`Patent 8,391,298
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`_________________
`RingCentral Inc.,
`
`Petitioner,
`v.
`Estech Systems, Inc.,
`
`Patent Owner.
`__________________
`PATENT OWNER’S SUR-REPLY TO PETITIONER’S REPLY
`IN THE INTER PARTES REVIEW OF U.S. PATENT NO. 8,391,298
`
`Filed on behalf of Patent Owner by:
`
`Todd E. Landis (Reg. No. 44,200)
`2633 McKinney Ave., Suite 130
`Dallas, TX 75204
`
`John Wittenzellner (Reg. No. 61,662)
`1735 Market Street, Suite A #453
`Philadelphia, PA 19103
`WILLIAMS SIMONS & LANDIS PLLC
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2021-00574
`Patent 8,391,298
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`
`I.
`II.
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................... 1
`GROUND I: CLAIMS 1-5, 7-12, and 17-19 ARE PATENTABLE
`OVER CHANG AND BYRNE. ...................................................................... 1
`A.
`Chang and Byrne do not render obvious claim 1 because the
`combination fails to teach or suggest claim element 1[e]. .................... 1
`Chang and Byrne do not render obvious claim 1 because the
`combination fails to teach or suggest claim element 1[h]. .................... 4
`Chang and Byrne do not render obvious claim 1 because the
`combination fails to teach or suggest claim element 1[i]....................12
`Claims 2, 3, 5, 7-12, 18, and 19 ..........................................................16
`D.
`Claim 4 ................................................................................................16
`E.
`Claim 17 ..............................................................................................16
`F.
`III. GROUND 2: CLAIM 6 IS PATENTABLE OVER CHANG, BYRNE,
`IMIELINSKI ..................................................................................................18
`IV. CONCLUSION ..............................................................................................18
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`-i-
`
`
`
`
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`IPR2021-00574
`Patent 8,391,298
`
`Cases
`Homeland Housewares, LLC v. Whirlpool Corp.,
` 865 F.3d 1372 (Fed. Cir. 2017) .............................................................................. 7
`
`Panduit Corp. v. Dennison Mfg. Co.,
` 810 F.2d 1561 (Fed. Cir. 1987) ............................................................................14
`
`
`
`-ii-
`
`
`
`IPR2021-00574
`Patent 8,391,298
`
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`Estech Systems, Inc. (“Patent Owner”) respectfully submits this Sur-Reply to
`
`RingCentral Inc.’s (“Petitioner”) Petitioner’s Reply (“Reply”) in Inter Partes
`
`Review No. IPR2021-00574 of U.S. Patent No. 8,391,298 (the “’298 Patent”).
`
`II. GROUND I: CLAIMS 1-5, 7-12, and 17-19 ARE PATENTABLE OVER
`CHANG AND BYRNE.
`
`The combination of Chang and Byrne does not render obvious any of claims
`
`1-5, 7-12, and 17-19.
`
`A. Chang and Byrne do not render obvious claim 1 because the
`combination fails to teach or suggest claim element 1[e].
`
`Claim element 1[e] recites “a first telecommunications device coupled to the
`
`first LAN.” The combination of Chang and Byrne fail to teach or suggest this claim
`
`element.
`
`In
`
`the Reply, Petitioner argues
`
`that Chang’s
`
`telephone/workstation
`
`combination constitutes the “telecommunication device” of claim element 1[e]. See
`
`Paper 18, pp. 3-5. Patent Owner disagrees because a POSITA would not understand
`
`the combination of just Chang’s “telephone” and “workstation” to be the
`
`“telecommunications device” of claim element 1[e] because they are separate,
`
`discrete hardware units. The Reply criticizes Patent Owner for stating the fact that
`
`neither the Petition nor the Institution Decision describes the telephone/workstation
`
`-1-
`
`
`
`
`combination or why it would be obvious to combine. See Paper 18 at 3. Here is the
`
`IPR2021-00574
`Patent 8,391,298
`
`entirety of the Petition that discusses the telephone/workstation combination:
`
`
`
`Paper 1, p. 28. Claim element 1[e] does not require logical association and
`
`colocation. The Petition relies on the telephone or workstation alone, and included
`
`the telephone/workstation as an afterthought, without providing any necessary
`
`analysis. See id., pp. 27-28. Realizing its mistakes, Petitioner now attempts to
`
`supplement its grounds in its Reply, which is improper.
