`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`_________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`_________________
`
`
`AMAZON.COM, INC., AMAZON.COM SERVICES, LLC,
`AMAZON WEB SERVICES, INC,
`and T-MOBILE USA, INC.,
`Petitioners,
`
`v.
`
`VOIP-PAL.COM, INC.,
`Patent Owner.
`
`
`Case IPR2022-01180
`U.S. Patent No. 10,880,721
`
`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW
`OF U.S. PATENT NO. 10,880,721
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`Patent No. 10,880,721
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`I.
`INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................... 1
`II. MANDATORY NOTICES ............................................................................. 1
`III.
`PAYMENT OF FEES ..................................................................................... 5
`IV. GROUNDS FOR STANDING ........................................................................ 5
`V.
`PRECISE RELIEF REQUESTED .................................................................. 5
`A.
`Claims for Which Review Is Requested ............................................... 5
`B.
`Statutory Grounds of Challenge ............................................................ 5
`VI. LEVEL OF ORDINARY SKILL .................................................................... 7
`VII. OVERVIEW OF THE ’721 PATENT ............................................................ 7
`A.
`The ’721 patent ...................................................................................... 7
`VIII. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION .......................................................................... 10
`A.
`“access code” ....................................................................................... 11
`B.
`“gateway” (claims 1, 20, 38) ............................................................... 12
`C.
`“roaming” (claims 34, 49) ................................................................... 12
`D.
`“means for receiving … destination node identifier …” (claim
`20) ........................................................................................................ 13
`“means for transmitting …” (claim 20) .............................................. 13
`“means for receiving an access code reply message …” (claim
`20) ........................................................................................................ 14
`“means for causing …” (claim 20) ...................................................... 14
`“means for receiving …” (claim 34) ................................................... 15
`“means for communicating …” (claim 34) ......................................... 16
`
`G.
`H.
`I.
`
`E.
`F.
`
`
`
`i
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`Patent No. 10,880,721
`J.
`“means for transmitting …” (claim 34) .............................................. 16
`IX. DETAILED EXPLANATION OF GROUNDS ............................................ 17
`A. Ground 1: Teodosiu anticipates claims 1, 14, 15, 20, 38, 39, 46,
`and 136 ................................................................................................ 17
`1.
`Claim 1 ...................................................................................... 17
`2.
`Claim 14 .................................................................................... 26
`3.
`Claim 15 .................................................................................... 27
`4.
`Claim 136 .................................................................................. 28
`5.
`Claim 20 .................................................................................... 28
`6.
`Claim 38 .................................................................................... 36
`7.
`Claim 39 .................................................................................... 41
`8.
`Claim 46 .................................................................................... 42
`Ground 2: Teodosiu renders obvious claims 16, 34, and 49 ............... 43
`1.
`Claim 16 .................................................................................... 43
`2.
`Claim 34 .................................................................................... 52
`3.
`Claim 49 .................................................................................... 58
`Ground 3: Teodosiu in view of Kaal renders obvious claims 6,
`25, and 43 ............................................................................................ 60
`1.
`Claim 6 ...................................................................................... 60
`2.
`Claim 25 .................................................................................... 63
`3.
`Claim 43 .................................................................................... 64
`D. Ground 4: Teodosiu in view of Guedalia renders obvious claim
`45 ......................................................................................................... 64
`1.
`Claim 45 .................................................................................... 64
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`
`
`ii
`
`

`

`E.
`
`F.
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`Patent No. 10,880,721
`Ground 5: Teodosiu in view of Nix renders obvious claims 50
`and 140. ............................................................................................... 68
`1.
`Claim 140 .................................................................................. 68
`2.
`Claim 50 .................................................................................... 74
`Ground 6: Teodosiu in view of Jiang renders obvious claim 135 ...... 78
`1.
`Claim 135 .................................................................................. 78
`G. Ground 7: Teodosiu in view of Rosenberg renders obvious claim
`34 and 49 ............................................................................................. 81
`X. DISCRETIONARY DENIAL IS NOT APPROPRIATE ............................. 82
`XI. CONCLUSION .............................................................................................. 85
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`iii
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`Patent No. 10,880,721
`
`LIST OF EXHIBITS
`
`EX1001
`
`U.S. Patent No. 10,880,721
`
`EX1002
`
`Declaration of Dr. Nader F. Mir
`
`EX1003
`
`Curriculum Vitae of Dr. Nader F. Mir
`
`EX1004
`
`Prosecution History of U.S. Patent No. 10,880,721
`
`EX1005
`
`U.S. Patent Publication No. 2008/0137642 to Teodosiu et al.
