it has not established that the features required by the Challenged
`
`Claims were complete at that time. Patent Owner’s swear behind should fail for
`
`this lack of evidence.
`
`iii) Patent Owner Has Failed To Establish the Proffered Digifonica Source
`Code Practiced the Challenged Claims.
`
`Even assuming the proffered Digifonica RBR source code was complete by
`
`
`
`12
`
`
`
`
`
`June 2005, Patent Owner has not established that the source code disclosed every
`
`limitation of the Challenged Claims. Specifically, the RBR source code does not
`
`disclose the key limitation, present in each Challenged Claim, requiring
`
`“producing a private network routing message for receipt by a call controller, said
`
`private network routing message identifying an address, on the private network,
`
`associated with the callee.” Ex. 1001, ’005 Patent at Claim 1.
`
`In its attempt to map the Challenged Claims to the Digifonica system, Patent
`
`Owner relies solely on Version 361 of the RBR server source code. For example,
`
`Patent Owner’s Response states the following for this limitation:
`
`The RBR server produces a private network routing message in the
`case of a private network call classification. The routing message
`identifies an address associated with the destination Digifonica IP
`phone.
`
`
`Paper 17, Response at 15. The remainder of the chart analyses the RBR code
`
`allegedly responsible for generating said routing message. But, critically, the RBR
`
`server does not generate any routing message that includes a network address
`
`associated with the callee. After several fact depositions in this proceeding, Patent
`
`Owner had apparently recognized this deficiency. Thus, during the deposition of
`
`Patent Owner’s expert, Dr. Mangione-Smith argued that the non-routable
`
`Digifonica ID could satisfy the claimed “address, on the private network,
`
`
`
`13
`
`
`
`
`
`associated with the callee.” Ex. 1010, Mangione-Smith Trans. at 100:18-101:24.
`
`But this position is not tenable. Multiple witnesses confirmed that the Digifonica
`
`ID populated by the RBR server is just a unique user identifier and that the RBR
`
`server does not know the network address associated with the callee. Ex. 1013,
`
`Perreault Trans. at 45:8-46:9 (confirming the routing message from the RBR
`
`includes a 12-digit “Digifonica username”); id. at 48:22-24 (confirming the RBR
`
`did not know the “network address associated with a Digifonica subscriber”); Ex.
`
`1015, Bjorsell Trans. at 120:12-121:6 (“Q. So there is no IP address of the callee
`
`IP phone in that routing message; is there?…A. That's correct. The IP address of
`
`the phone is not in that.”) (emphasis added).
`
`The record is entirely unclear as to which component was in fact responsible
`
`for obtaining the network address associated with the callee. Dr. Mangione-Smith
`
`failed to analyze any functionality outside the RBR server, including which
`
`component was responsible for obtaining an actual network address associated
`
`with the callee. Ex. 1010, Mangione-Smith Trans. at 117:15-19 (confirming he has
`
`no knowledge of what happens after the RBR transmits its routing message). And
`
`the Patent Owner’s witnesses were of no help in clarifying this key functionality.
`
`Messrs. Perreault and Bjorsell contradicted each other, identifying different
`
`components that allegedly obtained the callee’s network address. Compare Ex.
`
`1013, Perreault Trans at 48:25-50:12 (tesifying that a network address associated
`
`
`
`14
`
`
`
`
`
`with the callee is obtained by the B2BUA through the RADius server from a
`
`database) with Ex. 1015, Bjorsell Trans. at 120:24-122:1 (contradicting Mr.
`
`Perreault, testifying that the SER maintained the network address of the callee).
`
`Patent Owner has simply failed to identify any source code in the Digifonica
`
`system that meets this crucial claim limitation. Patent Owner’s swear behind
`
`attempt cannot succeed in the absence of such evidence.
`
`b) Petitioner’s Prior Art Combinations Render Obvious Each of the
`Challenged Claims.
`
`Patent Owner’s
`
`in
`
`large part, on
`
`substantive arguments
`
`rely,
`
`mischaracterizations of Petitioner’s two proposed obviousness combinations. To
`
`reiterate the nature of the proposed combinations, both rely on Chu ‘684 as a base
`
`reference for its infrastructure, call classifying, and call routing disclosures. The
`
`proposed combinations then rely on their respective secondary references, Chu
`
`‘366 and Chen (referred to below as the “Secondary References”), for their caller
`
`profile and dialed digit reformatting disclosures. The specific combinations operate
`
`as follows:
`
`1)
`
`First, a caller’s profile is accessed, which includes caller attributes
`(e.g., IDD, NDD, area code, etc.). The Secondary References teach
`accessing a caller profile. See, e.g., Paper 2, Petition at 17-20
`(describing use of calling attributes from Secondary References);
`see also, Ex. 2043, Houh Trans. at 18:5-22:24 (explaining that the
`
`
`
`15
`
`
`
`
`
`2)
`
`3)
`
`Chu ‘366 “call origin profile” includes calling attributes and that
`Chu ‘684 includes the user-specific infrastructure to support
`accessing the user-specific profile from Chu ‘366); 33:24-35:3
`(same explanation regarding Chen).
`Next, dialed digits are received by the caller pursuant to standard
`public dialing conventions, e.g., 123-4567 for a local call. The
`number reformatting taught by the Secondary References is
`performed, which results in an E.164-compliant callee identifier,
`e.g., 1-202-123-4567. See, e.g., Paper 2, Petition at 18-19.
`Finally, Chu ‘684 uses the reformatted E.164 number to determine
`whether the callee is on the private IP network or the public PSTN
`and generates routing messages accordingly. See, e.g., id. at 18-20.