`
`In the Reply, Petitioner also argues that Chang’s “workstation 24” alone
`
`meets the “telecommunications device” of claim element 1[e]. Paper 18, pp. 5-6.
`
`Specifically, Petitioner argues that “Chang is directed to “PC telephony” and “PC to
`
`PC telephone calls over the Internet.’” Paper 18, p. 5 (citing Ex. 1003, 1:17-21). As
`
`a threshold matter, Patent Owner believes Petitioner intended to cite page 3 of Ex.
`
`1003, not page 1. The language cited by Petitioner is only found on page 3 of Ex.
`
`1003. Regardless, Petitioner is citing to the background section of Chang, which
`
`discusses the “advent of PC based telephony.” Ex. 1003, 3:19. Chang is silent
`
`-2-
`
`
`
`
`regarding the “workstation 24” of his allegedly new “integrated voice gateway
`
`IPR2021-00574
`Patent 8,391,298
`
`system” operating the same way as these historical devices mentioned only in the
`
`background section. Thus, Petitioner’s arguments are without merit.
`
`Petitioner also argues “Chang’s workstation ‘provides the user with desktop
`
`CTI capabilities.’ (Id. at 56:4.) ‘The user may dial, answer, hang-up, transfer,
`
`conference, forward, place a call on hold, unhold, and drop a call from a desktop
`
`workstation.’ (Id. at 56:4-6.).” Paper 18, p. 6. Again, Patent Owner believes
`
`Petitioner intended to cite page 58 of Ex. 1003, not page 56. The language cited by
`
`Petitioner is only found on page 58 of Ex. 1003. Regardless, this section of Chang
`
`is entitled “PC Call Control.” Ex. 1003, 58:3. Chang discloses “PC call control
`
`means for controlling the telephone from the desktop workstation.” Id., 8:27-28. In
`
`other words, Chang provides an explicit definition for “PC Call Control,” and this
`
`definition requires both the “telephone” and the “workstation.” Thus, Petitioner’s
`
`arguments regarding Chang’s “workstation” alone meeting the “telecommunications
`
`device” of claim element 1[e] are without merit.
`
`In the Reply, Petitioner also argues that Chang’s “telephone 38” alone meets
`
`the “telecommunications device” of claim element 1[e]. Paper 18, pp. 6-7. Patent
`
`Owner disagrees. Chang deliberately excludes “telephone 38” from the list of
`
`components “coupled” to Chang’s LAN (i.e., Petitioner identified “first LAN”). See
`
`Chang, 17:20-21 (“Coupled to the LAN 22 are one or more workstations 24, a
`
`-3-
`
`
`
`
`gateway server 26, a directory server 28, and a router 32.”) (emphasis added).
`
`IPR2021-00574
`Patent 8,391,298
`
`Instead, Chang describes “telephone 38” as being coupled to the PBX, but not the
`
`LAN. Id., 15:27-28 (“One or more telephones 38 are coupled to the PBX 34.”)
`
`(emphasis added). Thus, Petitioner’s arguments regarding Chang’s “telephone”
`
`alone meeting the “telecommunications device coupled to the first LAN” of claim
`
`element 1[e] are without merit.
`
`For these reasons and the reasons set forth in the Response, the combination
`
`of Chang and Byrne does not teach or suggest claim element 1[e].
`
`B.
`
`Chang and Byrne do not render obvious claim 1 because the
`combination fails to teach or suggest claim element 1[h].