`(“Teodosiu”)
`
`EX1006
`
`U.S. Publication No. 2008/0144578 to Kaal (“Kaal”)
`
`EX1007
`
`U.S. Publication No. 2008/0167039 to Guedalia (“Guedalia”)
`
`EX1008
`
`UK Patent GB2459158 to Kaal et al. (“Kaal2”)
`
`EX1009
`
`U.S. Publication No. 2009/0262727 to Kaal et al. (“Kaal3”)
`
`EX1010
`
`UK Patent GB244815 to Kaal et al. (“Kaal4”)
`
`EX1011
`
`U.S. Publication No. 2007/0238472 to Wanless (“Wanless”)
`
`EX1012
`
`U.S. Publication No. 2005/0108213 to Riise et al. (“Riise”)
`
`EX1013
`
`UK Patent GB2408114A to Riise et al. (“Riise”)
`
`EX1014
`
`U.S. Publication No. 2007/0127449 to Nix et al. (“Nix”)
`
`EX1015
`
`U.S. Publication No. 2008/0107254 to Yamartino (“Yamartino”)
`
`EX1016
`
`U.S. Publication No. 2005/0186960 to Jiang (“Jiang”)
`
`EX1017
`
`U.S. Publication No. 2004/0005886 to Oda et al. (“Oda”)
`
`EX1018
`
`RESERVED
`
`EX1019
`
`RESERVED
`
`EX1020
`
`U.S. Publication No. 2006/0291643 to Pfaff et al.(“Pfaff”)
`
`
`
`iv
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`Patent No. 10,880,721
`
`EX1021
`
`U.S. Publication No. 2002/0102973 to Rosenberg (“Rosenberg”)
`
`EX1022
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,881,139 to Romines (“Romines”)
`
`EX1023
`
`EX1024
`
`Defendants’ Proposed Claim Constructions in VoIP Pal.com, Inc. v.
`Google, LLC f/k/a Google Inc., Case No. 6-21-cv-00667 (W.D. Tex.
`February 22, 2022)
`
`VoIP-Pal.com’s Proposed Claim Constructions in VoIP-Pal.com, Inc.
`v. Google, LLC f/k/a Google Inc., Case No. 6-21-cv-00667 (W.D. Tex.
`February 22, 2022)
`
`EX1025
`
`RESERVED
`
`EX1026
`
`RESERVED
`
`EX1027
`
`RESERVED
`
`EX1028
`
`EX1029
`
`EX1030
`
`Case docket in VoIP-Pal.com, Inc. v. Google, LLC f/k/a Google Inc.,
`Case No. 6-21-cv-00667 (W.D. Tex.)
`
`Case docket in VoIP-Pal.com, Inc. v. Google, LLC, Case No. 3-22-cv-
`03199 (N.D. CA.)
`
`Stallings, Data and Communication, 8th edition, Pearson Prentice Hall
`(2007)
`
`EX1031
`
`RESERVED
`
`EX1032
`
`Defendants’ Opening Claim Constructions Brief in VoIP Pal.com, Inc.
`v. Google, LLC f/k/a Google Inc., Case No. 6-21-cv-00667 (W.D. Tex.
`March 14, 2022)
`
`EX1033 Wikipedia Entry for “List of North American Numbering Plan area
`codes” (Archive.org: July 23, 2008), available at
`https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_North_American_
`Numbering_Plan_area_codes&oldid=227442992
`
`
`
`v
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`Patent No. 10,880,721
`
`EX1034 March 2, 2022 Email from Counsel for Patent Owner regarding
`modifications to VoIP’s proposed constructions in redline to Counsel
`for Google, LLC in VoIP-Pal.com, Inc. v. Google, LLC f/k/a Google
`Inc., Case No. 6-21-cv-00667 (W.D. Tex. October 19, 2021)
`
`EX1035
`
`Attachment to March 2, 2022 Email labeled “Claim construction
`comparison chart [Mobile Gateway].docx”
`
`
`
`
`
`vi
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`Patent No. 10,880,721
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`Amazon.com, Inc., Amazon.com Services, LLC, Amazon Web Services, Inc.,
`
`and T-Mobile USA, Inc. (collectively, “Petitioners”) request inter partes review
`
`(“IPR”) of claims 1, 6, 14-16, 20, 25, 34, 38-39, 43, 45-46, 49-50, 135-136, and 140
`
`(“the challenged claims”) of U.S. Patent No. 10,880,721 (“the ’721 patent”)
`
`(EX1001) assigned to VoIP-Pal.com, Inc. (“Patent Owner” or “PO”). For the
`
`reasons below, which are identical to the petition in IPR2022-01074, the challenged
`
`claims should be found unpatentable and canceled.
