UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`____________
`
`APPLE INC.
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`UNILOC LUXEMBOURG S.A.
`Patent Owner
`
`____________
`
`Case No. IPR2018-00884
`Patent No. 8,539,552
`____________
`
`DECLARATION OF DR. AVIEL RUBIN
`
`IPR2018-00884
`Apple Inc. EX1003 Page 1
`
`
`
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`____________
`
`APPLE INC.
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`UNILOC LUXEMBOURG S.A.
`Patent Owner
`
`____________
`
`Case No. IPR2018-00884
`Patent No. 8,539,552
`____________
`
`DECLARATION OF DR. AVIEL RUBIN
`
`IPR2018-00884
`Apple Inc. EX1003 Page 1
`
`
`
`I, Aviel Rubin, Ph. D., hereby declare the following:
`I.
`INTRODUCTION
`I, Aviel Rubin, Ph.D., have been retained by counsel for Petitioners as
`1.
`
`a technical expert in the above-captioned case. Specifically, I have been asked to
`
`render certain opinions in regards to the IPR petition with respect to U.S. Patent
`
`No. 8,539,552 (“the ’552 patent”). I understand that the Challenged Claims are
`
`claims 1-25. My opinions are limited to those Challenged Claims.
`
`2. My compensation in this matter is not based on the substance of my
`
`opinions or the outcome of this matter. I have no financial interest in Petitioners. I
`
`am being compensated at an hourly rate of $750 for my analysis and testimony in
`
`this case.
`
`3.
`
`In reaching my opinions in this matter, I have reviewed the following
`
`materials:
`
`• EX1001 – U.S. Patent No. 8,539,552 to Grabelsky et al. (“the ’552
`patent”);
`• EX1002 – File History of App. No. 10/671,375 (“’552 file history”);
`• EX1004 – U.S. Patent No. 6,324,279 to Kalmanek et al. (“Kalmanek”)
`• EX1005 – U.S. Patent No. 7,023,839 to Shaffer (“Shaffer”)
`• EX1006 – U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2001/0026548 to
`Strathmeyer et al. (“Strathmeyer”)
`• EX1007 – U.S. Patent No. 7,412,598 to Gleichauf (“Gleichauf”)
`• EX1008 – International Telecommunication Union, General Aspects of
`Digital Transmission Systems, Terminal Equipments, Pulse Code
`Modulation (PCM) of Voice Frequencies, ITU-T Recommendation
`G.711 (ITU 1993)
`• EX1009 – SIP: Session Initiation Protocol, RFC 2543 (IESG 1999)
`
`1
`
`IPR2018-00884
`Apple Inc. EX1003 Page 2
`
`
`
`A.
`
`4.
`
`Background and Qualifications
`
`I am currently employed as Professor of Computer Science at Johns
`
`Hopkins University, where I perform research, teach graduate courses in computer
`
`science and related subjects, and supervise the research of Ph. D. candidates and
`
`other students. Courses I have taught include Security and Privacy in Computing
`
`and Advanced Topics in Computer Security. I am also the Technical Director of
`
`the Johns Hopkins University Information Security Institute, the University’s focal
`
`point for research and education in information security, assurance, and privacy.
`
`The University, through the Information Security Institute’s leadership, has been
`
`designated as a Center of Academic Excellence in Information Assurance by the
`
`National Security Agency and leading experts in the field. The focus of my work
`
`over my career has been computer security, and my current research concentrates
`
`on systems and networking security, with special attention to software and network
`
`security.
`
`5.
`
`I received my Ph.D. in Computer Science and Engineering from the
`
`University of Michigan, Ann Arbor in 1994, with a specialty in computer security
`
`and cryptographic protocols. My thesis was titled “Nonmonotonic Cryptographic
`
`Protocols” and concerned authentication in long-running jobs in a networked
`
`environment.
`
`2
`
`IPR2018-00884
`Apple Inc. EX1003 Page 3
`
`
`
`6.
`
`After receiving my Ph.D., I began working at Bellcore in its
`
`Cryptography and Network Security Research Group from 1994 to 1996. During
`
`this period I focused my work on Internet and Computer Security. While at
`
`Bellcore, I published an article titled “Blocking Java Applets at the Firewall” about
`
`the security challenges of dealing with Java applets and firewalls, and a system that
`
`we built to overcome those challenges.
