UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________________________________________
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________________________________________
`
`
`META PLATFORMS, INC.,
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`VOIP-PAL.COM, INC.,
`(Alleged) Patent Owner
`
`
`U.S. PATENT NO. 10,880,721
`
`Case IPR2022-01235
`
`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW
`UNDER 35 U.S.C. §312 AND 37 C.F.R. §42.104
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 10,880,721
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................... 1
`
`II. MANDATORY NOTICES ............................................................................. 1
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`D.
`
`Real Party-In-Interest ............................................................................ 1
`
`Related Matters ...................................................................................... 2
`
`Counsel and Service Information .......................................................... 4
`
`37 C.F.R. §42.8(b)(4): Service Information .......................................... 4
`
`III.
`
`PAYMENT OF FEES UNDER 37 C.F.R. §42.103 ........................................ 4
`
`IV. CERTIFICATION OF GROUNDS FOR STANDING .................................. 5
`
`V. OVERVIEW OF CHALLENGE AND RELIEF REQUESTED .................... 5
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`Prior-Art References.............................................................................. 5
`
`Relief Requested .................................................................................... 6
`
`VI. DISCRETIONARY DENIAL IS NOT APPROPRIATE ............................... 6
`
`A. No Prior Petition by Petitioner .............................................................. 6
`
`B.
`
`The Presented Grounds Are Dissimilar to the Previous Art and
`Arguments ............................................................................................. 7
`
`C.
`
`Efficiency, Fairness, and the Merits Support Institution ...................... 7
`
`VII. THE `721 PATENT ......................................................................................... 8
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`Technology Summary ........................................................................... 8
`
`Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art .....................................................12
`
`VIII. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION ..........................................................................13
`
`A. Agreed constructions ...........................................................................13
`
`B.
`
`“gateway” (Claims 51, 77, 103, 133) ..................................................13
`
`
`
`i
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 10,880,721
`
`C.
`
`“means for causing a routing controller to produce an access
`code” (Claim 77) .................................................................................14
`
`IX. OVERVIEW OF THE PRIOR ART .............................................................15
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`Buckley ................................................................................................15
`
`Bates ....................................................................................................17
`
`Ejzak ....................................................................................................19
`
`X.
`
`SPECIFIC GROUNDS ..................................................................................20
`
`A. Ground I: Claims 51-52, 57, 60, 63, 65, 67, 73, 77, 103-104,
`108-110, 124, 130, 133, 138-139 Are Obvious Over Buckley. ..........20
`
`Claim 51 ....................................................................................20
`1.
`Claim 52 ....................................................................................31
`2.
`Claim 57 ....................................................................................33
`3.
`Claim 60 ....................................................................................34
`4.
`Claim 63 ....................................................................................35
`5.
`Claim 65 ....................................................................................37
`6.
`Claim 67 ....................................................................................37
`7.
`Claim 73 ....................................................................................38
`8.
`Claim 77 ....................................................................................39
`9.
`10. Claim 103 ..................................................................................41
`11. Claim 104 ..................................................................................42
`12. Claim 108 ..................................................................................42
`13. Claim 109 ..................................................................................43
`14. Claim 110 ..................................................................................43
`15. Claim 124 ..................................................................................44
`16. Claim 130 ..................................................................................46
`17. Claim 133 ..................................................................................48
`18. Claim 138 ..................................................................................49
`19. Claim 139 ..................................................................................49
`
`B.
`
`Ground II: Claims 63, 109, 130, 133, and 138-139 Are Obvious
`Over Buckley in View of Ejzak. .........................................................49
`
`1. Motivation to Combine .............................................................49
`2.
`Claim 63 ....................................................................................54
`3.
`Claim 109 ..................................................................................55
`
`
`
`ii
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 10,880,721
`
`4.
`5.
`6.
`7.
`
`Claim 130 ..................................................................................56
`Claim 133 ..................................................................................57
`Claim 138 ..................................................................................57
`Claim 139 ..................................................................................58
`
`C.