`
`II. MANDATORY NOTICES
`Real Parties-in-Interest: Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. §42.8(b)(1), Petitioners
`
`identify
`
`the following as
`
`the real parties-in-interest: Amazon.com, Inc.,
`
`Amazon.com Services LLC, Amazon Web Services, Inc., AWSHC, Inc.,
`
`Amazon.com Sales, Inc., T-Mobile USA, Inc., and T-Mobile US, Inc.
`
`Related Matters: The ’721 patent is asserted in the following civil actions:
`
` VoIP-Pal.com, Inc. v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., et al., 6:21-cv-
`
`01246 (W.D. Tex.) (transferred to Waco division from Austin division,
`
`formerly Case No. 1:21-cv-01084 (W.D. Tex.));
`
` VoIP-Pal.com, Inc. v. Huawei Technologies Co., Ltd., et al., 6:21-cv-
`
`01247 (W.D. Tex.) (transferred to Waco division from Austin division,
`
`formerly Case No. 1:21-cv-01085 (W.D. Tex.));
`
`
`
`1
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`Patent No. 10,880,721
` VoIP-Pal.com, Inc. v. T-Mobile USA, Inc., et al., 6:21-cv-00674 (W.D.
`
`Tex.);
`
` VoIP-Pal.com, Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc., et al., 6:21-cv-00668 (W.D.
`
`Tex.);
`
` Cellco Partnership d/b/a Verizon Wireless Inc., et al. v. VoIP-Pal.com,
`
`Inc., 3:21-cv-05275 (N.D. Cal.);
`
` VoIP-Pal.com, Inc. v. Meta Platforms, Inc., et al., 3:22-cv-03202 (N.D.
`
`Cal.) (transferred from W.D. Tex. to N.D. Cal., formerly Case No. 6:21-
`
`cv-00665 (W.D. Tex.));
`
` VoIP-Pal.com, Inc. v. Verizon Communications Inc., et al., 6:21-cv-
`
`00672 (W.D. Tex.);
`
` Twitter, Inc. v. VoIP-Pal.com, Inc., 3-21-cv-09773 (N.D. Cal.);
`
` VoIP-Pal.com, Inc. v. Google, LLC f/k/a Google Inc., 3-22-cv-03199
`
`(N.D. Cal.) (transferred from W.D. Tex. to N.D. Cal., formerly Case
`
`No. 6-21-cv-00667 (W.D. Tex.));
`
` Apple Inc. v. VoIP-Pal.com, Inc., 3-21-cv-05110 (N.D. Cal.)
`
`(terminated);
`
` AT&T Corp., et al. v. VoIP-Pal.com, Inc., 3-21-cv-05078 (N.D. Cal.)
`
`(terminated);
`
`
`
`2
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`Patent No. 10,880,721
` VoIP-Pal.com, Inc. v. Apple Inc., 6-21-cv-00670 (W.D. Tex.)
`
`(terminated); and
`
` VoIP-Pal.com, Inc. v. AT&T Corp., et al., 6-21-cv-00671 (W.D. Tex.)
`
`(terminated).
`
`Petitioners are concurrently filing another IPR petition challenging additional
`
`claims from the ’721 patent. Both this IPR petition and the concurrently-filed IPR
`
`petition are substantively identical to the petitions filed on June 3, 2022 in Google,
`
`LLC v. VoIP-Pal.com, Inc., IPR2022-01074 (“the Google Proceeding”) and
`
`IPR2022-01075. Petitioners concurrently submit their Motion for Joinder and
`
`Notice Regarding Multiple Petitions. Petitioners have spoken with counsel of record
`
`for Google, and Google does not oppose joinder to the Google Proceeding.
`
`The ’721 patent is also related to U.S. Patent No. 8,630,234 (“the ’234
`
`patent”), which is also at issue in the above civil actions. Petitioners are concurrently
`
`filing IPR petitions challenging the ’234 patent that are substantively identical to the
`
`petitions filed on June 3, 2022 in Google, LLC v. VoIP-Pal.com, Inc., IPR2022-
`
`01072 and IPR2022-01073.