`
`7.
`
`In 1997, I move to AT&T Labs, Secure Systems Research Department,
`
`where I continued to focus on network technologies in the context of Internet,
`
`telephony, and computer security. From 1995 through 1999, in addition to my
`
`work in industry, I served as adjunct professor at New York University, where I
`
`taught undergraduate classes on computer, network, and Internet security issues.
`
`8.
`
`I stayed at my position at AT&T until 2003, when I left to accept a
`
`full-time academic position at Johns Hopkins University. The University promoted
`
`me to full professor with tenure in April, 2004.
`
`9.
`
`I serve, or have served, on a number of technical and editorial advisory
`
`boards. For example, I served on the Editorial and Advisory Board for the
`
`International Journal of Information and Computer Security. I also served on the
`
`Editorial Board for the Journal of Privacy Technology. I have been Associate
`
`Editor of IEEE Security and Privacy magazine, and served as Associate Editor of
`
`ACM Transactions on Internet Technology. I am currently an Associate Editor of
`
`3
`
`IPR2018-00884
`Apple Inc. EX1003 Page 4
`
`
`
`
`
`the journal Communications of the ACM. I was an Advisory Board Member of
`
`Springer’s Information Security and Cryptography Book Series. I have served in
`
`the past as a member of the DARPA Information Science and Technology Study
`
`Group, a member of the Government Infosec Science and Technology Study
`
`Group of Malicious Code, a member of the AT&T Intellectual Property Review
`
`Team, Associate Editor of Electronic Commerce Research Journal, Co-editor of
`
`the Electronic Newsletter of the IEEE Technical Committee on Security and
`
`Privacy, a member of the board of directors of the USENIX Association, the
`
`leading academic computing systems society, and a member of the editorial board
`
`of the Bellcore Security Update Newsletter.
`
`10.
`
`I have spoken on network and information security and related issues
`
`at more than 50 seminars and symposia. I was founder and President of
`
`Independent Security Evaluators (ISE), a computer security consulting firm, from
`
`2005 to 2011. In that capacity, I guided ISE through the qualification as an
`
`independent testing lab for Consumer Union, which produces Consumer Reports
`
`magazine. As an independent testing lab for Consumer Union, I managed an
`
`annual project where we tested all of the popular anti-virus products. Our results
`
`were published in Consumer Reports each year for three consecutive years. I am
`
`currently the founder and managing partner of Harbor Labs, a software and
`
`networking consulting firm.
`
`
`
`4
`
`IPR2018-00884
`Apple Inc. EX1003 Page 5
`
`
`
`11.
`
`I am a named inventor on eleven granted U.S. patents, all in the field
`
`of communication systems. The patent numbers and titles as well as my co-
`
`inventors are listed on my curriculum vitae. EX1010.
`
`12. My attached curriculum vitae also includes a list of all publications I
`
`have authored within the last ten years.
`
`13.
`
`In summary, I have over 23 years of experience related to networking
`
`and communication systems.
`
`II.
`
`LEGAL FRAMEWORK
`14.
`I am a technical expert and do not offer any legal opinions. However, I
`
`have been informed that when construing unexpired claim terms, a claim subject to
`
`inter partes review receives the “broadest reasonable construction in light of the
`
`specification of the patent in which it appears.”
`
`15.
`
`I have also been informed that the implicit or inherent disclosures of a
`
`prior art reference may anticipate the claimed invention. Specifically, if a person
`
`having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention would have known that
`
`the claimed subject matter is necessarily present in a prior art reference, then the
`
`prior art reference may “anticipate” the claim. Therefore, a claim is “anticipated”
`
`by the prior art if each and every limitation of the claim is found, either expressly
`
`or inherently, in a single item of prior art.
`
`5
`
`IPR2018-00884
`Apple Inc. EX1003 Page 6
`
`
`
`
`
`16. Counsel has also informed me that a person cannot obtain a patent on
`
`an invention if his or her invention would have been obvious to a person of
`
`ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made. A conclusion of
`
`obviousness may be founded upon more than a single item of prior art. In
`
`determining whether prior art references render a claim obvious, counsel has
`
`informed me that courts consider the following factors: (1) the scope and content
`
`of the prior art, (2) the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue, (3)
`
`the level of skill in the pertinent art, and (4) secondary considerations of non-
`
`obviousness. In addition, the obviousness inquiry should not be done in hindsight.