`
`Ground III: Claims 51-52, 57, 60, 63, 65, 67, 73, 77, 103-104,
`108-110, 124, 130, 133, and 138-139 Are Obvious Over
`Buckley in view of Bates. ...................................................................58
`
`1. Motivation to Combine .............................................................58
`2.
`Claim 51 ....................................................................................62
`3.
`Claim 52 ....................................................................................68
`4.
`Claim 57 ....................................................................................68
`5.
`Claim 60 ....................................................................................68
`6.
`Claim 63 ....................................................................................69
`7.
`Claim 65 ....................................................................................69
`8.
`Claim 67 ....................................................................................69
`9.
`Claim 73 ....................................................................................70
`10. Claim 77 ....................................................................................70
`11. Claim 103 ..................................................................................70
`12. Claim 104 ..................................................................................71
`13. Claim 108 ..................................................................................72
`14. Claim 109 ..................................................................................72
`15. Claim 110 ..................................................................................72
`16. Claim 124 ..................................................................................72
`17. Claim 130 ..................................................................................73
`18. Claim 133 ..................................................................................73
`19. Claim 138 ..................................................................................74
`20. Claim 139 ..................................................................................74
`
`D. Ground IV: Claims 63, 109, 130, 133, and 138-139 Are
`Obvious Over Buckley in View Bates, in Further View of
`Ejzak. ...................................................................................................74
`
`1. Motivation to Combine .............................................................74
`2.
`Claim 63 ....................................................................................75
`3.
`Claim 109 ..................................................................................75
`4.
`Claim 130 ..................................................................................75
`5.
`Claim 133 ..................................................................................76
`6.
`Claim 138 ..................................................................................76
`7.
`Claim 139 ..................................................................................76
`
`
`
`iii
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 10,880,721
`
`XI. SECONDARY CONSIDERATIONS ...........................................................76
`
`XII. CONCLUSION ..............................................................................................76
`
`
`
`iv
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 10,880,721
`
`Exhibit
`No.
`
`LIST OF EXHIBITS
`
`Description
`
`1001
`
`1002
`
`1003
`
`1004
`
`1005
`
`1006
`
`1007
`
`1008
`
`1009
`
`1010
`
`1011
`
`1012
`
`1013
`
`1014
`
`1015
`
`1016
`
`1017
`
`1018
`
`1019
`
`
`
`U.S. Patent No. 10,880,721 (`721 Patent)
`
`File History of U.S. Patent No. 10,880,721 (without NPL and foreign
`references)
`Declaration of Dr. Vijay Madisetti
`
`Curriculum vitae of Dr. Vijay Madisetti
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,668,159 (“Buckley”)
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,995,565
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,954,654 (“Ejzak”)
`
`U.S. Patent App. Pub. No. 2009/0047922
`
`U.S. Patent No. 8,731,163 (“Bates”)
`
`IETF RFC 3261, available at
`https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc3261
`U.S. Patent No. 7,245,609
`
`Claim Construction Order (Dkt. No. 67) in Case No. 6:21-cv-00668-
`ADA (W.D. Tex.)
`Joint Claim Construction Statement (Dkt. No. 59) in Case No. 3:22-
`CV-03202 (N.D.Cal)
`U.S. Patent Pub. No. 2008/0167039
`
`U.S. Patent Pub. No. 2002/0102973
`
`U.S. Patent No. 8,542,815
`
`Exhibit 2016 in Apple, Inc. v. VoIP-Pal.com, Inc., IPR 2016-01201
`(P.T.A.B. Feb. 10, 2017)
`Email with attachment from Counsel for Patent Owner Regarding
`Claim Construction, dated March 2, 2022
`“Convergence Technologies for 3G Networks IP, UMTS, EGPRS
`and ATM”, by Jeffery Bannister et al., Wiley, England (2004)
`
`v
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 10,880,721
`
`Exhibit
`No.