`
`
`
`3
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`Patent No. 10,880,721
`
`Counsel and Service Information:
`
`Counsel for Petitioner T-Mobile USA, Inc.
`Lead Counsel
`Back-up Counsel
`Amanda Tessar
`Kourtney Mueller Merrill
`(Reg. No. 58,195)
`(Reg. No. 53,683)
`merrill-ptab@perkinscoie.com
`tessar-ptab@perkinscoie.com
`PERKINS COIE LLP
`PERKINS COIE LLP
`1900 Sixteenth Street, Suite 1400
`1900 Sixteenth Street, Suite 1400
`Denver, Colorado 80202
`Denver, Colorado 80202
`Phone: 303-291-2300
`Phone: 303-291-2300
`Fax: 303-291-2400
`Fax: 303-291-2400
`Counsel for Petitioners Amazon.com, Inc., Amazon.com Services, LLC, and
`Amazon Web Services, Inc.
`First Back-up Counsel
`Back-up Counsel
`Christopher L. Kelley
`Daniel T. Shvodian
`(Reg. No. 42,714)
`(Reg. No. 42,148)
`kelley-ptab@perkinscoie.com
`shvodian-ptab@perkinscoie.com
`PERKINS COIE LLP
`PERKINS COIE LLP
`3150 Porter Dr.
`3150 Porter Dr.
`Palo Alto, CA 94304
`Palo Alto, CA 94304
`Phone: 650-838-4413
`Phone: 650-838-4413
`Fax: 650-838-4350
`Fax: 650-838-4350
`
`Powers of attorney pursuant to 37 C.F.R. §42.10(b) accompany this Petition.
`
`Petitioners consent to electronic service at the following addresses:
`
` Amazon.com, Inc., Amazon.com Services, LLC, Amazon Web
`
`Services, Inc.: Shvodian-ptab@perkinscoie.com; and
`
` T-Mobile USA, Inc.: TMobile-VOIP@perkinscoie.com.
`
`
`
`4
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`Patent No. 10,880,721
`
`III. PAYMENT OF FEES
`The PTO is authorized to charge any fees due during this proceeding to
`
`Deposit Account No. 50-0665.
`
`IV. GROUNDS FOR STANDING
`Petitioners certify that the ’721 patent is available for review, and Petitioners
`
`are not barred/estopped from requesting review on the grounds herein.
`
`V.
`
`PRECISE RELIEF REQUESTED
`A. Claims for Which Review Is Requested
`Petitioners request review of claims 1, 6, 14-16, 20, 25, 34, 38-39, 43, 45-46,
`
`49-50, 135-136, and 140 of the ’721 patent and cancellation of those claims as
`
`unpatentable.
`
`B.
`Statutory Grounds of Challenge
`The challenged claims should be canceled as unpatentable in view of the
`
`following grounds:
`
`Ground 1: Claims 1, 14, 15, 20, 38, 39, 46, and 136 are anticipated under pre-
`
`AIA 35 U.S.C. §102 by U.S. Patent Publication No. 2008/0137642 to Teodosiu et
`
`al. (“Teodosiu”) (EX1005);
`
`Ground 2: Claims 16, 34, and 49 are unpatentable under §103 over Teodosiu;
`
`Ground 3: Claims 6, 25, and 43 are unpatentable under §103 over Teodosiu
`
`in view of U.S. Publication No. 2008/0144578 to Kaal (“Kaal”);
`
`
`
`5
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`Patent No. 10,880,721
`Ground 4: Claim 45 is unpatentable under §103 over Teodosiu in view of
`
`U.S. Publication No. 2008/0167039 to Guedalia (“Guedalia”);
`
`Ground 5: Claims 50 and 140 are unpatentable under §103 over Teodosiu in
`
`view of U.S. Publication No. 2007/0127449 to Nix (“Nix”);
`
`Ground 6: Claim 135 is unpatentable under §103 over Teodosiu in view of
`
`U.S. Publication No. 2005/0186960 to Jiang (“Jiang”); and
`
`Ground 7: Claims 34 and 49 are unpatentable under §103 over Teodosiu in
`
`view of U.S. Publication No. 2002/0102973 to Rosenberg (“Rosenberg”).
