`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`______________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`______________
`
`APPLE INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`UNILOC 2017 LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`______________
`
`Case IPR2018-00884
`Patent 8,539,552 B1
`______________
`
`Record of Oral Hearing
`Held: July 15, 2019
`______________
`
`
`
`Before SALLY C. MEDLEY, KARL D. EASTHOM, and
`SEAN P. O'HANLON, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2018-00884
`Patent 8,539,552 B1
`
`
`APPEARANCES:
`
`ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER:
`
`
`ADAM P. SEITZ, ESQ.
`PAUL R. HART, ESQ.
`Erise IP
`7015 College Boulevard, Suite 700
`Overland Park, Kansas 66211
`(913) 777-5600
`adam.seitz@eriseip.com
`paul.hart@eriseip.com
`
`
`
`ON BEHALF OF THE PATENT OWNER:
`
`
`BRETT MANGRUM, ESQ.
`Etheridge Law Group
`2600 E. Southlake Boulevard, Suite 130
`Southlake, Texas 76092
`469-401-2659
`brett@etheridgelaw.com
`
`
`
`
`The above-entitled matter came on for hearing on Monday, July 15,
`
`2019, commencing at 1:00 p.m. at the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office,
`600 Dulany Street, Alexandria, Virginia.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`
`Case IPR2018-00884
`Patent 8,539,552 B1
`
`
`P R O C E E D I N G S
`- - - - -
`
`
`
`1:02 p.m.
`JUDGE O'HANLON: Please be seated. Good afternoon, everyone.
`This is a hearing in Case Number 2018-00884, Apple, Inc. versus Uniloc
`2017, LLC, formerly Uniloc Luxembourg SA.
`I'd like to begin by having counsel for the parties introduce their
`selves. Beginning with the Petitioner, please?
`MR. SEITZ: Good afternoon, Your Honors. Adam Seitz for
`Petitioner Apple. With me is my partner, Paul Hart. And then behind me is
`Ben Huh from Apple, in house counsel.
`JUDGE O'HANLON: Thank you. And Patent Owner?
`MR. MANGRUM: Good afternoon, Your Honors. Brett Mangrum.
`I'm with the Etheridge Law Group. I'll be representing the Uniloc entities
`today.
`
`JUDGE O'HANLON: Thank you. I'm Judge O'Hanlon. I'm joined
`on my right by Judge Medley. On my left I have Judge Easthom.
`Per our order dated June 11, each side will have 45 minutes to argue.
`Petitioner will go first. Patent Owner will go second. Either side can
`reserve time for rebuttal.
`If you run over during your argument in chief, I will reset the clock
`with your reserve time. I will endeavor to let you know when that happens,
`but please be mindful of the clock and the lamps.
`
`3
`
`
`
`Case IPR2018-00884
`Patent 8,539,552 B1
`
`
`As usual, speaking objections are not allowed. If you have anything
`to note, you can do so during your time to argue. And I'll also ask counsel
`who are referencing demonstratives to please note the slide number for the
`record.
`
`And with that I'll ask Mr. Seitz to begin. Would you like to reserve
`any time for rebuttal?
`MR. SEITZ: I'd like to reserve 15 minutes, please, Your Honor.
`JUDGE O'HANLON: Fifteen minutes.
`MR. SEITZ: And as a matter of housekeeping, I have paper copies
`of the demonstratives. So, I know most people prefer electronic these days.
`But if any of Your Honors prefer paper, I certainly have them available.
`JUDGE O'HANLON: I think we're set with our electronic copies.
`MR. SEITZ: Very good.
`JUDGE O'HANLON: So you said 15 minutes. So I'll set the clock
`for 30. Please begin.
`MR. SEITZ: Thank you, Your Honors. May it please the Court.
`I'd like to start today referring to demonstrative two, with an
`understanding of the purpose of the ’552, the solution it was trying to solve.
`And then compare that to the primary reference that we'll be discussing
`today, which is the Kalmanek reference.
