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. 9,179,005
`____________
`
`
`
`
`
`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW
`OF U.S. PATENT NO. 9,179,005
`
`
`
`
`
`Voip-Pal Ex. 2015
`IPR2017-01398
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 9,179,005
`
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`I.
`
`II.
`
`INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................... 1
`
`SUMMARY OF THE ’005 PATENT ............................................................ 1
`
`A. Description of the Alleged Invention of the ’005 Patent ............................... 1
`
`B. Summary of the Prosecution History of the ’005 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) ...................................... 5
`
`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. Constructions pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 112, ¶ 6 ........................................ 6
`
`(a)
`
`“means for using” ............................................................................. 7
`
`(b) “means for . . . producing” ............................................................... 7
`
`(c)
`
`“means for causing” ......................................................................... 8
`
`D. Level of Skill of a Person Having Ordinary Skill in the Art .......................... 9
`
`IV. THERE IS A REASONABLE LIKELIHOOD THE CHALLENGED
`CLAIMS OF THE ’005 PATENT ARE UNPATENTABLE ........................ 9
`
`A. Chu ’684 in view of Chu ’366 renders the Challenged Claims Obvious
`Under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) ............................................................................. 10
`
`B. Chu ’684 in view of Chen renders the Challenged Claims Obvious Under 35
`U.S.C. § 103(a) ............................................................................................. 36
`
`
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 9,179,005
`
`V. MANDATORY NOTICES UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(A)(1) ..................... 60
`
`A. Real Party-In-Interest and Related Matters .................................................. 60
`
`B. Lead and Back-Up Counsel Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(3-4) ...................... 61
`
`C. Payment of Fees Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.103 ................................................. 62
`
`VI. CONCLUSION ............................................................................................ 62
`
`
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 9,179,005
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`Petitioner Apple Inc. (“Petitioner”) requests an Inter Partes Review (“IPR”)
`
`of claims 1, 24-26, 49-50, 73-79, 83-84, 88-89, 92, 94-96, 98, and 99 (collectively,
`
`the “Challenged Claims”) of U.S. Patent No. 9,179,005 (“the ’005 Patent”) issued
`
`on November 3, 2015 to Clay Perreault, et al. (“Applicants”). Exhibit 1001, ’005
`
`Patent. As demonstrated by Petitioner below, the purportedly distinguishing
`
`feature of the ’005 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 ’005 PATENT
`
`A. Description of the Alleged Invention of the ’005 Patent
`
`The ’005 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 1:59-61. 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 2:13-31. 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. 9,179,005
`
`determines whether the called party is a subscriber to a private network. Id. at
`
`2:51-53, 3:4-8. 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 1:64-67. 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 1:67-2:2.
`
`More specifically, the ’005 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
`
`1:20-2:2. To identify a single destination the calling party is attempting to reach,
`
`the ’005 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. 9,179,005
`
`B.
`
`Summary of the Prosecution History of the ’005 Patent
`
`The ’005 Patent issued from U.S. Patent Application No. 13/966,096 (“the
`
`’096 Application”), which is a continuation of 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.
`
`The presented claims in the ’096 Application were subject to a single Office
`
`Action rejecting them unpatentable pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over U.S. Patent
`
`No. 6,798,767 to Alexander et al. (“Alexander”), U.S. Patent No 5,917,899 to
`
`Moss at al. (“Moss”), U.S. Patent Application 2007/0217354 to Buckley
`
`(“Buckley”), U.S. Patent No. 6,597,783 to Tada et al. (“Tada”), and U.S. Patent
`
`No. 6,873,599 to Han (“Han”). Ex. 1003, Office Action dated April 9, 2015 at 909-
`
`17. Distinguishing Alexander from the rejected claims, the Applicants argued that
`
`Alexander does not use any information about the calling party to determine
`
`whether the called party is on a public or private network, but instead uses a simple
`
`mapping tables to convert dialed digits to an IP address of the target phone. Ex.