`
`For purposes of this proceeding only, Petitioners assume the earliest effective
`
`filing date of the ’721 patent is July 28, 2008, which is the filing date of U.S.
`
`Provisional Application No. 61/129,898 to which the ’721 patent claims priority.
`
`Teodosiu published on June 12, 2008, from an application filed on December
`
`8, 2006. Kaal published on June 19, 2008, from an application filed on November
`
`27, 2007. Guedalia published on July 10, 2008, from an application filed on
`
`November 30, 2007. Therefore, Teodosiu, Kaal, and Guedalia each qualify as prior
`
`art at least under §§102(a), (e). Nix published on June 7, 2007. Rosenberg published
`
`on August 1, 2002. Therefore, Nix and Rosenberg each qualify as prior art at least
`
`under §§102(b), (e).
`
`Teodosiu, Kaal, Nix, and Rosenberg were not considered during prosecution
`
`of the ’721 patent (EX1001, Cover; also generally EX1004).
`
`
`
`6
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`Patent No. 10,880,721
`
`VI. LEVEL OF ORDINARY SKILL
`A person of ordinary skill in the art as of the claimed priority date of the ’721
`
`patent (“POSITA”) would have had a bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering,
`
`computer engineering, computer science, or a related field along with at least two
`
`years of work experience in the field of networking. (EX1002 ¶¶19-21.)1 More
`
`education can supplement practical experience and vice versa. (Id.)
`
`VII. OVERVIEW OF THE ’721 PATENT
`A. The ’721 patent
`The ’721 patent purports to minimize “long distance or roaming charges” by
`
`providing an access code to a mobile device to initiate a local call to the callee.
`
`(EX1001, Abstract, 1:18-19; EX1002 ¶¶32-37.) Figure 1 illustrates a system 10 to
`
`permit mobile telephone 12 to initiate a call to a callee (e.g., 32, 36). (Id., 8:31-35.)
`
`
`1 Petitioners submit the declaration of Nader Mir, Ph.D. (EX1002), an expert in the
`
`field of the ’721 patent. (EX1002 ¶¶3-18; EX1003.)
`
`
`
`7
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`Patent No. 10,880,721
`
`
`
`(Id., FIG. 1.)
`
`Mobile telephone 12 receives a callee identifier associated with a callee from
`
`a user, step 104 in Figure 3. (Id., 11:36-42.) Mobile device 12 transmits an access
`
`code request message (e.g., Figure 4) to access server 14, step 106 (id., 11:44-18)
`
`containing the callee identifier and a location identifier, which identifies mobile
`
`telephone 12’s location. (Id., 11:58-12:6, 12:13-43.)
`
`
`
`8
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`Patent No. 10,880,721
`
`
`
`
`
`(Id., FIG. 3.)
`
`(Id., FIG. 4.)
`
`
`
`9
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`Patent No. 10,880,721
`At step 130, mobile telephone 12 receives an access code reply message
`
`(Figure 5) from the access server 14 (id., 12:55-59) that includes an access code (id.,
`
`12:61-66). Mobile telephone 12 initiates a call using the access code, step 149. (Id.,
`
`13:29-39.)
`
`(Id., FIG. 5.)
`
`
`
`As demonstrated below, all the challenged claims’ limitations were known in
`
`the prior art. (See infra Section IX; EX1002 ¶37; also EX1002 ¶¶22-31 (technology
`
`background, citing Exhibits 1009, 1015, 1017, 1022, 1030, 1033), 38-60 (discussing
`
`the prior art at issue in this petition), 73-349 (discussing prior art disclosures in view
`
`of each claim’s limitations).)
`
`VIII. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
`Under the applicable standard in Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303 (Fed.
`
`Cir. 2005) (en banc), claim terms are typically given their ordinary and customary
`
`meanings as understood by a POSITA at the time of the invention based on the claim
`
`language, specification, and the prosecution history of record. Phillips, 415 F.3d at
`
`
`
`10
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`Patent No. 10,880,721
`1313; id. at 1312-16. The Board, however, only construes the claims when
`
`necessary to resolve the controversy. Toyota Motor Corp. v. Cellport Sys., IPR2015-
`
`00633, Paper No. 11 at 16 (Aug. 14, 2015) (citation omitted). Aside from the terms
`
`addressed below, Petitioners believe no express constructions of any claim terms are
`
`necessary. (EX1002 ¶¶61-72.)2
`
`A.