`
`Instead, the obviousness inquiry should be done through the eyes of one of skill in
`
`the relevant art at the time the patent was filed.
`
`17.
`
`In considering whether certain prior art renders a particular patent
`
`claim obvious, counsel has informed me that courts allow a technical expert to
`
`consider the scope and content of the prior art, including the fact that one of skill in
`
`the art would regularly look to the disclosures in patents, trade publications,
`
`journal articles, industry standards, product literature and documentation, texts
`
`describing competitive technologies, requests for comment published by standard
`
`setting organizations, and materials from industry conferences. I believe that all of
`
`the references that my opinions in this IPR are based upon are well within the
`
`
`
`6
`
`IPR2018-00884
`Apple Inc. EX1003 Page 7
`
`
`
`
`
`range of references a person of ordinary skill in the art would consult to address the
`
`type of problems described in the Challenged Claims.
`
`18.
`
`I have been informed that the United States Supreme Court’s most
`
`recent statement on the standard for determining whether a patent is obvious was
`
`stated in 2007 in the KSR decision. Specifically, I understand that the existence of
`
`an explicit teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine known elements of the
`
`prior art is a sufficient, but not a necessary, condition to a finding of obviousness.
`
`Thus, the teaching suggestion-motivation test is not to be applied rigidly in an
`
`obviousness analysis. In determining whether the subject matter of a patent claim
`
`is obvious, neither the particular motivation nor the avowed purpose of the
`
`patentee controls. Instead, the important consideration is the objective reach of the
`
`claim. In other words, if the claim extends to what is obvious, then the claim is
`
`invalid. I further understand
`
`the obviousness analysis often necessitates
`
`consideration of the interrelated teachings of multiple patents, the effects of
`
`demands known to the technological community or present in the marketplace, and
`
`the background knowledge possessed by a person having ordinary skill in the art.
`
`All of these issues may be considered to determine whether there was an apparent
`
`reason to combine the known elements in the fashion claimed by the patent.
`
`19.
`
`I have also been informed that in conducting an obviousness analysis, a
`
`precise teaching directed to the specific subject matter of the challenged claim
`
`
`
`7
`
`IPR2018-00884
`Apple Inc. EX1003 Page 8
`
`
`
`need not be sought out because it is appropriate to take account of the inferences
`
`and creative steps that a person of ordinary skill in the art would employ. I
`
`understand that the prior art considered can be directed to any need or problem
`
`known in the field of endeavor at the time of invention and can provide a reason
`
`for combining the elements of the prior art in the manner claimed. In other words,
`
`the prior art need not be directed towards solving the same specific problem as the
`
`problem addressed by the patent. Further, the individual prior art references
`
`themselves need not all be directed towards solving the same problem. Under the
`
`KSR obviousness standard, common sense is important and should be considered.
`
`Common sense teaches that familiar items may have obvious uses beyond their
`
`primary purposes.
`
`20.
`
`I have been informed that the fact that a particular combination of prior
`
`art elements was “obvious to try” may indicate that the combination was obvious
`
`even if no one attempted the combination. If the combination was obvious to try
`
`(regardless of whether it was actually tried) or leads to anticipated success, then it
`
`is likely the result of ordinary skill and common sense rather than innovation. I
`
`further understand that in many fields it may be that there is little discussion of
`
`obvious techniques or combinations, and it often may be the case that market
`
`demand, rather than scientific literature or knowledge, will drive the design of an
`
`8
`
`IPR2018-00884
`Apple Inc. EX1003 Page 9
`
`
`
`
`
`invention. I understand that an invention that is a combination of prior art must do
`
`more than yield predictable results to be non-obvious.
`
`21.
`
`I have also been informed that for a patent claim to be obvious, the
`
`claim must be obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the
`
`invention. I understand that the factors to consider in determining the level of
`
`ordinary skill in the art include (1) the educational level and experience of people
`
`working in the field at the time the invention was made, (2) the types of problems
`
`faced in the art and the solutions found to those problems, and (3) the
`
`sophistication of the technology in the field.
`
`22.