`
`1002, Office Action Response dated May 15, 2015 at 792-93 (“Alexander is
`
`completely silent as to performing any functions related to the caller or caller
`3
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 9,179,005
`
`dialing profile and only locates a callee telephone number.”) (emphasis in
`
`original). Applicant further argued that neither Moss, Buckley, Tada, nor Han
`
`cured the deficiencies of Alexander. Id. at 799-803. An interview was conducted
`
`with the Examiner on May 28, 2015 during which the Examiner agreed that
`
`“Alexander fails to teach claimed limitations of determingng (sic) if a calling
`
`attribute meets (matches) a portion of a callee's identifier, and producing a routing
`
`message accordingly.” Id., Interview Summary dated June 2, 2015 at 768. The
`
`Examiner issued a Notice of Allowance on August 13, 2015 and the Applicants
`
`submitted allegedly clerical amendments on September 8, 2015, which were
`
`initialed by the Examiner on September 15, 2015.
`
`C.
`
`The Earliest Possible Priority Date for the Challenged Claims
`
`The ’005 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 ’005 Patent is satisfied under §42.104.
`
`
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 9,179,005
`
`A. Grounds for Standing Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(a)
`
`Petitioner certifies that the ’005 Patent is available for IPR and that the
`
`Petitioner is not barred or estopped from requesting IPR challenging the claims of
`
`the ’005 Patent. Specifically, Petitioner states: (1) Petitioner is not the owner of the
`
`’005 Patent; (2) Petitioner has not filed a civil action challenging the validity of
`
`any claim of the ’005 Patent; and (3) this Petition is not filed one year or more after
`
`Petitioner was served with a complaint alleging infringement of the ’005 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, the Challenged Claims
`
`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 ’005 Patent
`
`The Challenged Claims 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”).
`The Challenged Claims 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
`5
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 9,179,005
`
`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
`
`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 ’005 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 ’005 Patent are indefinite or otherwise invalid.
`
`1.
`
`Constructions pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 112, ¶ 6
`
`Claims 50 and 73 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
`6
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 9,179,005
`
`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)
`
`“means for using”
`
`Claim 50 recites a “means for using a caller identifier associated with the
`
`caller to locate a caller dialing profile comprising a plurality of calling attributes
`
`associated with the caller.” At least under the broadest reasonable interpretation,
`
`the corresponding structure that performs this recited function is RC processor
`
`circuit 200 programmed to implement the algorithm illustrated in cell 254 of Fig.
`
`8A. Id. at 19:38-45, FIGS. 7, 8A.
`
`(b)
`
`“means for . . . producing”
`
`Claim 50 recites “means for, when at least one of said calling attributes and
`
`at least a portion of a callee identifier associated with the callee meet private
`
`network classification criteria, 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” and “means for, when
`
`at least one of said calling attributes and at least a portion of said callee identifier
`
`meet a public network classification criterion, producing a public network routing
`
`message for receipt by the call controller, said public network routing message
`
`identifying a gateway to the public network.” At least under the broadest
`7
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 9,179,005
`
`reasonable interpretation, the corresponding structure that performs the recited
`
`functions is processor 202 programmed to implement one or more branches of the
`
`algorithm illustrated in Fig. 8B. Id. at 19:58-20:35, FIGS. 7 and 8B. Additionally,
`
`Figs. 8A, 8C and 8D detail, among other functions, algorithms which produce
`
`network routing messages. However, because Fig. 8D and the corresponding
`
`description do not illustrate the basic process of generating the claimed message,
`
`Petitioner identifies the claimed function as the disclosed 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 20:37-58, 24:55-25:12, 26:49-57, FIGS. 7, 8A, 8C, 8D, 16,
`
`25, 32.