`“access code”
`All challenged claims either recite or depend from a claim that recites “access
`
`code.” (E.g., EX1001, 35:14.) The Board should interpret this term as a “code used
`
`by the wireless device in place of the callee identifier.” (EX1032, 11-13.) This
`
`interpretation is consistent with the ’721 patent specification (and prosecution
`
`history), which explains that an access code is a “telephone number” (EX1001, 13:5-
`
`6) or an “IP address” (id., 13:65-66), which is “different from the callee identifier”
`
`(id., 12:66-13:2). (E.g., EX1004, 2360-61.) PO has argued that this term should be
`
`
`2 Petitioners reserve all rights to raise claim construction and other arguments,
`
`including challenges under 35 U.S.C. §§101 or 112, in district court as relevant to
`
`those proceedings. See, e.g., Target Corp. v. Proxicom Wireless, IPR2020-00904,
`
`Paper 11 at 11-13 (November 10, 2020). A comparison of the claims to any accused
`
`products in litigation may raise controversies that are not presented here given the
`
`similarities between the references and the patent.
`
`
`
`11
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`Patent No. 10,880,721
`given its plain and ordinary meaning. (EX1024, 4.) Petitioners’ analysis applies to
`
`both constructions. (Infra Section IX; EX1002 ¶62.)
`
`B.
`“gateway” (claims 1, 20, 38)
`All challenged claims either recite or depend from a claim that recites
`
`“gateway.” (E.g., EX1001, 35:17.) The Board should interpret this term as a “device
`
`that connects networks that use different communication protocols.” (EX1023, 5.)
`
`This interpretation is consistent with the ’721 patent specification of a “gateway”
`
`where the disclosed acts for a gateway related to connecting PSTN to IP networks,
`
`which use different protocols. (See, e.g., EX1001, 23:21-32, FIG. 1.) PO has argued
`
`that this term should be given its plain and ordinary meaning. (EX1024, 4; EX1023,
`
`7.) Petitioners’ analysis applies to both constructions. (Infra Section IX; EX1002
`
`¶63.)
`
`C.
`“roaming” (claims 34, 49)
`Claims 34 and 49 recite “roaming.” (E.g., EX1001, 34:35-36.) The Board
`
`should interpret this term as “being in another mobile telephone service provider’s
`
`network and not the mobile telephone’s home network.” (EX1032, 6-8.) This
`
`interpretation is consistent with the ’721 patent specification that provides: “mobile
`
`telephone service providers often charge significant fees for long distance telephone
`
`calls, particularly when the mobile telephone is roaming in another mobile telephone
`
`service provider’s network.” (See, e.g., EX1001, 1:21-24, 13:13-17.) PO contends
`
`
`
`12
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`Patent No. 10,880,721
`that this term should be given its plain and ordinary meaning. (EX1032, 6; EX1024,
`
`4.) Petitioners’ analysis applies to both constructions. (Infra Section IX; EX1002
`
`¶64.)
`
`D.
`“means for receiving … destination node identifier …” (claim 20)
`This phrase recites “means for” language (EX1001, 35:34-35), which invokes
`
`35 U.S.C. §112 ¶6. Construing a means-plus-function claim term requires that the
`
`function recited in the claim term be first identified; then, the written description of
`
`the specification must be consulted to identify the corresponding structure that
`
`performs the identified function and equivalents thereof. See Williamson v. Citrix
`
`Online, LLC, 792 F.3d 1339, 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2015). The identified function of the
`
`“means for” is “receiving from a user of the wireless apparatus a destination node
`
`identifier associated with a destination node with which the user wishes to
`
`communicate.” The ’721 patent’s specification identifies as corresponding structure
`
`a keypad, microphone, or pre-stored callee identifiers in memory. (EX1001, 10:25-
`
`33, 11:43-50; EX1004, 3389-91.) Thus, the claimed “means for receiving” should
`
`be construed as a dialing input, which is a key pad, a voice recognition unit, or a
`
`parameter memory, or equivalents thereof. (EX1032, 30; EX1002 ¶65.)
`
`E.
`“means for transmitting …” (claim 20)
`This phrase recites “means for” language (EX1001, 36:43-47), which invokes
`
`35 U.S.C. §112 ¶6. The identified function of the “means for” is “transmitting an
`
`
`
`13
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`Patent No. 10,880,721
`access code request message.” The ’721 patent’s specification identifies as
`
`corresponding structure a network interface that transmits data over a network.