`
`Patent Owner’s arguments against Petitioner’s obviousness combinations
`
`fall into two buckets—(1) that Chu ‘684 requires specific dialing conventions that
`
`are incompatible with the Secondary References and (2) that Chu ‘684 teaches an
`
`enterprise-wide, rather than user-specific, calling profiles. As detailed next, both
`
`arguments rely on mischaracterizations of the proposed combinations.
`
`i) Patent Owner’s Suggestion That Chu ‘684 Requires Special Dialing
`Conventions Finds no Support in the Record
`
`Starting with the first bucket of criticisms, Patent Owner’s critiques focus
`
`on two overriding misconceptions First, Patent Owner argues that Chu ‘684
`
`requires private dialing conventions to reach IP-based callees. Paper 17,
`
`Response at 59-66 (concluding that Chu ‘684 requires a “private number” such as
`
`
`
`16
`
`
`
`
`
`a “4-digit” extension to call other subscribers on the IP network). Second, Patent
`
`Owner argues that Chu ‘684 requires a prefix digit to reach a callee on the PSTN.
`
`Id. at 56-59 (concluding that Chu ‘684 would not be combined with Chu ‘366 or
`
`Chen because a user on the Chu ‘684 system would simply dial a “PSTN access
`
`code (e.g., a prefix of “9”) . . . to call the PSTN.”). Both criticisms are factually
`
`incorrect.
`
`(1) PSTN Calls In Chu ‘684 Do Not Require a Prefix Digit
`
`Turning first to the use of a prefix digit for PSTN callees, Patent Owner and
`
`its expert appear to have entirely manufactured this requirement. Asked where in
`
`Chu ‘684 such a requirement is discussed, Dr. Mangione-Smith admitted he was
`
`unaware of any such express requirement:
`
`Q. Can you point me to any specific teaching in Chu '684 that says a
`prefix digit must be dialled (sic) to reach a destination callee on the
`PSTN?
`
`…
`
`THE WITNESS: Off the top of my head, no. It's possibly that I have
`referenced something in my declaration.
`
`…
`
`Q. Do you know if you relied on such a teaching[?]
`
`…
`
`THE WITNESS: I don't recall if I relied upon it. If I did recall
`
`
`
`17
`
`
`
`
`
`relying upon it I would search in my report for the citation and
`probably point you back to Chu '684.
`
`Ex. 2010, Mangione-Smith Trans. at 143:17-144:11. After repeated unfulfilled
`
`requests for Dr. Mangione-Smith to review his declaration to confirm that no such
`
`teaching from Chu ‘684 was referenced in his declaration, Dr. Mangione-Smith
`
`finally confirmed that he could not find any such references in his declaration and
`
`did not recall relying on such a teaching to form his opinion. Id. at 150:21-154:1.
`
`
`
`There is no teaching in Chu ‘684 that a prefix digit must be dialed to reach a
`
`callee on the PSTN. In fact, Chu ‘684 expressly teaches that only the telephone
`
`number of a callee PSTN phone is dialed, not a prefix digit:
`
`For connectivity to the PSTN, gateways 1302 are deployed in the
`network 200. For an outgoing call from an originating point phone (IP
`phone 101 in FIG. 13), the operation is very similar to that of an intra-
`net call. From the dialed digits (of a destination phone that is
`being
`called, PSTN phone 1301),
`soft-switch 220,
`ingress
`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.
`
`Ex. 1006, Chu ‘684 at 13:12-20 (emphasis added). Accordingly, Patent Owner’s
`
`argument that prefix digits would be required by Chu ‘684 is at odds with the
`
`reference’s express teachings.
`
`Before leaving this point, Petitioner also notes that Patent Owner’s repeated
`
`
`
`18
`
`
`
`
`
`reliance on ¶¶ 30-47 and 72 from Dr. Mangione-Smith’s declaration is highly
`
`flawed. See Paper 17, Response at 57-58. In each of these paragraphs, Dr.
`
`Mangione-Smith discusses patents and publications (unrelated to Chu ‘684) that
`
`describe PBX systems with a prefix digit feature. From these references, Dr.
`
`Mangione-Smith concludes that “a person of ordinary skill in the art would
`
`understand Chu ‘684 to be referring to the almost universally used process of
`
`dialing a “9” to indicate the following number is an outside PSTN telephone
`
`number, based in part on the disclosures referenced here.” Ex. 2016, Mangione-
`
`Smith Decl. at ¶ 72. In other words, Dr. Mangione-Smith concludes that because
`
`other PBX systems used “9” to dial out to the PSTN, one of skill in the art would
`
`find that Chu ‘684 also requires a prefix digit to call the PSTN.
`
`There are two primary flaws with this conclusion. First, Dr. Mangione-Smith
`
`is not a person of ordinary skill in the relevant art. Here, the entire focus of the
`
`‘005 Patent is telephony technology. The written description, figures, claims, and
`
`nearly all cited art are all directed to setting up telephony communications in
`
`packet and circuit-switched (e.g., PSTN) networks.
`
`Recognizing this dynamic, Petitioner’s expert, Dr. Henry Houh, opines that
`
`the hypothetical person of ordinary skill in the art would need “(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
`
`
`
`19
`
`
`
`
`
`and circuit-switched telecommunication systems.” Ex. 1009, Houh Decl. at ¶ 19.
`
`In stark contrast, Dr. Mangione-Smith opines that one of ordinary skill in the
`
`art would have “an undergraduate degree in either Computer Science, Computer
`
`Engin