`
`(c)
`
`“means for causing”
`
`Claim 73 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
`8
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 9,179,005
`
`processor circuit 200, programmed to perform the algorithms illustrated in cell 381
`
`of FIG. 8A, cell 646 of FIG. 8C, or cell 568 of FIG. 8D. Id. at 20:37-58, 24:55-
`
`25:12, 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 ’005 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. 1009, Houh Declaration, at ¶ 19.
`
`IV. THERE IS A REASONABLE LIKELIHOOD THE CHALLENGED
`CLAIMS OF THE ’005 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.
`
`
`
`
`
`9
`
`
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 9,179,005
`
`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 ’005 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 ’005 Patent under 35 U.S.C.
`
`§ 102(e). Neither reference was cited during prosecution. See Exs. 1002-1005.
`
`The system disclosed in the specification of Chu ’684 is nearly identical in form
`
`and function to that described by the ’005 Patent. Both Chu ’684 and the ’005 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. 1006, Chu ’684 at 2:33-64 with Ex. 1001, ’005 Patent
`
`at 1:17-2:2. Additionally, both Chu ’684 and the ’005 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. 1006,
`
`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, ’005 Patent at Fig.
`
`
`
`
`
`10
`
`
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 9,179,005
`
`8B and 1:59-64 (“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
`
`’005 Patent describe routing a call directly to a callee on a private packet network or
`
`through a gateway when the called party is on the public PSTN. Compare Ex. 1006,
`
`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
`
`acts as an ‘egress packet switch’”) with Ex. 1001, ’005 Patent at 1:64-2:2 (“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
`11
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 9,179,005
`
`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 ’005
`
`Patent illustrates these scenarios:
`
`
`
`
`
`Modifying 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 ’005 Patent. Fig.
`
`6 from Chu ’366 illustrates the striking similarity between the prior art and Fig. 8B
`
`from the ’005 Patent:
`
`
`
`
`
`12
`
`
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 9,179,005
`
`
`
`As these figures illustrate, both Chu ’366 and the ’005 Patent check dialed digits for
`
`International Dialing Digits (IDD), National Dialing Digits (NDD), and a number of
`
`formatting rules. Additionally, both illustrate using calling party attributes such as
`
`country code and area code to reformat the dialed digits into a standard format such as
`
`E.164.
`
`
`
`
`
`13
`
`
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 9,179,005
`
`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. 1007, 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 ’005 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 calling party (e.g.,
`
`national and area codes).
`
`
`
`
`
`14
`
`
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 9,179,005
`
`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. 1006, 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. 1007, 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. 1006, 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. 1007, Chu ’366 at Fig. 6. Finally, both
`
`references expressly reference E.164 as an international standard dial plan. Compare
`
`Ex. 1006, 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. 1007, 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.”).
`
`
`
`
`
`15
`
`
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 9,179,005
`
`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. 1009,
`
`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. Id. 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.
`
`
`
`
`
`16
`
`
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 9,179,005
`
`Therefore, the Challenged Claims are unpatentable under §103(a) as obvious over
`
`Chu ’684 in view of Chu ’366, as shown in the charts below.
`
`US Patent
`9,179,005
`1. A process for
`producing a routing
`message for routing
`communications
`between a caller and
`a callee in a
`communication
`system, the process
`comprising:
`
`(a) using a caller
`identifier associated
`with the caller to
`locate a caller
`dialing profile
`comprising a
`plurality of calling
`attributes associated
`with the caller;
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Obvious over Chu ’684 (Ex. 1003)
`in view of Chu ’366 (Ex. 1004)
`Chu ’684 teaches producing a routing message for routing
`telephone calls (“communications”) between callers and callees
`in a telecommunications system.
`
`Chu ’684 describes “a novel method for establishing and
`managing voice call traffic in an VoIP IP virtual private
`network” including “determining one or more IP addresses to
`egress the communication from the originating point to the
`terminating point.” Ex. 1006, 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 using a subscriber’s identifying information
`(e.g., the subscriber’s E.164 telephone number) (“a caller
`identifier”) to access a dial plan that includes calling attributes
`of the subscriber.