`
`1020
`
`1021
`
`1022
`
`1023
`
`1024
`
`1025
`
`1026
`
`Description
`
`IETF RFC 3986, available at
`https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc3986
`IETF RFC 2543, available at
`https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc2543
`U.S. Patent No. 7,283,507
`
`Excerpts from Microsoft Computer Dictionary, 5th ed. (2002)
`
`Excerpts from Wireless Encyclopedia, Althos Publishing (2007)
`
`International Patent Publication No. WO 01/89145 A2
`
`Excerpt from the File History of U.S. Patent No. 10,880,721 –
`“Roaming – Wikipedia” (submitted along with IDS on September
`24, 2013)
`
`
`
`vi
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 10,880,721
`
`
`
`
`
`TABLE OF ABBREVIATIONS
`
`Term
`
`Abbreviation
`
`AS
`
`CS
`
`DNS
`
`ENUM
`
`IP
`
`MRN
`
`IMS
`
`PS
`
`POSITA
`
`PSAP
`
`PSTN
`
`SIP
`
`URI
`
`UE
`
`VoIP
`
`WLAN
`
`Application Server
`
`Circuit-Switched
`
`Domain Name System
`
`E.164 Number Mapping
`
`Internet Protocol
`
`IP Multimedia Routing Number
`
`IP Multimedia Subsystem
`
`Packet-Switched
`
`Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art
`
`Public Safety Answering Point
`
`Public Switched Telephone Network
`
`Session Initiation Protocol
`
`Uniform Resource Indicators
`
`User Equipment
`
`Voice-over-IP
`
`Wireless Local Area Network
`
`vii
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 10,880,721
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`Meta Platforms, Inc. (“Meta” or “Petitioner”) requests inter partes review of
`
`claims 51-52, 57, 60, 63, 65, 67, 73, 77, 103-104, 108-110, 124, 130, 133, and 138-
`
`139 (“Challenged Claims”) of U.S. Patent No. 10,880,721 (EX1001, “the ’721
`
`Patent”).
`
`The Challenged Claims address a technique for routing phone calls. The
`
`technique starts when a phone sends to a server a message that includes the phone’s
`
`location and a destination node identifier. The server responds with a temporary,
`
`local number selected from a pool. The temporary number is used to establish a call
`
`between the phone and a destination node. The patent’s purpose for using this
`
`technique is to help avoid long distance and roaming charges by routing the call over
`
`an IP network. But the patented technique was well-known in the prior art. This
`
`includes art that disclosed using the phone’s location to select a temporary, local
`
`number from a pool, and using that number to route calls to a destination node. The
`
`art also disclosed temporary number use in Voice-over-IP (“VoIP”) calls and calls
`
`made when mobile phones were roaming away from their home networks. The
`
`Challenged Claims should therefore be canceled.
`
`II. MANDATORY NOTICES
`
`A. Real Party-In-Interest
`
`Petitioner identifies the following real parties-in-interest: Meta Platforms, Inc.
`
`(fka Facebook, Inc.) and WhatsApp LLC.
`
`1
`
`
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 10,880,721
`
`B. Related Matters
`
`VoIP-Pal.com (“Patent Owner” or “VoIP-Pal”) is asserting the ’721 Patent
`
`and related U.S. Patent 8,630,334 (“’234 Patent”) against Petitioner in Case No.
`
`5:22-cv-03202 (N.D. Cal.) (the “Litigation”). Both patents are also asserted in other
`
`pending litigations:
`
` VoIP-Pal v. Google, No. 3:22-cv-03199 (N.D. Cal.)
`
` VoIP-Pal v. Amazon, No. 6-21-cv-00668 (W.D. Tex.)
`
` VoIP-Pal v. Verizon, No. 6-21-cv-00672 (W.D. Tex.)
`
` VoIP-Pal v. T-Mobile, No. 6-21-cv-00674 (W.D. Tex.)
`
` VoIP-Pal v. Samsung, No. 6-21-cv-01246 (W.D. Tex.)
