`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`
`T-MOBILE USA, INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`VOIP-PAL.COM, INC.,
`Patent Owner.
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2023-00640
`U.S. Patent No. 10,880,721
`
`
`
`
`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
`INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................... 1 
`I. 
`II.  MANDATORY NOTICES ............................................................................. 1 
`A. 
`Real Party-In-Interest ............................................................................ 1 
`B. 
`Related Matters ...................................................................................... 1 
`C. 
`Counsel and Service Information .......................................................... 3 
`D. 
`37 C.F.R. §42.8(b)(4): Service Information .......................................... 4 
`PAYMENT OF FEES UNDER 37 C.F.R. §42.103 ........................................ 4 
`III. 
`IV.  CERTIFICATION OF GROUNDS FOR STANDING .................................. 4 
`V.  OVERVIEW OF CHALLENGE AND RELIEF REQUESTED .................... 4 
`A. 
`Prior-Art References.............................................................................. 5 
`B. 
`Relief Requested .................................................................................... 5 
`VI.  NO DISCRETIONARY DENIAL .................................................................. 6 
`VII.  THE ’721 PATENT ......................................................................................... 8 
`A. 
`Technology Summary ........................................................................... 8 
`B. 
`Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art ..................................................... 12 
`VIII.  CLAIM CONSTRUCTION .......................................................................... 13 
`A.  Agreed constructions ........................................................................... 13 
`B. 
`“gateway” (Claims 1, 20, 38) .............................................................. 14 
`C. 
`“means for causing the wireless apparatus to establish
`communications with the destination node through the
`communications channel identified by the access code” (Claim
`20) ........................................................................................................ 15 
`“means for communicating with the routing controller to obtain
`from the routing controller the access code” (Claim 34) .................... 15 
`
`D. 
`
`
`
`ii
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 10,880,721
`
`X. 
`
`IX.  OVERVIEW OF THE PRIOR ART ............................................................. 16 
`A. 
`Buckley ................................................................................................ 16 
`B. 
`Bates .................................................................................................... 18 
`C. 
`Ejzak .................................................................................................... 20 
`SPECIFIC GROUNDS .................................................................................. 21 
`A.  Ground I: Claims 1, 2, 6, 9, 14-16. 20, 25, 34, 38-39, 43, 46,
`49-50, 135-136, and 140 Are Obvious Over Buckley. ....................... 21 
`1. 
`Claim 1 ...................................................................................... 21 
`2. 
`Claim 2 ...................................................................................... 32 
`3. 
`Claim 6 ...................................................................................... 34 
`4. 
`Claim 9 ...................................................................................... 35 
`5. 
`Claim 14 .................................................................................... 35 
`6. 
`Claim 15 .................................................................................... 35 
`7. 
`Claim 16 .................................................................................... 37 
`8. 
`Claim 20 .................................................................................... 38 
`9. 
`Claim 25 .................................................................................... 41 
`10.  Claim 34 .................................................................................... 41 
`11.  Claim 38 .................................................................................... 45 
`12.  Claim 39 .................................................................................... 48 
`13.  Claim 43 .................................................................................... 49 
`14.  Claim 46 .................................................................................... 49 
`15.  Claim 49 .................................................................................... 49 
`16.  Claim 50 .................................................................................... 50 
`17.  Claim 135 .................................................................................. 52 
`18.  Claim 136 .................................................................................. 52 
`19.  Claim 140 .................................................................................. 53 
`Ground II: Claims 50 and 140 Are Obvious Over Buckley in
`View of Ejzak. ..................................................................................... 54 
`1.  Motivation to Combine ............................................................. 54 
`2. 
`Claim 50 .................................................................................... 58 
`3. 
`Claim 140 .................................................................................. 60 
`
`B. 
`
`
`
`iii
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 10,880,721
`
`C. 
`
`Ground III: Claims 1, 2, 6, 9, 14-16. 20, 25, 34, 38-39, 43, 45-
`46, 49-50, 135-136, and 140 Are Obvious Over Buckley in
`View of Bates. ..................................................................................... 62 
`1.  Motivation to Combine ............................................................. 62 
`2. 