`
`Petitioner continues to dispute that this claim limitation requires storage of the
`
`following lists in a server in the second LAN: (1) “the list of the plurality of
`
`telecommunications extensions coupled to the second LAN” and (2) “a list of the
`
`plurality of telecommunications extensions coupled to the third LAN.” See Paper
`
`18 at 12-16. Patent Owner established why the claim language requires storage of
`
`those two lists in the second server. Paper 15, pp. 16-17. The crux of Petitioner’s
`
`argument in reply is that the term “a list of the plurality of telecommunications
`
`extensions” refers only to the “plurality of telecommunications extensions coupled
`
`to the second LAN.” See Paper 18 at 13-15. Petitioner’s argument is incorrect
`
`because it disregards the remainder of the claim and is illogical, both within claim
`
`-4-
`
`
`
`
`1, as well as the surrounding claims. For example, under Petitioner’s interpretation
`
`IPR2021-00574
`Patent 8,391,298
`
`of claim 1, the “first circuitry for enabling a user of the first telecommunications
`
`device to observe a list of the plurality of telecommunications extensions” would
`
`only be capable of displaying the list of extensions coupled to the second LAN, but
`
`not those coupled to the third LAN. It is also inconsistent with the final limitation
`
`of claim 1 (reproduced below):
`
`a plurality of telecommunications extensions coupled to the third LAN, the
`
`first LAN including circuitry for enabling the user to select between
`
`observing the list of the plurality of telecommunications extensions
`
`coupled to the second LAN or observing a list of the plurality of
`
`telecommunications extensions coupled to the third LAN
`
`Ex. 1001, claim 1. Claim 1 specifically requires “circuitry for enabling the user to
`
`select between observing the list of the plurality of telecommunications extensions
`
`coupled to the second LAN or observing a list of the plurality of telecommunications
`
`extensions coupled to the third LAN.” It would be illogical for claim 1 to require
`
`circuitry for selecting which list to observe if, as Petitioner asserts, the “first circuitry
`
`for enabling a user to observe a list” can only allow the user to observe the
`
`telecommunications extensions coupled to the second LAN, but not any extensions
`
`coupled to the third LAN.
`
`-5-
`
`
`
`The dependent claims further highlight the flaw in Petitioner’s position. For
`
`IPR2021-00574
`Patent 8,391,298
`
`
`
`example, claim 3 requires that “the list of the plurality of telecommunications
`
`extensions is displayed to the user of the first telecommunications device.” Under
`
`Petitioner’s interpretation of the claims, the first telecommunications device would
`
`only display the telecommunications extensions coupled to the second LAN, but not
`
`any extensions coupled to the third LAN. Similarly, claim 6 requires that “the list
`
`of the plurality of telecommunications extensions is played as audio to the user of
`
`the first telecommunications device.” Under Petitioner’s interpretation of the
`
`claims, the first telecommunications device would only play the list of
`
`telecommunications extensions coupled to the second LAN, but not any extensions
`
`coupled to the third LAN. This result, again, would be illogical given that claim 1
`
`includes circuitry for selecting which list to observe.
`
`Petitioner also argues that its incorrect interpretation of this claim limitation
`
`is consistent with the ’298 Patent specification. See Paper 18 at 15-16. But
`
`Petitioner’s citations do not support its position. For example, Petitioner cites to
`
`column 10, lines 49 through 51, to argue that each LAN includes its own “site
`
`rolodex.” See Paper 18 at 15 (citing Ex. 1001, 10:49-51). But the “site rolodex”
`
`refers to the list of extensions itself, not where that rolodex is stored. See Ex. 1001,
`
`10:49-51. More importantly, it is improper to rewrite the plain language of the
`
`claims as Petitioner urges the Board to do.
`
`-6-
`
`
`
`Petitioner seeks to have the Board rewrite limitation 1[h] because neither
`
`IPR2021-00574
`Patent 8,391,298
`
`
`
`Chang, nor Byrne, nor the combination thereof teaches or suggests limitation 1[h]
`
`under its proper interpretation. Nor has Petitioner argued as much. Paper 18, pp.
`
`12-15.