`
` VoIP-Pal v. Huawei, No. 6-21-cv-01247 (W.D. Tex.)
`
` Verizon v. VoIP-Pal, No. 3-21-cv-05275 (N.D. Cal.)
`
` Twitter v. VoIP-Pal, No. 3-21-cv-09773 (N.D. Cal.)
`
`Both patents were also asserted in completed litigations:
`
` VoIP-Pal v. Apple, No. 6-21-cv-00670 (W.D. Tex.)
`
` Apple v. VoIP-Pal, No. 3:21-cv-05110 (N.D. Cal.)
`
` VoIP-Pal v. AT&T, No. 6-21-cv-00671 (W.D. Tex.)
`
` AT&T v. VoIP-Pal, No. 3-21-cv-05078 (N.D. Cal.)
`
`Petitioner is simultaneously filing one other petition challenging different
`
`’721 Patent claims and two other petitions challenging the ’234 Patent.
`
`
`
`2
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 10,880,721
`
`Certain claims of the ’234 Patent are subject to a petition for IPR in Google
`
`LLC v. VoIP-Pal.com, Inc., No. IPR2022-01072 (P.T.A.B.); Google LLC v. VoIP-
`
`Pal.com, Inc., No. IPR2022-01073 (P.T.A.B.); Amazon.com, Inc. v. VoIP-Pal.com,
`
`Inc., No. IPR2022-01178 (P.T.A.B.); Amazon.com, Inc. v. VoIP-Pal.com, Inc., No.
`
`IPR2022-01179 (P.T.A.B.). Certain claims of the related ’721 Patent are subject to
`
`a petition for IPR in Google LLC v. VoIP-Pal.com, Inc., No. IPR2022-01074
`
`(P.T.A.B.); Google LLC v. VoIP-Pal.com, Inc., No. IPR2022-01075 (P.T.A.B.);
`
`Amazon.com, Inc. v. VoIP-Pal.com, Inc., No. IPR2022-01180 (P.T.A.B.);
`
`Amazon.com, Inc. v. VoIP-Pal.com, Inc., No. IPR2022-01181 (P.T.A.B.).
`
`Petitioner, Patent Owner, Amazon, Google, Twitter, AT&T, and Verizon are
`
`also involved in pending and closed litigations involving U.S. Patent No.
`
`10,218,606.1
`
`
`1 Meta, No. 6-20-cv-00267 (W.D. Tex.); Amazon, No. 6:20-cv-00272 (W.D.
`
`Tex.); Google, No. 6:20-cv-00269 (W.D. Tex.); Twitter, Nos. 3:21-cv-02769 and
`
`3:20-cv-02397 (N.D. Cal.); Apple, No. 5:20-cv-02460 (N.D. Cal.) and No. 6:20-
`
`cv-00275 (W.D. Tex.); AT&T, No. 5:20-cv-02995 (N.D. Cal.) and No. 6:20-cv-
`
`00325 (W.D. Tex.); Verizon, No. 5:20-cv-03092 (N.D. Cal.) and No. 6:20-cv-
`
`00327 (W.D. Tex.).
`
`
`
`3
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 10,880,721
`
`To Petitioner’s knowledge, there are no other judicial or administrative
`
`matters that would affect or be affected by a decision here.
`
`C. Counsel and Service Information
`
`Lead Counsel
`
`Back-Up Counsel
`
`W. Todd Baker (No. 45,265)
`todd.baker@kirkland.com
`Postal and Hand-Delivery Address:
`KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP
`1301 Pennsylvania Ave., N.W.
`Washington, D.C. 20004
`Telephone: (202) 389-5000
`Facsimile: (202) 389-5200
`
`
`Ellisen Shelton Turner (No. 54,503)
`ellisen.turner@kirkland.com
`Postal and Hand-Delivery Address:
`KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP
`2049 Century Park East,
`Los Angeles, CA 90067
`Telephone: (310) 552-4200
`Facsimile: (310) 552-5900
`Joshua Popik Glucoft (No. 67,696)
`josh.glucoft@kirkland.com
`Postal and Hand-Delivery Address:
`KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP
`2049 Century Park East,
`Los Angeles, CA 90067
`Telephone: (310) 552-4200
`Facsimile: (310) 552-5900
`
`D.