`During the course of the briefing there was some discussion on
`whether these two references are even solving the same problem or
`addressing the same issue. And I want to start there to set our discussion for
`the rest of the day.
`
`4
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`
`Case IPR2018-00884
`Patent 8,539,552 B1
`
`
`So the ’552 patent teaches a centralized service authentication that is
`designed to prevent theft by intelligent end points. So the intelligent end
`points in the ’552 patent are what we would look at today as IP phones.
`They are smarter phones that have much more processing capability.
`That can handle the call set up and much of the signaling that traditionally
`would have been taking place on a network by a service provider.
`These phones, however, have that processing capability. Could set
`up phone calls amongst themselves, and in doing so, would cut out the
`service provider and the revenue they would have made from otherwise
`allowing certain services, call waiting, caller ID, those types of traditional
`services.
`So the invention of the ’552 was directed at using a central service
`authentication that would intercept signals from these intelligent end points.
`And then authorize the services.
`I'm going to jump forward to demonstrative four. Which is Figure 1
`of the ’552 patent. It provides the basic network architecture for how this is
`accomplished in the ’552 system.
`Here, depicted in blue, are two intelligent end points, two user
`phones. They are communicating with each other through the core packet
`network.
`You access the core packet network through the border elements,
`which are depicted in green. And then in the yellow box, at the top of EX-4
`are the components in the system that are responsible for intercepting the
`
`5
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`
`Case IPR2018-00884
`Patent 8,539,552 B1
`
`signaling, and then authorizing and filtering the services that would or would
`not be available to those particular users.
`Kalmanek is directed at the same issue. Kalmanek also teaches a
`centralized service authentication that's directed at preventing theft by
`intelligent inputs.
`On DX-3 we can see a quote from Kalmanek at column three that
`talks about allowing the intelligent end points to participate in the supporting
`features of the provided services. Again, the same idea of smart end points
`that are able to set up and arrange calls themselves.
`And as Kalmanek goes on, it says, embodiments of the present
`invention protects against theft of service. It does this with a network
`architecture, jumping forward to slide five, that's very similar to the ’552
`patent.
`
`As you can see here, I've used the same color boxes to help guide the
`discussion. It has the smart, or the intelligent end points depicted in blue,
`telephones 190 and 191. They communicate with each other through the
`communications network in the center of the figure. Which is figure 1 from
`Kalmanek.
`They access that through the network edge devices. And then the
`gate controller with its databases that are depicted in the yellow box,
`intercept the signaling messages and perform the authentication and the
`filtering for determining whether that user is authorized to provide those
`services.
`
`6
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`
`Case IPR2018-00884
`Patent 8,539,552 B1
`
`
`Now there's three primary disputes that I'm going to walk through
`today. Here we're going to be talking about looking at claim one on slide six
`of the ’552 patent.
`We have a dispute relating to the term intercepting. It's a question of
`whether there's a network entity in Kalmanek that intercepts a signaling
`message.
`The dispute that I've referred to here is indicating services. That
`signaling message that is sent, must indicate the services for which the caller
`wants to use, such as call waiting or caller ID that are called out later in the
`claim.
`
`And then there's a filtering that takes place. Which is the final
`limitation. And the question on the filtering is one of after you've
`determined whether the user is authorized to provide services, of either
`allowing those services, or potentially modifying the message, the signaling
`message if the user is not authorized for those.
`And I want to start here before we get into intercepting with just a
`basic flow structure of how a call would take place in the ’552 patent. We
`have a sender device, which I'll refer to as the caller. And we have an
`intended recipient device, which is the callee's device.
`The caller, the sender device is going to initiate a phone call. At
`which point a signaling message is going to be generated. The network
`entity in claim one is going to intercept that signaling message. And it's
`going to look at the services that are then requested as part of that message.
`
`7
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`
`Case IPR2018-00884
`Patent 8,539,552 B1
`
`Those will indicate according to the claim, things such as caller ID, call
`waiting, multi-wait calling, and other services.