`
`With that said, this limitation is not obvious even under Petitioner’s erroneous
`
`interpretation of this claim limitation. In the Reply, Petitioner asserts that “no single
`
`gateway server [in Chang] stores the entirety of the white pages,” Paper 18, p. 8, and
`
`Patent Owner’s arguments to the contrary should be given no weight because such
`
`arguments are “plainly inconsistent with the record.” Id. (citing Homeland
`
`Housewares, LLC v. Whirlpool Corp., 865 F.3d 1372, 1378 (Fed. Cir. 2017)).
`
`Petitioner concedes that “each gateway server has access to the complete enterprise
`
`directory 90.” Petition, p. 39 (emphasis added). Additionally, Chang’s Fig. 3 shows
`
`a single “gateway server 26” having access to the entire “enterprise directory 90.”
`
`Ex, 1003, Fig. 3. Chang discloses “enterprise directory 90 is the source of the white
`
`pages” and the “gateway database 51 [of the gateway server] contains enterprise
`
`white pages.” Id., 19:33-20:7. In fact, Chang discloses “gateway database 51”
`
`stores a “table [that] can be used as an enterprise wide white pages.” Id., 34:9-11
`
`(emphasis added). Further still, Chang discloses “the gateway server is unique in
`
`that it stores extensive user telephone information and also integrates with industry
`
`standard directory services.” Ex. 1003, 13:5-7 (emphasis added). In view of both
`
`-7-
`
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s admissions and Chang’s disclosures, Patent Owner’s arguments that a
`
`IPR2021-00574
`Patent 8,391,298
`
`single “gateway server” stores the entirety of the “white pages” are not “plainly
`
`inconsistent with the record,” and Patent Owner’s arguments are consistent with the
`
`record, demonstrating that the asserted prior art does not teach or suggest limitation
`
`1[h]. Paper 18, p. 8.
`
`In the Reply, Petitioner is fixated on each “gateway server” in Chang
`
`physically storing only a portion of the overall “enterprise directory.” See, e.g.,
`
`Paper 18, p. 10 (“Indeed, Patent Owner’s own expert Dr. Madisetti stated that ‘I
`
`don’t agree that’ Chang’s gateway servers ‘store[] the entirety’ of the directory.”)
`
`(citing Ex. 1037 at 112:19-113:10). Although the “white pages” are generated from
`
`the “enterprise directory,” the “white pages” and the “enterprise directory” are not
`
`the same thing. See Ex. 1003, 20:1-6 (“The enterprise directory 90 is the source of
`
`the white pages . . . This information is separately maintained in the gateway
`
`database because commercially available implementations of an enterprise
`
`directory, e.g. NDS, are not indexed, and are therefore not easily searchable. The
`
`gateway database 51 is indexed to facilitate the availability of data.”). See also id.,
`
`58:19-20 (“white pages directory [is] based upon the enterprise directory”). There
`
`is no teaching in Chang that the “white pages” stored in a “gateway server” be
`
`restricted to only what can be obtained from the portion of the “enterprise directory”
`
`stored locally in the “gateway server.”
`
`-8-
`
`
`
`To the contrary, as discussed above, Chang discloses “gateway database 51”
`
`IPR2021-00574
`Patent 8,391,298
`
`
`
`stores a “table [that] can be used as an enterprise wide white pages.” Id., 34:9-11
`
`(emphasis added). Additionally, Petitioner even admits that “each gateway server
`
`has access to the complete enterprise directory 90.” Petition, p. 39 (emphasis added).
`
`So Petitioner admits that despite the “gateway server” only storing a portion of the
`
`“enterprise directory,” the “gateway server” still has access to all the information
`
`needed to generate/store the entirety of the “white pages.” Again, Patent Owner’s
`
`arguments that a single “gateway server” stores the entirety of the “white pages” are
`
`not “plainly inconsistent with the record,” and Patent Owner’s arguments are
`
`consistent with the record, demonstrating that the asserted prior art does not teach or
`
`suggest limitation 1[h]. Paper 18, p. 8.