`
`37 C.F.R. §42.8(b)(4): Service Information
`
`Meta concurrently submits a Power of Attorney, 37 C.F.R. §42.10(b), and
`
`consents to electronic service to Meta-VoIP-IPR@kirkland.com.
`
`III. PAYMENT OF FEES UNDER 37 C.F.R. §42.103
`
`Review of 20 claims is requested. The undersigned authorizes the Office to
`
`charge to Deposit Account No. 506092 the 37 C.F.R. §42.15(a)(1) fee and any
`
`additional fees due for this Petition.
`
`
`
`4
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 10,880,721
`
`IV. CERTIFICATION OF GROUNDS FOR STANDING
`
`Petitioner certifies under Rule 42.104(a) that the ’721 Patent is available for
`
`IPR and that Petitioner is not barred or estopped from requesting IPR of the
`
`Challenged Claims on the grounds herein. Petitioner certifies: (1) Petitioner does not
`
`own the ’721 Patent; (2) Petitioner (or any real party-in-interest) has not filed a civil
`
`action challenging the validity of any ’721 Patent claim; (3) Petitioner files this
`
`Petition within one year of the date it was served with a complaint asserting
`
`infringement of the ’721 Patent; (4) estoppel provisions of 35 U.S.C. §315(e)(1) do
`
`not prohibit this IPR; and (5) this Petition is filed after the ’721 Patent was granted.
`
`V. OVERVIEW OF CHALLENGE AND RELIEF REQUESTED
`
`A.
`
`1.
`
`Prior-Art References
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,668,159 (“Buckley”) (EX1005), filed on August 3,
`
`2007 and granted on February 23, 2010, is prior-art under at least pre-AIA 35 U.S.C.
`
`§102(e).
`
`2.
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,954,654 (“Ejzak”) (EX1007), filed on July 31, 2001
`
`and granted on October 11, 2005, is prior-art under at least pre-AIA 35 U.S.C.
`
`§§102(a) and 102(b).
`
`3.
`
`U.S. Patent No. 8,731,163 (“Bates”) (EX1009), filed on May 9, 2007
`
`and granted on May 20, 2014, is prior-art under at least pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. §102(e).
`
`
`
`5
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 10,880,721
`
`B. Relief Requested
`
`Petitioner requests cancellation of the Challenged Claims as unpatentable
`
`under 35 U.S.C. §103 as follows:
`
`Ground
`
`Claims
`
`Proposed Statutory Rejection
`
`I
`
`II
`
`III
`
`51-52, 57, 60, 63, 65, 67, 73, 77,
`103-104, 108-110, 124, 130,
`133, and 138-139
`
`Obvious under §103 over Buckley
`
`63, 130, 133, and 138-139
`
`Obvious under §103 over Buckley
`in view of Ejzak
`
`51-52, 57, 60, 63, 65, 67, 73, 77,
`103-104, 108-110, 124, 130,
`133, and 138-139
`
`Obvious under §103 over Buckley
`in view of Bates
`
`IV
`
`63, 130, 133, and 138-139
`
`Obvious under §103 over Buckley
`in view of Bates, in further view of
`Ejzak
`
`VI. DISCRETIONARY DENIAL IS NOT APPROPRIATE
`
`A. No Prior Petition by Petitioner
`
`Neither Petitioner nor any associated real-party-in-interest has previously
`
`filed any IPR or PGR petitions against the ’721 patent. This petition is being filed
`
`before Patent Owner has filed its Preliminary Response to any other petition not filed
`
`by Petitioner. Thus, this is not a “follow-on” petition and there is no basis for the
`
`Board to exercise its discretion under 35 U.S.C. §314(a) and 37 C.F.R. §42.108(a).