`
`(EX1001, 11:51-55, 11:60-64, 10:43-46, 10:47-54, FIG. 2; EX1004, 3389-91.)
`
`Thus, the claimed “means for transmitting” should be construed as a network
`
`interface; or equivalents thereof. (EX1032, 29; EX1002 ¶66.)
`
`F.
`“means for receiving an access code reply message …” (claim 20)
`This phrase recites “means for” language (EX1001, 36:48-56), which invokes
`
`35 U.S.C. §112 ¶6. The identified function of the “means for” is “receiving an access
`
`code reply message from the access server….” The ’721 patent’s specification
`
`identifies as corresponding structure a “non-voice network interface 70” for
`
`receiving a reply message over “over a non-voice network, such as a WiFi or GPRS
`
`network” or “any suitable network, even a voice network.” (EX1001, 13:30-38,
`
`FIG. 2; EX1004, 3389-91.) Thus, the claimed “means for receiving” should be
`
`construed as a network interface; or equivalents thereof. (EX1032, 29; EX1002
`
`¶67.)
`
`G.
`“means for causing …” (claim 20)
`This phrase recites “means for” language (EX1001, 36:58-64), which invokes
`
`35 U.S.C. §112 ¶6. The identified function of the “means for” is “causing the
`
`wireless apparatus to establish communications with the destination node through
`
`the communications channel identified by the access code in the access code reply
`
`
`
`14
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`Patent No. 10,880,721
`message.” The ’721 patent’s specification identifies as corresponding structure a
`
`“mobile telephone network interface 72 of the I/O port,” including other networks.
`
`(EX1001, 13:38-48.) Thus, the claimed “means for causing” should be construed as
`
`a network interface; or equivalents thereof. (EX1023 9, n.8.)
`
`PO has argued that the corresponding structure for this term is:
`
`Mobile telephone 12 having a microprocessor 52 programmed to
`implement the algorithm illustrated in FIG. 3, which includes
`block 149 labeled “Initiate voice/video call using access code.”
`The apparatus 12 includes an I/O port (56) for communication.
`See FIG. 2.
`
`(EX1024, 10.) Petitioners’ analysis applies to both constructions. (Infra Section IX;
`
`EX1002 ¶68.)
`
`H.
`“means for receiving …” (claim 34)
`This phrase recites “means for” language (EX1001, 37:52-53), which invokes
`
`35 U.S.C. §112 ¶6. The identified function of the “means for” is “receiving from
`
`the wireless apparatus the access code request message.” The ’721 patent’s
`
`specification identifies as corresponding structure a “non-voice network interface
`
`162 through a non-voice network (16) such as a WiFi or GPRS network” including
`
`other networks. (EX1001, 14:33-39, FIG. 6.) Thus, the claimed “means for
`
`receiving” should be construed as a network interface; or equivalents thereof.
`
`(EX1032, 30; EX1002 ¶69.)
`
`
`
`15
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`Patent No. 10,880,721
`
`I.
`“means for communicating …” (claim 34)
`This phrase recites “means for” language (EX1001, 37:54-61), which invokes
`
`35 U.S.C. §112 ¶6. The identified function of the “means for” is “communicating
`
`with the routing controller to obtain from the routing controller the access code.”
`
`The ’721 patent’s specification identifies as corresponding structure an “I/O port
`
`156” that “includes a routing controller interface 164 for interfacing with the routing
`
`controller 30.” (EX1001, 14:1-8, 14:40-54; FIG. 6.) Thus, the claimed “means for
`
`communicating” should be construed as an input/output port; or equivalents thereof.
`
`(EX1023 7, n.5.) PO has argued that the corresponding structure for this term is
`
`“[a]n I/O port of an access server and/or an I/O port of a routing controller.”
`
`(EX1035, 5-6; EX1034, 1.) Petitioners’ analysis applies to both constructions.
`
`(Infra Section IX; EX1002 ¶70.)
`
`J.
`“means for transmitting …” (claim 34)
`This phrase recites “means for” language (EX1001, 37:62-63), which invokes
`
`35 U.S.C. §112 ¶6. The identified function of the “means for” is “transmitting the
`
`access code reply message… to the wireless apparatus.” The ’721 patent’s
`
`specification identifies as corresponding structure a “non-voice network interface
`
`162 to the non-voice network 16, which may be a WiFi or GPRS network, for
`
`example” or “other types of networks.” (EX1001, 14:54-15:8, FIG. 6.) Thus, the
`
`
`
`16
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`Patent No. 10,880,721
`claimed “means for transmitting” should be construed as a network interface; or
`
`equivalents thereof. (EX1032, 30; EX1002 ¶71.)