`
`Petitioner argues that in Chang, “the white pages are stored in a distributed
`
`fashion, with each gateway server locally storing only the portion of the white pages
`
`listing its extensions.” Paper 18, p. 8 (emphasis added). But Chang is silent
`
`regarding how a user “workstation” (i.e., Petitioner’s identified “first circuitry”) in
`
`a LAN of a first “gateway network” (i.e., Petitioner’s identified “first LAN”) would
`
`access “white pages” (i.e., Petitioner’s identified “telecommunications extensions”)
`
`stored on a “gateway server” (i.e., Petitioner’s identified “server”) in a LAN of a
`
`second “gateway network” (i.e., Petitioner’s identified “second LAN”). As
`
`discussed in the Response, Chang does not teach a user “workstation” itself
`
`-9-
`
`
`
`
`accessing the “gateway server” in the second “gateway network” over the WAN, as
`
`IPR2021-00574
`Patent 8,391,298
`
`is required by claim element 1[h]. See, e.g., Paper 15, p. 14 (“this does not provide
`
`any details as to how or where Chang’s workstation (i.e., the first circuitry) obtains
`
`the white pages”). Thus, Chang does not teach or suggest claim element 1[h].
`
`Petitioner also argues that Figure 3A of Chang shows that “if a user
`
`[workstation] on gateway server 26-1 would like to access the director[y] of users
`
`on gateway server 26-5, it will be necessary to communicate with gateway server
`
`26-5 as that is the only place where that server’s directory is physically stored.”
`
`Paper 18, p. 10. But Figure 3A depicts partitions of the “enterprise directory” and
`
`not “white pages.” As discussed above, the “enterprise directory” and the “white
`
`pages” are not the same thing. But even if each “gateway server” is restricted to
`
`storing only the “white pages” that can be generated from the local partition of the
`
`“enterprise directory,” Petitioner conveniently fails to mention in this example the
`
`actual component that will “communicate with gateway server 26-5.” Id. Thus,
`
`Petitioner fails to show that it is Chang’s user “workstation” (i.e., Petitioner’s
`
`identified “first circuitry”) that accesses “Chang’s gateway server 26-5” (i.e.,
`
`Petitioner’s identified “server”), as required by claim element 1[h]. In fact, Chang’s
`
`Fig. 3A does not even show Chang’s user “workstation.”
`
`And, finally, Petitioner argues that “Patent Owner is also wrong that it would
`
`not have been obvious to ‘exchange messages’ with another ‘gateway server’ when
`
`-10-
`
`
`
`
`attempting to access that gateway server’s portion of the white pages . . . Chang
`
`IPR2021-00574
`Patent 8,391,298
`
`already teaches a directory that is physically stored in a distributed fashion. Thus,
`
`Patent Owner is effectively arguing that it would not be obvious to do what Chang
`
`already does: Chang’s distributed directory necessitates exchange of the very type
`
`of messages that Patent Owner contends are non-obvious.” Paper 18, p. 15.
`
`Petitioner is misguided and mischaracterizing Patent Owner’s arguments.
`
`First, in the Response, Patent Owner argued the “Petition’s contentions
`
`effectively require Chang’s workstation in the first LAN (gateway network 4) to
`
`exchange messages with the gateway server in the second LAN (gateway network
`
`6) over Chang’s IP network. When considering each of Chang’s LANs has multiple
`
`workstations, these exchanges between workstations and gateway servers in other
`
`LANs would drastically reduce the available bandwidth in Chang’s IP network.”
`
`Paper 15, pp. 15-16. In other words, Patent Owner argued that a specific type of
`
`message exchange (i.e., between a user “workstation” in one “gateway network” and
`
`a “gateway server” in another “gateway network” regarding “white pages”) was non-
`
`obvious. Contrary to Petitioner’s contentions, Patent Owner did not argue that all
`
`message exchanges involving another “gateway server” were non-obvious.