`That network entity, the same one that did the intercepting, is then
`going to make a determination of looking at user profiles, to see is that user
`authorized, have they paid for that particular service.
`And then the final step is a filtering that takes place. So that
`signaling message, that set message to say, okay, if you are authorized, I'm
`going to allow the message to go through. Or potentially have modifications
`to that message.
`But I start here, because the question of intercepting is not one of
`what intercepts in a vacuum. The network entity that intercepts must also be
`performing these determining and these filtering steps.
`Moving to slide seven, I want to start with intercepting. We have
`proposed a construction of intercepting that's receiving by a network entity
`located between the end points of the call.
`So as we're going to get into in the next few slides, we are saying
`intercepting is receiving. But there's a specific where that's taking place here
`as well under our claim construction. And that is between the end points of
`the call. Between the sender device and the intended recipient device, which
`is the caller device and the callee device.
`Now Patent Owner has not provided a formal construction of
`intercepting. Their arguments suggest that intercepting can occur only if the
`sending device does not intend the signal to be intercepted.
`
`8
`
`
`
`Case IPR2018-00884
`Patent 8,539,552 B1
`
`
`In their sur-reply they stated it by saying the intercepting occurs in a
`manner transparent to the end user client. To the -- what I believe they're
`arguing here is that transparency.
`Uniloc would be arguing that as the call perceives the caller device,
`the sender device doesn't specifically send any messages to the networking
`entity. Or it doesn't intend for the networking entity to receive the signaling
`message.
`So let's take a look at specifically what we have from the ’552 patent
`here. On slide eight, there are only three instances of intercept that are used
`in the ’552 patent. And as we'll see, none of them demand this idea of a
`transparency that Uniloc is proposing here. Everywhere that the term
`intercepting is used in the ’552 patent it's synonymous with received. And
`then we also see that where the term intercept is used in the ’552 patent that
`there's a specific location. Which is between the end points of the call, the
`sender device and the intended recipient.
`So, if we look at the two specific examples here, which include our
`three citations of intercepting, we see on slide eight, the first citation comes
`from column three of the ’552 patent.
`The signaling and call control server intercepts call set up messages
`between the end user client. So this tells us the where. It's an intercepting
`that's occurring between the end user clients, the caller device and the callee
`device.
`We see in the second citation on slide eight, a reference from column
`eight of the ’552 patent, that talks about how signaling and call control
`9
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`
`
`
`Case IPR2018-00884
`Patent 8,539,552 B1
`
`messages are received or intercepted by the policy enforcement point, which
`maybe a border element between a local network and the core network.
`So here we also see again the concept of between the end points.
`And importantly, we see here the concept of receiving and intercepting
`being used synonymously.
`What is never done here is this concept. And what's never discussed
`in the ’552 patent is this concept of transparency that Uniloc is proposing. It
`is never discussed or mentioned in any of the examples in which intercept is
`used.
`
`Well, there's two main mischaracterizations that Uniloc has made
`with regard to intercepting. First, they suggest that we are saying that
`intercepting is merely receiving a message.
`Second, and I'm reading from slide nine, they say that we have
`construed intercepting as merely routing. They're very similar. And I want
`to address both of those here.
`The first argument is that intercepting is merely receiving. We are
`not suggesting that intercepting means merely receiving. Our construction
`and our position have been that there is a specific location at which that
`intercepting needs to take place.
`Yes, the ’552 patent does require intercepting to be receiving. But
`it's specific about what and where it is doing that receiving.
`And so, as we can see here, and going back, namely the where and
`what is an intermediary device between the end points of the call. So, we've
`created this graphic. It was in our -- it was in our briefing.
`10
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`
`
`
`Case IPR2018-00884
`Patent 8,539,552 B1
`
`
`Our point here is that intercepting and receiving can be done by a
`network entity that's between the end points. But receiving can only be done
`by the ultimate intended recipient, the destination of that call. So here the
`intermediate devices can receive and intercept. But the intended recipient
`can only receive.