`
`IX. DETAILED EXPLANATION OF GROUNDS3
`A. Ground 1: Teodosiu anticipates claims 1, 14-15, 20, 38-39, 46, and
`136
`1.
`
`Claim 1
`a) A method of establishing communications between a
`wireless device and a destination node of a
`communications network, the method comprising:
`To the extent the preamble of claim 1 is limiting, Teodosiu discloses the
`
`limitations therein. (EX1002 ¶¶73-76.) For example, Teodosiu discloses “a method
`
`for establishing an audio connection [‘communications’] between mobile device 110
`
`[‘wireless device’] and computer 180 [‘destination node’].” (EX1005 ¶[0024].) In
`
`particular, “[a] call is established between a user at a mobile device and a contact
`
`logged into a communication service through a computer application.” (EX1005,
`
`Abstract; also id. ¶¶[0024]; [0047], FIG. 1A.)4 Figure 3 illustrates an exemplary
`
`method for establishing the audio connection.
`
`
`3 Petitioners present analysis based on a claim’s dependence rather than its
`
`numbering for readability.
`
`4 Emphasis is added unless otherwise stated.
`
`
`
`17
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`Patent No. 10,880,721
`
`(EX1005, FIG. 3; EX1002 ¶¶74-75.)
`
`
`
`Accordingly, Teodosiu discloses limitation 1.a. (EX1002 ¶76; also infra
`
`Sections IX.A.1.b-j.)
`
`b) receiving from a user of the wireless device a
`destination node identifier associated with the
`destination node;
`Teodosiu discloses this limitation. (EX1002 ¶¶77-80.) For example, mobile
`
`device 110 (“wireless device”) receives, from a user of the device, a selected contact
`
`(“destination node identifier”) associated with a user of computer 180 (“destination
`
`node”) because the “user selects [the] contact through a page displayed on [the]
`
`
`
`18
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`Patent No. 10,880,721
`mobile device” (EX1005, Abstract), where the contact is “an email address, a
`
`messaging username,” etc. (id.) associated with a user of computer 180. (Id.; also
`
`id. ¶¶[0006], [0024], [0027], [0055], [0061]-[0062], cl. 1; infra Section IX.A.1.c;
`
`EX1002 ¶78.) Also, because when “[t]he mobile device places a call to a VoIP
`
`system, the VoIP system … establishes an audio connection between the cell phone
`
`and the computer application through which the contact is logged into the
`
`communication service” (EX1005., Abstract), the computer is thus a “destination
`
`node” and the selected contact is a “destination node identifier.” (EX1002 ¶79.)
`
`c)
`
`transmitting an access code request message to an
`access server,
`Teodosiu discloses this limitation. (EX1002 ¶¶81-86.) As discussed below,
`
`mobile device 110 transmits a request (“access code request message”) to a network
`
`server 130 (“access server”). (Id. ¶81.) For example, “[a] first request is received
`
`by Network server 130 from mobile device 110 at step 310,” see Figure 3 below.
`
`(EX1005 ¶[0024]; also id. ¶¶[0008], [0009], [0060].) “The request is made to
`
`establish a call from mobile device 110 to a contact through a computer
`
`application.” (Id ¶[0024].)
`
`(Id., FIG. 3 (cropped and annotated); EX1002 ¶82.)
`
`19
`
`
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`Patent No. 10,880,721
`Teodosiu’s request is an “access code request message” because it is a
`
`message sent from the mobile device 110 and received by the network server 130,
`
`wherein in response to this request, “[a] VoIP phone number is provided to mobile
`
`device 110” (EX1005 ¶[0056]). (EX1002 ¶83.) The VoIP phone number is an
`
`“access code” because it is used by mobile device 110 in place of the selected contact
`
`to call the contact (e.g., EX1005, Abstract.) (Id., FIG. 3; also id. ¶¶[0008], [0009];
`
`EX1002 ¶¶83-85; supra Section VIII.A; EX1001, 13:1-7, cls. 32, 65, FIG. 5.)
`
`d)
`
`the access code request message including the
`destination node identifier and a location identifier
`identifying a geographical location of the wireless
`d