`
`Second, Petitioner is improperly blending the “enterprise directory” and the
`
`“white pages.” As discussed above, the “enterprise directory” and the “white pages”
`
`are not the same thing. Patent Owner agrees that the distributed implementation of
`
`-11-
`
`
`
`
`Chang’s “enterprise directory” necessitates message exchanges. See, e.g., Ex. 1003,
`
`IPR2021-00574
`Patent 8,391,298
`
`19:29-31 (“changes to entries in a partition [of the enterprise directory] at one
`
`location [] are sent to other locations having a replica of the respective partition.”)
`
`(emphasis added). But again, these are not the type of messages exchanges that
`
`Patent Owner was discussing in the Response. Patent Owner argued that a specific
`
`type of message exchange (i.e., between a user “workstation” in one “gateway
`
`network” and a “gateway server” in another “gateway network” regarding “white
`
`pages”) was non-obvious. Chang does not teach or suggest this type of message
`
`exchange, and thus does not teach claim element 1[h].
`
`For these reasons and the reasons set forth in the Response, the combination
`
`of Chang and Byrne does not teach or suggest claim element 1[h].
`
`C. Chang and Byrne do not render obvious claim 1 because the
`combination fails to teach or suggest claim element 1[i].
`
`Claim element 1[i] recites, in part: “the first LAN including circuitry for
`
`enabling the user to select between observing the list of the plurality of
`
`telecommunications extensions coupled to the second LAN or observing a list of the
`
`plurality of telecommunications extensions coupled to the third LAN.” The
`
`combination of Chang and Byrne fail to teach or suggest this claim element.
`
`In the Reply, Petitioner argues “[w]hile Patent Owner is correct that Figure 9
`
`does not itself depict user contact information—instead only the names of users
`
`-12-
`
`
`
`
`associated with a particular server are shown in that figure—Byrne explains that the
`
`IPR2021-00574
`Patent 8,391,298
`
`unshown contact information can be accessed simply by clicking on ‘[t]he small box
`
`with a + to the left of the name’ to ‘cause[] the subdirectories’ or ‘subcategories’ of
`
`information associated with a user ‘to be displayed.’ [] As shown in Figure 6, a
`
`variety of information can be associated with each user, including ‘Office number’
`
`and ‘Office phone.’” Paper 18, p. 17. But that argument mischaracterizes Byrne.
`
`Byrne discloses that “[t]he small box [in Fig. 9] with a + to the left of the name
`
`indicates there are subdirectories. Clicking on this box causes the subdirectories to
`
`be displayed.” Ex. 1004, 7:29-33 (emphasis added). But Byrne expressly states that
`
`a user’s office telephone number (i.e., Petitioner’s identified “telecommunications
`
`extensions”) is an “attribute,” not a “subdirectory.” See id., 6:60-63 (“FIGS. 6A and
`
`6B show only one particular instance of adding an entry. When adding an entry, the
`
`user specifies an objectclass, such a[s] ePerson for an individual. Each object-class
`
`has an associated set of attributes.”) (emphasis added), Fig. 6B (showing “Office
`
`phone” number as an attribute of the ePerson objectclass). Contrary to Petitioner’s
`
`contentions, clicking on the box with the “+” to the left of the name in Fig. 9 will
`
`not cause the user’s office telephone number to be displayed, because the office
`
`telephone number is not a “subdirectory.” Accordingly, Byrne does not teach or
`
`suggest a list of telecommunications extensions, as required by claim element 1[i].
`
`-13-
`
`
`
`Petitioner also argues that “Chang teaches a telephone extension directory that
`
`IPR2021-00574
`Patent 8,391,298
`
`
`
`includes user extensions associated with different LANs. And, Byrne provides one
`
`example of how such a directory can be displayed (a nested tree structure that can
`
`display users and user information on a LAN-by-LAN basis).” Paper 18, p. 17
`
`(emphasis added). Contrary to Petitioner’s contentions, Bryne does not display users
`
`and user information on a LAN-by-LAN basis. Bryne displays users on a server-by-
`
`server basis. Ex. 1004, Fig. 4 (showing tabs 406 are “server tabs 406”). A server is
`
`not a LAN.