`
`I have been informed that at least the following rationales may support
`
`a finding of obviousness:
`
`•
`
`•
`
`•
`
`•
`
`•
`
`•
`
`•
`
`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;
`“Obvious to try”—choosing from a finite number of identified,
`predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success;
`A predictable variation of work in the same or a different field of
`endeavor, which a person of ordinary skill would be able to
`implement;
`If, at the time of the alleged invention, there existed a known problem
`for which there was an obvious solution encompassed by the patent’s
`claim;
`
`
`
`9
`
`IPR2018-00884
`Apple Inc. EX1003 Page 10
`
`
`
`
`
`•
`
`•
`
`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 technological
`incentives or other market forces if the variations would have been
`predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art; and/or
`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.
`
`23.
`
`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.
`
`24.
`
` I have further been informed 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 based on prior art
`
`features. The establishment of a nexus is a question of fact. While I understand that
`
`
`
`10
`
`IPR2018-00884
`Apple Inc. EX1003 Page 11
`
`
`
`
`
`Patent Owner has not offered any secondary considerations at this time, I will
`
`supplement my opinions in the event that Patent Owner raises secondary
`
`considerations during the course of this proceeding.
`
`III. OPINION
`A. Background of the Technology
`
`25. The ’552 Patent, entitled “System and Method for Network Based
`
`Policy Enforcement of Intelligent-Client Features,” purports to disclose and claim
`
`a system and method for policy enforcement of services on a packet-based
`
`network. ’552 Patent at Abstract. In this section, I provide a brief background
`
`discussion on technologies pertinent to the ’552 Patent prior to September 2003.
`
`26. The Internet is the global packet-switched network based on a protocol
`
`suite known as Transmission Control Protocol/Internet Protocol (TCP/IP). In
`
`packet-switched networks, information is broken into pieces, known as packets,
`
`and each packet contains a destination address.
`
`27. Voice over IP (VoIP) is a family of standard technologies that allows
`
`IP networks to be used for voice communications. The basic approach is to first
`
`convert analog voice signals into digital signals by sampling the voice audio many
`
`times per second and bundling these discrete voice packets together, along with
`
`routing information in a header, to form a packet. The algorithm used to sample,
`
`encode, and decode voice information digitally is known as a “codec.” Codecs are
`
`
`
`11
`
`IPR2018-00884
`Apple Inc. EX1003 Page 12
`
`
`
`chosen during call setup to enable the IP phones on each end of the call to encode
`
`and decode the information representing the analog voice signals using a known
`
`standard. One such codec was standardized in 1972 by the International
`
`Telecommunications Union (ITU), which created the G.711 standard for coding
`
`voice audio titled “Pulse Code Modulation (PCM) of Voice Frequencies.” EX1008
`
`at 1. Not limited to VoIP systems, G.711 is the standard codec used for the Public
`
`Switched Telephone Network (“PSTN”), which utilizes digitized voice for all
`
`connections other than the analog connection to a user’s home. The G.711 standard
`
`requires sampling voice audio 8000 times per second to create 8-bit samples,
`
`resulting in a total bit-rate of 64,000 bits per second. Id. Further, each codec has a
`
`different inherent data rate based on the compression and coding algorithm. This
`
`means that selecting a particular codec will define the amount of bandwidth
`
`required to transmit a voice call.
`
`28.
`
`In order for devices on a packet-switched network to initiate and
`
`terminate communications with each, standards have been developed that define
`
`common languages that the endpoints and network devices use to communicate.
`
`Session Initiation Protocol (SIP) is one such signaling standard commonly used to
`
`setup and maintain VoIP sessions. It was well known in 2003 to use SIP and
`
`similar protocols to both establish VoIP sessions and to request and provision
`
`telephony services within those sessions, e.g., caller ID, call forwarding, etc.
`
`12
`
`IPR2018-00884
`Apple Inc. EX1003 Page 13
`
`
`
`29. H.323 is a related signaling protocol that can often be used
`
`interchangeably with the SIP protocol. The ’552 Patent confirms as much by
`
`stating that “[f]or example, the signaling and call control protocol could be H.323
`
`instead of, or in addition to, SIP.” Kalmanek at 9:52-54. A person of ordinary skill
`
`in the art would understand that H.323 and SIP are related signaling protocols that
`
`can be effectively interchanged in a signaling system.