`
`There are also no other IPR or PGR petitions challenging claims 52, 60, 65, or 73 of
`
`the ’721 Patent.
`
`
`
`6
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 10,880,721
`
`B.
`
`The Presented Grounds Are Dissimilar to the Previous Art and
`Arguments
`
`All factors considered under 35 U.S.C. §325(d) favor institution. The grounds
`
`in this Petition apply Buckley, Bates, and Ejzak, which were not applied against the
`
`Challenged Claims or discussed during the ’721 Patent’s prosecution. See generally
`
`EX1002. Nor are these references relied upon in any other IPR or PGR proceeding
`
`related to the Challenged Claims.
`
`C. Efficiency, Fairness, and the Merits Support Institution
`
`Pursuant to the Interim Procedure for Discretionary Denials in AIA Post-
`
`Grant Proceedings with Parallel District Court Litigation, the Board should not
`
`exercise its discretion under §314(a) in light of the Litigation.
`
`Factor 1: Institution will enable the Board to resolve validity and relieve the
`
`Court of the need to continue with that issue. Petitioner will move the Court for a
`
`stay if IPR is instituted.
`
`Factor 2: The Board will very likely issue its Final Written Decision before
`
`a trial occurs in the Litigation because no trial date has been scheduled.
`
`Factor 3: All major case milestones in the Litigation are yet to occur, and
`
`deadlines for them have not been set, such that substantial work is still remaining in
`
`the Litigation.
`
`
`
`7
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 10,880,721
`
`Factor 4: Petitioner stipulates in the Litigation that, if this IPR is instituted,
`
`Petitioner will not pursue invalidity of the Challenged Claims on the grounds raised,
`
`or that reasonably could have been raised, in this IPR.
`
`In addition, claims 52, 60, 65, and 73 are challenged in this Petition but are
`
`not asserted in the Litigation and not challenged in any other IPR or PGR petition.
`
`The Board should address the validity of those additional claims for the public’s
`
`benefit.
`
`Factor 5: In view of the other Fintiv factors—which heavily weigh against
`
`the Board’s exercise of §314(a) discretion—the parties’ similarity is of limited
`
`weight.
`
`Factor 6: This Petition’s merits are strong, which weighs against the Board
`
`exercising its discretion under §314(a).
`
`VII. THE `721 PATENT
`
`A. Technology Summary
`
`Traditional Public Switched Telephone Networks (PSTNs) route calls over
`
`circuit-switched telephone (aka “voice”) networks.2 See EX1007, 1:19-22. The ’721
`
`
`2 Such networks are known as “circuit-switched” because they can involve a
`
`particular, dedicated circuit connection to transmit data (in the form of electrical
`
`signals) between the caller and destination node. This stands in contrast to
`
`
`
`8
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 10,880,721
`
`Patent uses a sequence of messages sent over a “non-voice” network (such as a
`
`packet-switched Internet Protocol (IP) network) to route PSTN voice calls over an
`
`IP network (aka Voice-over-IP or VoIP). EX1001 8:36-42, 9:9-16.
`
`The ’721 Patent’s call routing process begins when a mobile telephone
`
`(purple3 element 12 in Figure 1 below) sends an “access code request message” to
`
`an access server (orange element 14) belonging to a telecommunications service
`
`provider (such as AT&T). Id., 11:51-55. The access code request message includes
`
`the intended callee’s identifier, such as a telephone number, and the caller’s
`
`“location identifier.” Id. 11:66-12:2, 12:20-22. Based on that information in the
`
`access code request message, the access server responds with an “access code” in an
`
`“access code reply message.” Id. 12:63-67. The “access code” is a temporary
`
`number, such as a local telephone number, used to route the call. Id. 13:4-7.
`
`
`“packet-switched” networks (such as the Internet) that break data into smaller
`
`packets that are separately routed over network connections to the recipient,
`
`which reassembles the packets once they are received. See EX1003 ¶40.