`JUDGE EASTHOM: Doesn't the interceptor in the claim also
`perform the policy enforcement?
`MR. SEITZ: Yes. That is correct. That same network entity
`intercepts. That same network entity makes a determination. And that same
`network entity filters.
`JUDGE EASTHOM: And you contend Kalmanek does that too, is
`that right?
`MR. SEITZ: I'm sorry, one more time with that?
`JUDGE EASTHOM: You contend that prior -- is it Kalmanek? Is
`
`that?
`
`MR. SEITZ: Kalmanek, yes.
`JUDGE EASTHOM: You contend Kalmanek's controllers are gate
`controllers, is that right?
`MR. SEITZ: Correct.
`JUDGE EASTHOM: Okay.
`MR. SEITZ: So part of the confusion here relating to intercepting
`relates to the intended recipient. We believe the ’552 patent is clear that the
`intended recipient is the end caller device. I'm sorry, end callee device. It's
`the intended recipient of the phone call.
`11
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`
`Case IPR2018-00884
`Patent 8,539,552 B1
`
`
`Patent Owner's construction or arguments have seemed to rewrite
`intended recipient to target the recipients, each recipient in the network of
`the setup message. So that each of the intermediate devices that a set up
`message would hit whether they're proxy servers or edge controllers or
`routers, would be an intended recipient.
`And that is not the manner in which intended recipient is used in the
`’552 patent. In every instance of the ’552 patent, the intended recipient is
`the end point of the call, the callee and their device.
`So looking --
`JUDGE O'HANLON: Can you switch back to slide 10 for a mom --
`or, I'm sorry, slide 11 for a moment, please.
`MR. SEITZ: Yes.
`JUDGE O'HANLON: I believe Patent Owner's argument is that
`each of those different colored arrows represent different set up messages.
`In other words, a first set up message is sent from a caller to the intermediate
`device. And then a separate set up message is then sent to the next device
`on the line. How would you respond to that contention?
`MR. SEITZ: So, there are set up messages. If we're talking about
`Kalmanek in specific, there are set up messages that are sent from the
`originating telephone to the gate controllers.
`From the gate controller, the originating gate controller to the
`terminating gate controller. And then from the terminating gate controller to
`the terminating telephone.
`
`12
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`
`Case IPR2018-00884
`Patent 8,539,552 B1
`
`
`Those are the same message. And I'll get into that to show you later.
`But the ultimate intended recipient in Kalmanek is still the end user's phone.
`And we see that from the messages that are sent in Kalmanek. Where the
`intended recipient is the end of the line. Who I'm trying to call.
`It's very clear from the set up messages in Kalmanek when it
`identifies the intended user. And I don't have the set up message here. But
`it identifies the intended user by their phone number, or by their address
`where they can be reached.
`So, you can't rewrite intended recipient to make it each one of the
`intermediate devices, because the ’552 patent is clear that the intended
`recipient is the actual end user.
`JUDGE O'HANLON: Is it your position that the same set up
`message is forwarded from the caller through the intermediate devices to the
`callee?
`
`MR. SEITZ: Yes.
`JUDGE O'HANLON: Okay.
`MR. SEITZ: So if I look at slide 12, we can see here how the
`intended recipient is used in the ’552 patent. And just briefly we see on
`slide 12, a reference from column eight, the intended recipient is an
`authorized subscriber.
`The intended recipient has a user profile. And then in the second
`reference at column 15 of the ’552 patent, we see the feature or services to
`be delivered to both sender and intended recipient of the message.
`
`13
`
`
`
`Case IPR2018-00884
`Patent 8,539,552 B1
`
`
`So, what we see from the ’552 patent in every instance in which it’s
`talking about the intended recipient, is that it's the end person that you're
`trying to communicate with. That intended recipient, the callee's device. It
`is not each intermediate stop along the way.