`
`Petitioner also disregards the entirety of the cited prior art references, which
`
`is improper. See Panduit Corp. v. Dennison Mfg. Co., 810 F.2d 1561, 1568 (Fed.
`
`Cir. 1987) (“a prior patent must be considered in its entirety, i.e., as a whole”). Byrne
`
`is for managing multiple lightweight directory access protocol (LDAP) directory
`
`servers. Ex. 1004, Title. Specifically, Byrne discloses a “Directory Management
`
`Tool (DMT)” for “locating a server in a distributed network using the [LDAP],
`
`maintaining information for the server, displaying a tree of servers, browsing the tree
`
`of servers, and searching the tree of servers for an entry with specific attributes.”
`
`Id., 2:50-56. According to Petitioner, Byrne’s DMT can allegedly enable the user to
`
`select between observing different lists. See Paper 18, pp. 17-18.
`
`Byrne also discloses LDAP “is a software protocol for providing directory
`
`service enablement to a large number of applications . . . LDAP is a ‘lightweight’
`
`-14-
`
`
`
`
`version of DAP (Directory Access Protocol), which is part of X.500, a standard for
`
`IPR2021-00574
`Patent 8,391,298
`
`directory services in a network.” Id., 1:38-46 (emphasis added). Accordingly, when
`
`Byrne is properly considered in its entirety, the teachings of Byrne and the alleged
`
`features of Byrne’s DMT pertain to directory services that use LDAP.
`
`Chang’s “enterprise directory” is a directory service. In fact, Chang even
`
`discloses the “enterprise directory” is “X.500 compatible,” Ex. 1003, 20:13-14, and
`
`supports LDAP. Id., 11:22-30. In contrast, the “white pages” stored on Chang’s
`
`“gateway servers” are not a directory service. Id. at 19:33-20:1. Unlike the
`
`“enterprise directory,” Chang never refers to the “white pages” as a directory
`
`service. Id. at 8:10, 11:27-30, 20:13-14. Again, the “white pages” are generated
`
`based on the “enterprise directory,” which is a directory service. Id. at 20:1-9, 58:19-
`
`20. But the “white pages” themselves are not a directory service and they are stored
`
`in different databases (e.g., “gateway databases”) than the “enterprise directory.” Id.
`
`at 18:22, 19:33-20:1, Fig. 3. Thus, the teachings of Byrne and the features of Byrne’s
`
`DMT, which are directory-service specific and LDAP specific, would not be
`
`applicable to Chang’s “white pages.” As a result, it would not be obvious to
`
`integrate Chang’s user “workstation” with the features of Byrne’s DMT, including
`
`enabling the user to select between observing different lists, with Chang’s white
`
`pages.
`
`-15-
`
`
`
`For these reasons and the reasons set forth in the Response, the combination
`
`IPR2021-00574
`Patent 8,391,298
`
`
`
`of Chang and Byrne does not teach or suggest claim element 1[i].
`
`D. Claims 2, 3, 5, 7-12, 18, and 19
`
`Petitioner presents no new arguments for these claims that have not already
`
`been addressed by Patent Owner in the Response or this Sur-Reply.
`
`E. Claim 4
`
`In the Reply, Petitioner argues “[i]t is the combination of the workstation and
`
`associated telephone—and not just the workstation alone—that makes Chang’s ‘IP
`
`telephone.’” Paper 18, p. 19. For the same reasons set forth above with respect to
`
`claim element 1[e], the combination of Chang’s “workstation 24” and “telephone
`
`38” does not meet the “IP telephone” requirement of claim 4.
`
`For these reasons and the reasons set forth in the Response, the combination
`
`of Chang and Byrne does not teach or suggest claim 4.
`
`F. Claim 17
`
`In the Reply, when discussing claim 17, Petitioner references and repeats the
`
`arguments presented for claim element 1[h] and claim 4. See Paper 18, pp. 20-22.
`
`Accordingly, for the same reasons set forth above with respect to claim element 1[h]
`
`and claim 4, the combination of Chang and Byrne does not render claim 17 obvious.