`
`30. Therefore, by 2003, the field of IP telephony was well developed, and
`
`systems that filter signaling messages based on whether the sender or recipient
`
`device are authorized to invoke a particular service were well known.
`
`B.
`
`Level of a Person Having Ordinary Skill in the Art
`
`31.
`
`In determining the characteristics of a hypothetical person of ordinary
`
`skill in the art of the ’552 Patent at the time of the claimed invention, which
`
`counsel has informed me is September 25, 2003, I considered several factors,
`
`including the type of problems encountered in the art, the solutions to those
`
`problems, the rapidity with which innovations are made in the field, the
`
`sophistication of the technology, and the education level of active workers in the
`
`field. I also placed myself back in the time frame of the claimed invention and
`
`considered the colleagues with whom I had worked at that time.
`
`32.
`
`In my opinion, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have a
`
`bachelor of science degree in electrical engineering, computer science or computer
`
`13
`
`IPR2018-00884
`Apple Inc. EX1003 Page 14
`
`
`
`engineering or equivalent, and at least two years of industry or research experience
`
`with packet-based telecommunications systems. Additional industry experience or
`
`technical training could offset less formal education, which advanced degrees or
`
`additional formal education could offset lesser levels of industry experience.
`
`33. Based on my education, training, and professional experience in the
`
`field of the claimed invention, I am familiar with the level and abilities of a person
`
`of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the claimed invention. In my over 20 years
`
`active in the industry, I have developed products and performed research related to
`
`IP network
`
`telephony, content distribution over networks, and numerous
`
`technologies related to secure network transactions. I also teach the Computer
`
`Networks course in the Computer Science Department at Johns Hopkins
`
`University. Thus, I was at least a person having ordinary skill in the art as of the
`
`priority date of the ’552 Patent.
`
`C. Claim Construction
`
`34.
`
`I have been informed and understand that the first step in an
`
`unpatentability analysis involves construing the claims, as necessary, to determine
`
`their scope. And, second, the construed claim language is then compared to the
`
`disclosures of the prior art. In proceedings before the United States Patent and
`
`Trademark Office, I have been informed that the claims of an unexpired patent are
`
`to be given their broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification
`
`14
`
`IPR2018-00884
`Apple Inc. EX1003 Page 15
`
`
`
`from the perspective of a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the
`
`invention. And I have been informed that the ’552 Patent is unexpired. In
`
`comparing the claims of the ’552 Patent to the prior art, I have carefully considered
`
`the ’552 Patent and its prosecution history based upon my experience and
`
`knowledge in the relevant field. For purposes of this proceeding, I have applied the
`
`claim constructions set forth in the claim construction section of the IPR Petition
`
`that this declaration accompanies when analyzing the prior art and the claims. For
`
`those terms that have not expressly been construed, I have applied the meaning of
`
`the claim terms of the ’552 Patent that is generally consistent with the terms’
`
`ordinary and customary meaning in light of the ’552 Patent and its file history, as a
`
`person of ordinary skill in the art would have understood them at the time of the
`
`invention.
`
`35.
`
`In my opinion, the correct BRI construction for the term “intercepting”
`
`a signaling message by a network entity as used in the ’552 Patent means that
`
`network entity “receives” the message. In each of the ’552 Patent claims that
`
`includes this term, a “network entity” “intercepts” signaling between network
`
`endpoints. A POSITA would understand that this network entity is located between
`
`the source and destination of the message, and is simply receiving the message
`
`before it is passed along (modified or unmodified) toward its destination. It is well
`
`known in the art that network entities of the type described in the ’552 Patent
`
`15
`
`IPR2018-00884
`Apple Inc. EX1003 Page 16
`
`
`
`
`
`receive signaling messages during the call setup process. To be sure, the ’552
`
`Patent also uses the term “receiving” in the context of a network entity receiving
`
`signaling between endpoints. But nothing in the claims or intrinsic record suggests
`
`to a POSITA that “intercept” in the claims should be interpreted differently than
`
`“receive.” Thus, the BRI of “intercepting” in the context of the ’552 Patent claims
`
`is “receiving.”