`So, transitioning from intercepting does not mean receiving. I want
`to briefly touch the second argument of intercepting is more than routing.
`As we understand Uniloc's argument, they're arguing that the
`claimed network entity that does the intercepting must do more than just
`route the message along. And we would agree. And that is what Kalmanek
`does here. I have displayed on slide 13, Figure 3 from Kalmanek, an excerpt
`of Figure 3 from Kalmanek, as well as a portion of the specification from
`column 48.
`And what we see from Figure 3 is a flow of the message. And then
`what we see from the column 48 is it tells us the processing of the message.
`So in Kalmanek, as we've already discussed, the initiating telephone
`collects the dialed digits. It forwards a set up message to the, what they refer
`to as GCo, gate controller originating.
`The GCo then sends a set up message to the GCt, which, Your
`Honor, is the same message in Kalmanek. It is the same message, the same
`information that's going through. And then the GCt, the gate controller
`terminating, forwards that message to the terminating telephone. So that
`tells us the basic flow of the messaging, the signaling in Kalmanek.
`The portion from 48 tells us that these gate controllers are doing far
`more than just forwarding something along. They tell us that the gate
`14
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`
`
`
`Case IPR2018-00884
`Patent 8,539,552 B1
`
`controllers, the originating gate controllers authenticate the telephone upon
`receipt of a set up message.
`And then, importantly, they tell us that they perform service specific
`emission control, which Kalmanek goes on to describe as the authorization
`of whether the services that the user is requesting are authorized. Are
`allowed under their contract with their service provider. Can we provide the
`call waiting, or the call blocking, or a specific codec for a bandwidth that the
`user is collecting?
`That authorization, that determination and filtering is done by the
`gate controllers in Kalmanek. So they're doing far more than just routing.
`Finally, I want to briefly address Dr. Easttom. Dr. Easttom was
`Uniloc's expert in this case. We would ask the Board to disregard any of his
`testimony. They're only relying at this point on paragraphs eight and nine of
`his declaration. As a brief sort of step back, we had originally requested his
`deposition in February of this year.
`Uniloc agreed with us that it would be easier to strike his declaration
`given the limited portion that they'd relied on. And we jointly approached
`the Board with that request to strike. The Board denied that request because
`the discovery period was still open. And invited the parties to raise it again
`if there was an issue.
`I'm doing so, just briefly, Your Honors. We were never provided an
`opportunity to depose him, despite repeated requests.
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`
`15
`
`
`
`Case IPR2018-00884
`Patent 8,539,552 B1
`
`
`We were not told that we could depose him until less than 24 hours
`the day before in a different location. When we declined that, because it was
`such short notice, we were told he was no longer available.
`So, I would ask Your Honors to disregard any sort of testimony or
`reliance from Dr. Easttom here.
`JUDGE O'HANLON: Mr. Seitz, are either you or your co-counsel
`located in Dallas?
`MR. SEITZ: No, Your Honor. I'm located in Kansas City. My co-
`counsel, Mr. Hart, is located in Denver.
`JUDGE O'HANLON: Thank you.
`MR. SEITZ: Moving onto the next limitation, which are the
`indicating services. I've highlighted in blue on slide 15 that the signaling
`message includes an indication of one type of a plurality of services which
`the signaling message is intended to invoke.
`So again, stepping back, the caller makes a call. It includes a set up
`message. That set up message must indicate that the services -- indicate the
`services that the user wants us use, call waiting for example.
`And we're told later in the claim what those can be. We're going to
`focus on call waiting. And then we're also going to focus on the codec that's
`specifically called out in the claim as well, the codec specification.
`On slide 16 I'd like to start with caller ID. Caller ID, we've mapped
`two different instances of caller ID. There's the basic caller ID that we're all
`familiar with, a name or a number shows up on your phone when you get a
`phone call.