`
`3 Color in the diagrams herein are Petitioner’s annotations. All emphasis herein is
`
`added, unless indicated otherwise.
`
`
`
`9
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 10,880,721
`
`
`
`In Figure 1, the “access code” is the temporary telephone number in yellow-
`
`highlighted element 20 (i.e., 1-604-345-1212). This temporary number is used to
`
`route the call within the phone’s home network towards a gateway (green element
`
`18). The gateway bridges the PSTN (element 29) to an IP Network (element 26), so
`
`that calls originating or terminating on the PSTN (element 29) can be routed over IP
`
`network (element 26) to a callee’s IP phone (blue element 36). Id. 13:49-56. As was
`
`well-known in the art, IP networks such as the Internet do not apply long-distance
`
`or roaming charges, so routing a call over such networks in the manner described
`
`above avoids such charges. See, e.g., EX1011 (prior art) 1:7-19 (“By moving voice
`
`
`
`10
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 10,880,721
`
`traffic to IP networks, companies may reduce or eliminate certain toll charges
`
`associated with transporting calls over [PSTN]”).
`
`The access server (element 14) may receive the access code request message
`
`“over a non-voice network, such as an internet using WiFi or GPRS technology for
`
`example” EX1001 11:58-59. The mobile telephone’s location identifier (which is
`
`included in the access code request message) may be “an IP address of the mobile
`
`telephone [] in a wireless IP network, such as the non-voice network…” Id. 12:26-
`
`29. The server’s access code reply message, which includes the temporary number
`
`(access code), may be returned over the non-voice, IP network (element 16). The
`
`mobile telephone may then use the access code to initiate a call on the voice network
`
`(element 15) that is then routed over the IP Network (element 26).
`
`The purported invention is summarized in Figure 3, which depicts the process
`
`from the telephone’s perspective as found, e.g., in claim 1:
`
`
`
`11
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 10,880,721
`
`The ’721 Patent also contains symmetric claims from the access server’s perspective,
`
`
`
`e.g., in claim 51.
`
`B.
`
`Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art
`
`A POSITA at the time of the ’721 Patent would have had a Bachelor’s degree
`
`in Computer Science or Electrical Engineering, or an equivalent field, and
`
`approximately two years of experience with networks. Additional education might
`
`compensate for less experience, and vice-versa. EX1003, ¶¶46-48.
`
`
`
`12
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 10,880,721
`
`VIII. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
`
`A. Agreed constructions
`
`In the Litigation, the parties agreed to the following constructions for certain
`
`terms governed by 35 U.S.C. § 112 ¶ 6, which have been applied in this Petition:
`
`Claim Term
`
`Agreed Construction
`
`“means for receiving from the
`
`Function: receiving from the mobile
`
`wireless [apparatus/device] [the/an]
`
`telephone [said/an] access code request
`
`access code request message”
`
`message
`
`(claims 77)
`
`Structure: a network interface
`
`“means for transmitting the access
`
`Function: transmitting [said/an/the] access
`
`code reply message including the
`
`code reply message including [said/the]
`
`access code to the wireless
`
`access code to the [mobile
`
`apparatus”
`
`(claims 77)
`
`telephone/wireless apparatus]
`
`Structure: a network interface
`
`B.
`
`“gateway” (Claims 51, 77, 103, 133)
`
`The plain and ordinary meaning of “gateway” in the ’721 Patent is a “device
`
`that connects networks that use different communication protocols.” EX1023;
`
`EX1024; EX1025 (cited during prosecution, see EX1002, 119-125), 1:14-15;
`
`
`
`13
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 10,880,721
`
`EX1001, Fig. 1, 23:21-32, 32:3-6; EX1003, ¶¶50-52. A court in W.D. Tex.4
`
`construed the term substantially similarly to mean “[a] device that connects networks
`
`and can adjust a protocol of traffic moving between the connected networks.”