`
`“The soft-switch is the intelligence of the system. It contains all
`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.
`
`
`17
`
`
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 9,179,005
`
`“[U]pon receipt of the SIP “invite” message from the server 110,
`the soft-switch 220 consults the dial plan for this subscriber. The
`dial plan to use can be determined from the ID of the server
`110.” Id. at 9:30-33.
`
`“Many subscribers, each with multiple locations, can be served
`by the same packet-switch/soft-switch network. Each subscriber
`can use their the [sic] own IP address plan as well as their own
`dial plan.” Id. at 12:60-66; see also id. at 3:56-64 (noting each
`IP phone can be assigned its own E.164 number and IP address);
`Ex. 1009, Houh Declaration at ¶ 45 (noting that because
`multiple subscribers can be associated with a single server, a
`subscriber’s dial plan, in addition to an ID of the server, must
`necessarily include unique subscriber-specific information such
`as an E.164 telephone number, globally unique database key, or
`the like).
`
`Additionally, Chu ’366 teaches that users may set up “call
`origin profiles”
`that
`include calling attributes such as
`geographic location, country code, and area code.
`
`Ex. 1007, Chu ’366 at 2:9-15 (describing call origin location
`profiles).
`As illustrated in Fig. 8B of the ’005 Patent, an initial match
`between the dialed digits (“callee identifier”) and calling
`attributes determines whether the dialed digits must be
`reformatted in order to identify the intended callee. Once
`reformatted (e.g., NDD removed and caller country code
`prepended), the reformatted callee identifier is used to
`determine whether the callee is a subscriber on the private
`network or is a customer on the public network, i.e., whether
`“public network classification criteria” or “private network
`classification criteria” are met. The combination of Chu ’684
`and Chu ’366 performs this precise process.
`
`Chu ’366 teaches reformatting dialed digits to generate an
`E.164 compliant callee identifier when dialed digits “match”
`18
`
`
`
`
`
`(b) when at least one
`of said calling
`attributes and at
`least a portion of a
`callee identifier
`associated with the
`callee meet private
`network
`classification
`criteria, producing a
`private network
`routing message for
`receipt by a call
`controller, said
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 9,179,005
`
`private network
`routing message
`identifying an
`address, on the
`private network,
`associated with the
`callee; and
`
`(c) when at least one
`of said calling
`attributes and at
`least a portion of
`said callee identifier
`meet a public
`network
`classification
`criterion, producing
`a public network
`routing message for
`receipt by the call
`controller, said
`public network
`routing message
`identifying a
`gateway to the
`public network.
`
`caller attributes, e.g., when the dialed digits equal the national
`dialing length of the caller’s origin designation.
`
`Id. at Abstract (dialed digits are reformatted “as E.164 compliant
`telephone numbers”).
`
`“[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. . . . The E.164
`formatting engine receives the entered phone number and
`retrieves the call origin location.” Id. at 1:67-2:20 (emphasis
`added); see also id. at 2:46-53.
`
`“In step 172, if the number of digits entered in a telephone
`number equals the national length of telephone numbers in the
`country of the call origin location (e.g., ten digits in the United
`States), the engine 102 interprets this as a call somewhere within
`the country of the designated call origin location. Accordingly,
`in step 174, the engine 102 concatenates the E.164 prefix, the
`country code for the country of the designated call origin
`location and the entered telephone number to form a fully
`formatted E.164 telephone number.” Id. at 2:14-22 (emphasis
`added).
`
`Compare Id. at Fig. 6 (illustrating numerous number
`reformatting scenarios based on matching dialed digits to caller
`attributes) with Ex. 1001, ’005 Patent at Fig. 8B (same).
`
`Once the callee identifier is reformatted, Chu ’684 determines
`whether the callee is a private packet network subscriber or a
`public PSTN customer (i.e., whether the call “meets public
`network
`classification
`criteria” or “private network
`class

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