`
`16
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`
`Case IPR2018-00884
`Patent 8,539,552 B1
`
`
`The other type of caller ID is a subset of that, which is caller ID
`blocking. It's where someone specifically says, I'm going to call you, but I
`want my number to be blocked so you cannot see who's calling.
`Now, starting with the caller ID blocking on slide 16, what we've
`indicated here, in the middle of the page, is a citation from Kalmanek that
`shows the set up message that's going from a date controller to the ultimate
`terminating telephone.
`So you're going from the terminating date controller to the
`terminating telephone. And you'll see that Kalmanek provides at column 25
`a description of what's actually in that set up message.
`One of the things in the set up message that you can see appears on
`the right side of the screen in all caps. And its caller, followed by a phone
`number afterwards.
`This is the indication of the original sender. The original caller who
`is making the call to the intended recipient. So we see here the message, and
`its message structure includes information that would be used for caller ID.
`Kalmanek goes on to tell us that if caller blocking has been
`requested, that field will be changed to anonymous. Which is what I've
`highlighted in green here.
`If they've specified caller ID blocking, the phone number after caller,
`will be removed. And caller -- the number will be replaced with
`anonymous, which is going to result in your call blocking for the caller ID.
`But Kalmanek tells us that there is two different ways that you can set up
`
`17
`
`
`
`Case IPR2018-00884
`Patent 8,539,552 B1
`
`that caller blocking. We've relied on Avi Rubin, our expert, to help clarify
`this.
`
`And that is invoked by the caller either in the initial set up, so in the
`initial set up message, when the caller picks up their phone, they request the
`service of blocking caller ID. Or it can also be done in the settings where
`the gate controller could receive the set up message from the caller. It could
`look to the user's profile and see that this is a user whose profile indicates
`that they want to block caller ID.
`JUDGE O'HANLON: It's your position that caller ID blocking is a -
`- I forgot the word you --
`MR. SEITZ: A subset.
`JUDGE O'HANLON: A subset of caller ID?
`MR. SEITZ: Yes.
`JUDGE O'HANLON: Does the fact that, I believe the ’552 patent
`associates caller ID with the receiving telephone and caller ID blocking with
`the initiating telephone.
`Does the fact that those two services, or sub-services are associated
`with different devices effect that? How does that factor into your argument
`that one is a subset of the other?
`MR. SEITZ: So, you're still looking at the question of the claims.
`Which are making a determination. If I look at the claim, the network entity
`makes a determination of whether your type of service is allowed.
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`
`18
`
`
`
`Case IPR2018-00884
`Patent 8,539,552 B1
`
`
`And so we're going to perform that authorization. So in Kalmanek
`we see that the end user, if I flip forward, Your Honor, to slide 21. And it's
`depicted on the screen here, from Figure 23.
`The end user in Kalmanek, in responding to a set up message, will
`tell the gate controller that I am a caller ID subscriber. And I am requesting
`the caller ID information.
`We will see from the -- from the caller that they are not authorized to
`provide that service. And so, I believe it still fits under the claims in that
`manner by filtering and excluding that from the set up message and the
`signaling message that will go through.
`JUDGE O'HANLON: So the calling party is not authorized to
`provide the caller ID information?
`MR. SEITZ: They have said -- yes. Not authorized to provide that,
`
`yes.
`
`JUDGE EASTHOM: That's separate from that anonymous aspect
`you were talking about?
`MR. SEITZ: That would be the anonymous.
`JUDGE EASTHOM: Oh.
`MR. SEITZ: Where you're saying I'm not authorized to provide my
`caller ID.
`JUDGE EASTHOM: Okay.
`MR. SEITZ: We also have basic caller ID in Kalmanek. So there's
`call blocking, but then there's also the caller ID itself, which we're more
`familiar with, which is disclosed in Kalmanek. And that's on slide 17.
`19
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`
`
`
`Case IPR2018-00884
`Patent 8,539,552 B1
`
`
`Now slide 17 refers to the codec as well. So there's the codec
`analysis here. And there's the caller ID. The codec, I'm sorry, the caller ID,
`we look at the same message.