`
`EX1012.
`
`Patent Owner has contended this term carries only an unspecified “plain and
`
`ordinary meaning,” without clarifying what that “plain and ordinary” meaning is.
`
`EX1013, 8.
`
`The asserted grounds satisfy all of these constructions, as explained below.
`
`C.
`
` “means for causing a routing controller to produce an access code”
`(Claim 77)
`
`The Board should construe this term as performing the function of “causing a
`
`routing control to produce an access code” and incorporating a structure of “an
`
`input/output port for transmitting the access code request message, as received from
`
`the wireless device, to the routing controller and for receiving, from the routing
`
`controller, the access code reply message” EX1001, 22:53-61, 20:57-22:20, Figs. 8,
`
`10, 12; EX1003 ¶56. Patent Owner previously proposed a construction that differs
`
`in that it incorporates the structure of “[a]ccess server 14 and/or routing controller
`
`30.” EX1018, 17. The asserted grounds satisfy both constructions, as explained
`
`below.
`
`
`4 Petitioner was not a party in any case where the claims have been construed.
`
`
`
`14
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 10,880,721
`
`***
`
`Petitioner does not contend that any other claim terms require construction for
`
`purposes of resolving the issues raised in this Petition.
`
`IX. OVERVIEW OF THE PRIOR ART
`
`A. Buckley
`
`Buckley teaches routing PSTN calls over packet-switched networks. EX1005,
`
`Abstract. Buckley’s Figure 1 depicts example components involved, including:
`
`mobile phones (i.e. User Equipment (UE) (element 102)); Circuit-Switched (CS)
`
`networks (e.g. PSTN (element 110)); and Packet-Switched (PS) networks (e.g.
`
`wireless Local Area Network (WLAN) Broadband Access (element 108), and
`
`Internet protocol Multimedia Subsystem (IMS) Core Network (element 112)). Id.,
`
`3:19-65.
`
`
`
`15
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 10,880,721
`
`
`
`Buckley’s Application Server (AS) uses well-known Session Initiation
`
`Protocol (SIP) messaging (access code request and reply messages) to assign a
`
`temporary IP Multimedia Routing Number (IMRN) (access code) that allows CS-
`
`originated calls to be routed over IMS (IP) networks. Id. For example, Figure 3A
`
`(excerpted below) depicts this process, which begins when the calling mobile phone
`
`(UE, element 302) sends a SIP Invite message (element 312) to the home AS
`
`(network node 308). Id., 6:55-63. The AS selects a temporary IMRN from a pool
`
`and sends it back to the mobile telephone (UE) in a SIP Response message (element
`
`
`
`16
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 10,880,721
`
`316). Id., 4:31-40, 7:29-42. The UE then uses the IMRN to initiate a call (element
`
`320) that an AS routes to the callee. Id., 4:15-40, 7:47-64. The SIP messaging
`
`includes caller and callee Uniform Resource Indicators (URI) that identify location.
`
`Id., 2:62-3:12, 5:18-58, Figures 3A, 3B.
`
`
`
`B.
`
`Bates
`
`Bates “relates to identifying and assigning correct location information to
`
`callers in a communication system.” EX1009, 1:12-13. Bates involves routing calls
`
`to the appropriate Public Safety Answering Point (PSAP) (i.e., emergency services,
`
`such as 9-1-1), which involves “circuit-switched voice network[s] [such as the
`
`PSTN,] and packet-switched data networks [that] may include networks based on
`
`
`
`17
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 10,880,721
`
`the Internet protocol (IP).” Id. 6:32-38. Bates teaches how to improve such routing
`
`decisions by teaching a process of selecting a temporary number for those calls. See
`
`EX1009, Abstract, 12:25-31.
`
`Notably, the context in which Bates’s process for selecting a temporary
`
`number applies is directly related to Buckley’s procedure for setting up calls. Bates’s
`
`Figure 7 (excerpted below), for example, depicts a process highly analogous t