`
`Claim element 17[b] recites: “displaying on a display on the IP telephone a
`
`first list including second and third LANs.” In the Reply, while attempting to justify
`
`-16-
`
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s prior art mappings/position regarding claim element 17[b], Petitioner
`
`IPR2021-00574
`Patent 8,391,298
`
`argues “Byrne itself is open to each of its servers including a network of different
`
`user devices. Indeed, this is exactly what is shown in Figure 9A: the selected server
`
`is associated with a variety of different users identified in work area 904. (See id. at
`
`Fig. 9A).” Paper 18, p. 21 (emphasis added). This is illogical. A server does not
`
`include a network. A server may be a component in a network or belong to a
`
`network, but the server itself does not include a network. Petitioner’s arguments are
`
`based on flawed logic and thus do not render claim 17 obvious.
`
`Petitioner’s citation to column 4, lines 15 through 19 of Byrne is unavailing.
`
`That portion of Byrne is reproduced below:
`
`Of course, distributed data processing system 100 also may be
`
`implemented as a number of different types of networks, such as for
`
`example, an intranet, a local area network (LAN), or a wide area
`
`network (WAN).
`
`Ex. 1004, 4:15-19. That portion of Byrne refers to the network in which Byrne is
`
`implemented, not the information displayed to the user. See id. Petitioner neglects
`
`to cite the next sentence, which confirms this point. See id., 4:19-20 (“FIG. 1 is
`
`intended as an example, and not as an architectural limitation for the present
`
`invention.”); Fig. 1 (depicting network architecture).
`
`-17-
`
`
`
`Petitioner also argues that “Figure 9A” shows that “Byrne itself is open to
`
`IPR2021-00574
`Patent 8,391,298
`
`
`
`each of its servers including a network of different user devices. See Paper 18 at 21.
`
`Byrne does not include a Figure 9A. Assuming that Petitioner meant to refer to
`
`Figure 9, that figure does not disclose anything about user devices. See Ex. 1004,
`
`Fig. 9, 7:22-36. Figure 9 merely shows a listing of what appears to be user names.
`
`See id.
`
`For these reasons and the reasons set forth in the Response, the combination
`
`of Chang and Byrne does not teach or suggest claim 17.
`
`III. GROUND 2: CLAIM 6 IS PATENTABLE OVER CHANG, BYRNE,
`IMIELINSKI
`
`Petitioner presents no new arguments for this claim that have not already been
`
`addressed by Patent Owner in the Response or this Sur-Reply. Paper 18, p. 22.
`
`IV. CONCLUSION
`
`The evidence shows that the Challenged Claims are patentable.
`
`-18-
`
`
`
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.24(d), I hereby certify that the foregoing Patent
`
`IPR2021-00574
`Patent 8,391,298
`
`Owner’s Sur-Reply contains 4,089 words as measured by the word processing
`
`software used to prepare the document, excluding the cover page, signature block,
`
`and portions exempted under 37 C.F.R. § 42.24(a) or (b).
`
`DATED: April 27, 2022
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`By: /Todd E. Landis/
`Todd E. Landis
`Registration No. 44,200
`Counsel for Patent Owner
`
`
`
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.6, the undersigned certifies that on April 27, 2022,
`
`IPR2021-00574
`Patent 8,391,298
`
`
`
`
`
`the foregoing document was served on counsel of record for Petitioner by filing this
`
`document through the End-to-End System, as well as via electronic mail to counsel
`
`of record for Petitioner at the following addresses:
`
`K. Patrick Herma (P52PTABDocket@orrick.com)
`Alyssa Caridis (A8CPTABDocket@orrick.com)
`Clement Roberts (croberts@orrick.com)
`Robert L. Uriarte (ruriarte@orrick.com)
`Li Shen (lshen@orrick.com)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`By: /Todd E. Landis/
`Todd E. Landis
`Registration No. 44,200
`Counsel for Patent Owner
`
`
`
`
`
`
`