`This one, Your Honors, you'll notice it's the same. I've told you it's
`the same as it goes through. This time it's from the phone -- the originating
`telephone to the originating date controller. And that includes your set up
`message.
`And again, it includes the caller field, including the caller's phone
`number. And the ’552 patent tells us that, at line 50, the ability to deliver
`caller ID on a given call can be discerned by examining the invite message,
`which would be the set up message. And they said that it can be something
`as simple as the from field. That again, is at column 12, line 50, starting the
`discussion on caller ID.
`The from field, disclosed in the ’552 is exactly what the caller field
`is here that would say, I am requesting a caller ID service to be provided.
`We also on this same slide, at 17, see the codec. Now the codec
`specification is one of the other services that's listed in the claim as one that
`a user can request. And the codec specification can cover things such as the
`compression or bandwidth that would be allowed for the phone call.
`And here, looking at the same set up message going from the
`originating telephone to the originating gate controller, it will include the
`field at the very bottom, highlighted in green, which is called coding. And it
`will reference G.711, which is the codec that that user is requesting
`authorization to use in the phone call.
`20
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`
`
`
`Case IPR2018-00884
`Patent 8,539,552 B1
`
`
`So, we can see from those examples that the original signaling
`message, the set up message in Kalmanek, includes those requests for those
`three types of services.
`Finally, filtering. Filtering is what does the authorization we've been
`referring to today. The filtering is going to authorize or allow the message
`based on whether the device is authorized, or they paid for those services.
`Which is where you get the prevention of the stealing of services, the theft of
`services.
`So first we need to understand how the filtering is applied in the ’552
`patent. The claim itself indicates that we're going to filter the signaling
`message.
`JUDGE EASTHOM: What slide are we on, please? I'm sorry.
`MR. SEITZ: I'm sorry? One more time now?
`JUDGE EASTHOM: What slide are we on?
`MR. SEITZ: Oh, I'm sorry. Yes. Slide 19.
`JUDGE EASTHOM: Thank you. I appreciate that.
`MR. SEITZ: On slide 19 I want to talk first about what the claim
`says. So we're filtering the signaling message. And if either the sender
`device or the intended recipient device is authorized to invoke the type of
`service indicated. So they're going to filter based on this, who's authorized
`to have this service.
`And the question of filtering here is one of, okay, what does filtering
`mean? Now traditionally when you think of filtering, you might think of
`pouring a liquid or something else through a filter where certain things in
`21
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`
`Case IPR2018-00884
`Patent 8,539,552 B1
`
`your liquid are prevented from going through, or the message is altered in
`some way.
`The ’552 patent is broader in its definition of filtering here. We see
`on slide 19, on the bottom portion of the page, a citation from column 16 of
`the ’552 patent, at lines 19 to 27.
`It specifically tells us, highlighted in green, that a filtering action
`maybe one of two things. Forwarding the message on unaltered to the next
`top. Or, forwarding the message on with alterations. So we see that
`filtering, that final claimed filtering in the ’552 patent can either be just
`forwarding the message on unaltered.
`The example that you might think of that we'll get into, is if the
`service is fully authorized. Or it might be forwarded on with alterations
`depending on what the user is or is not authorized to do.
`So the ’552 patent contemplates both of those scenarios for its
`filtering. Looking at slide 20 we see two messages and then we see a
`quotation from Kalmanek on the bottom.
`And I'm going to look at the filtering first as it relates to the codec.
`And then I'll come back and talk about the filtering as it relates to the caller
`ID.
`
`And so if we start at the bottom side of the page with Kalmanek, to
`get an understanding of what the gate controllers are doing, I think that will
`help guide the analysis of these messages that are taking place between the
`gate controllers and the telephones.
`
`22
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`
`Case IPR2018-00884
`Patent 8,539,552 B1
`
`
`So, shown at the bottom is a citation from column 10 of Kalmanek.
`And it tells us,
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