`
`D. Summary of the Challenged Patent
`
`36. The ’552 Patent describes a packet-based telephony system that relies
`
`on policy enforcement points to control access to telephony services that may
`
`otherwise be delivered to unauthorized subscribers without the knowledge of the
`
`network. These policy enforcement points receive signaling messages intended to
`
`invoke enhanced services during a VoIP call, for example messages requesting
`
`caller ID or call waiting services. In response to such a request, the policy
`
`enforcement point, in conjunction with other network elements, references a user
`
`profile to confirm that the user is authorized to invoke the requested service.
`
`37. This basic framework of using a policy enforcement point to confirm
`
`requested services are authorized before they are invoked by the network was a
`
`method that was well-known before the priority date of the ’552 Patent.
`
`
`
`16
`
`IPR2018-00884
`Apple Inc. EX1003 Page 17
`
`
`
`
`
`E. The Prior Art
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,324,279 (“Kalmenek”)
`
`38. Kalmanek is a United States patent that was filed on August 4, 1999,
`
`and issued on November 27, 2001. (Kalmanek at cover page).
`
`39. Kalmanek is titled “Method for Exchanging Signaling Messages in
`
`Two Phases,” and discloses a communication system that authorizes intelligent
`
`end-terminals for enhanced services using edge routers that receive signaling
`
`messages and confirm subscriber authorization using an associated database before
`
`the enhanced services can be invoked. Kalmanek at 3:40-64. Edge routers in
`
`Kalamanek sit at the boundary of the network to protect against theft of services by
`
`only passing signaling messages that invoke services that are confirmed by an
`
`associated database and customer profile to be a service subscribed to by the user.
`
`Kalmanek at Fig. 1; 4:34-5:28.
`
`40. Kalmanek is analogous to the ’552 Patent because it relates to
`
`telephony devices operating on a packet-based network, and more specifically to
`
`providing custom calling services over a packet-based network. Kalmanek is
`
`directed to solving the same problem as the ’552 Patent, which is to prevent theft
`
`of services by VoIP devices on a packet-based network.
`
`
`
`17
`
`IPR2018-00884
`Apple Inc. EX1003 Page 18
`
`
`
`
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,023,839 to Shaffer et al. (“Shaffer”)
`
`41. Shaffer is a United States patent that was filed on August 19, 1999, and
`
`issued on April 4, 2006. (Shaffer at cover page).
`
`42. Shaffer is titled “System and Method for Dynamic Codec Alteration,”
`
`and discloses a bandwidth adjustment server (BWAS) that monitors bandwidth
`
`usage in a packet-based network and directs terminals to adjust their coding
`
`algorithms based on system bandwidth usage. Shaffer at 1:49-56. When the system
`
`bandwidth usage is high, a BWAS directs user terminals to use a coding algorithm
`
`that consumes less bandwidth, and when system usage is low, a BWAS allows user
`
`terminals to use higher bandwidth coding algorithms. Id. at 1:56-61.
`
`43. Shaffer is analogous art to the ’552 Patent because it relates to
`
`monitoring the bandwidth utilized by telephony devices in a packet-based network,
`
`and to specifying the codecs that must be used by telephony devices in such a
`
`network. This is the same field as the ’552 patent and is directed to one of the
`
`claimed features of the ’552 Patent—codec specification for telephony devices.
`
`U.S. Patent Publication No. 2001/0026548
`
`to Strathmeyer et al.
`
`(“Strathmeyer”)
`
`44. Strathmeyer is a United States patent application publication that was
`
`filed on March 13, 2001, and published on October 4, 2001. (Strathmeyer at cover
`
`page).
`
`
`
`18
`
`IPR2018-00884
`Apple Inc. EX1003 Page 19
`
`
`
`45. Strathmeyer is titled “Apparatus and Method for Computer Controlled
`
`Call Processing Applications in Packet Switched Telephone Networks,” and
`
`discloses a method of transmitting packetized messages over a network by way of
`
`a call control computer. Strathmeyer explains that its call control method can be
`
`implemented using any of the known signaling protocols, including SIP and H.323,
`
`because these protocols “describe equivalent modules which are responsible for
`
`call setup, and are thus functionally equivalent.” Strathmeyer at ¶0013.
`
`46. Strathmeyer is analogous art to the ’552 Patent because it relates to
`
`telephony devices operating on a packet-based network, and more specifically to
`
`call controllers (i.e., “gatekeepers”) that enable telephony services to be requested
`
`and provided to a user.
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,412,598 to Gleichauf (“Gleichauf”)
`
`47. Gleichauf is a United States patent that was filed on December 29,
`
`2000, and issued on August 12, 2008. (Gleichauf at cover page).
`
`48. Gleichauf is titled “Method and System for Real-Time Insertion of
`
`Service During a Call Session Over a Communication Network,” and discloses an
`
`apparatus and method for inserting services into a packet-based IP telephony call
`
`in real-time by way of sending a service request message (SRM) from a client to a
`
`server. Gleichauf at Abstract; Fig. 1. The server then determines if the client is
`
`19
`
`IPR2018-00884
`Apple Inc. EX1003 Page 20
`
`
`
`
`
`authorized for the requested service and, if so, instructs a second server to provide
`
`the requested service. Id.
`
`49.
`
`In my opinion, Gleichauf is analogous art to the ’552 Patent because it
`
`relates to telephony devices operating on a packet-based network, and more
`
`specifically to the real-time insertion of services such as caller ID during a call
`
`session in a packet-based network.
`
`F. Invalidity of the ’552 Patent
`
`50. Kalmanek describes “establishing the gates at the originating and
`
`terminating network edge devices[,]” which allow state information for a call to be
`
`maintained at a network entity through which a call is routed. Kalmanek at 9:62-
`
`66. These network edge devices (NEDs) containing gates “can be, for example,
`
`routers[,]” and NEDs may be implemented as “routers at the network edge,” which
`
`are commonly known as edge routers. Id. at 5:2-8. A POSITA would understand
`
`that an edge router is simply a router residing at the “edge” or boundary of a
`
`network and that provides an entry point into a service provider network. Thus, a
`
`POSITA would understand that the network entity through which a call is routed is
`
`the entity containing the gates, which in Kalmanek is an edge router for a particular
`
`domain.
`
`51. Kalmanek defines the term “network resources” to include “the
`
`facilities of a communications network required for a call and any auxiliary
`
`
`
`20
`
`IPR2018-00884
`Apple Inc. EX1003 Page 21
`
`
`
`
`
`services associated with that call.” Id. at 8:26-28. In my opinion, allocating
`
`network resources for a particular call in Kalmanek would necessarily include
`
`information relating to the auxiliary services associated with that call.
`
`52.
`
`In Kalmanek, a NED obtains authorization from a gate controller
`
`before providing access to enhanced quality of service on a call over the
`
`communications network. Id. at 5:13-22. Further, once a particular service is
`
`authorized by the gate controller, gate information is provided by the gate
`
`controller that allows the NED to implement the particular service. Id.
`
`53. A POSITA would understand that the authorization method disclosed
`
`in Kalmanek allows the NED and associated gate controllers to provide
`
`authorization for a desired bandwidth as well as custom calling features such as
`
`caller ID (discussed in detail below in ¶¶ 58-61). For example, Kalmanek discloses
`
`that its system allows a calling party to subscribe to a higher bandwidth for high
`
`data-rate transfers, and the system allows a service provider to verify the user has
`
`subscribed to the appropriate quality of service or bandwidth using the gate
`
`controllers. Id. at 9:5-21; 5:9-22. Further, Kalmanek describes the process of
`
`allocating a bandwidth using the GATESETUP message by way of a signaling
`
`message. Id. at 34:47-57. This signaling message includes a BANDWIDTH
`
`parameter (id. at 35:6-8), and a POSITA would understand this bandwidth
`
`corresponds to the bandwidth specified in the SETUP message from the BTI to the
`
`
`
`21
`
`IPR2018-00884
`Apple Inc. EX1003 Page 22
`
`
`
`gate controller, which specifies the codin
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
Still Working On It
This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.
Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.
A few More Minutes ... Still Working
It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.
Thank you for your continued patience.
This document could not be displayed.
We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
Set your membership
status to view this document.
With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll
get a whole lot more, including:
- Up-to-date information for this case.
- Email alerts whenever there is an update.
- Full text search for other cases.
- Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.
One Moment Please
The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.
Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.
Your document is on its way!
If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.
Sealed Document
We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.
If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.
Access Government Site