`Claim 1 ...................................................................................... 67 
`3. 
`Claim 2 ...................................................................................... 72 
`4. 
`Claim 6 ...................................................................................... 72 
`5. 
`Claim 9 ...................................................................................... 73 
`6. 
`Claim 14 .................................................................................... 73 
`7. 
`Claim 15 .................................................................................... 73 
`8. 
`Claim 16 .................................................................................... 74 
`9. 
`Claim 20 .................................................................................... 75 
`10.  Claim 25 .................................................................................... 76 
`11.  Claim 34 .................................................................................... 76 
`12.  Claim 38 .................................................................................... 77 
`13.  Claim 39 .................................................................................... 78 
`14.  Claim 43 .................................................................................... 78 
`15.  Claim 45 .................................................................................... 78 
`16.  Claim 46 .................................................................................... 79 
`17.  Claim 49 .................................................................................... 79 
`18.  Claim 50 .................................................................................... 80 
`19.  Claim 135 .................................................................................. 81 
`20.  Claim 136 .................................................................................. 81 
`21.  Claim 140 .................................................................................. 81 
`D.  Ground IV: Claims 50 and 140 Are Obvious Over Buckley in
`View of Bates and Further in View of Ejzak. ..................................... 82 
`1.  Motivation to Combine ............................................................. 82 
`2. 
`Claim 50 .................................................................................... 82 
`3. 
`Claim 140 .................................................................................. 83 
`XI.  SECONDARY CONSIDERATIONS ........................................................... 84 
`XII.  CONCLUSION .............................................................................................. 84 
`
`
`
`
`
`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’s 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”)
`
`RFC 3261
`
`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
`T-Mobile USA, Inc. (“T-Mobile” or “Petitioner”) requests inter partes review
`
`of claims 1, 2, 6, 9, 14-16. 20, 25, 34, 38-39, 43, 45-46, 49-50, 135-136, and 140
`
`(“Challenged Claims”) of U.S. Patent No. 10,880,721 (EX1001, “the ’721 Patent”).
`
`For the reasons set forth below, which are identical to the petition filed by
`
`Meta Platforms, Inc. in Meta Platforms, Inc. v. VoIP-Pal, Inc., IPR2022-01234, the
`
`challenged claims should be found unpatentable and canceled. T-Mobile further
`
`requests joinder with the proceeding in IPR2022-01234, instituted on January 31,
`
`2023, pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 315(c) and 37 C.F.R. § 42.122(b), and for the reasons
`
`set forth below and in the concurrently-filed Motion for Joinder.
`
`II. MANDATORY NOTICES
`A. Real Party-In-Interest
`Petitioner identifies the following real parties-in-interest: T-Mobile USA, Inc.
`
`and T-Mobile US, Inc.
`
`B. Related Matters
`VoIP-Pal.com (“Patent Owner” or “VoIP-Pal”) is asserting the ’721 Patent
`
`and related U.S. Patent 8,630,234 (“’234 Patent”) against Petitioner in Case No.
`
`6:21-cv-00674 (W.D. Tex.) (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.)
`1
`
`
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 10,880,721
`
` VoIP-Pal v. Verizon, No. 6-21-cv-00672 (W.D. Tex.)
`
` VoIP-Pal v. Meta Platforms, No. 3-22-cv-03202 (N.D. Cal.)
`
` 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.
`
`Certain claims of the related ’721 Patent are subject to a petition for IPR in
`
`Meta Platforms, Inc. v. VoIP-Pal.com, Inc., No. IPR2022-01234 (P.T.A.B.)
`
`(pending); Meta Platforms, Inc. v. VoIP-Pal.com, Inc., No. IPR2022-01235
`
`(P.T.A.B.) (pending); Google LLC v. VoIP-Pal.com, Inc., No. IPR2022-01074
`
`(P.T.A.B.) (institution denied); Google LLC v. VoIP-Pal.com, Inc., No. IPR2022-
`
`01075 (P.T.A.B.) (institution denied); Amazon.com, Inc. v. VoIP-Pal.com, Inc., No.
`
`IPR2022-01180 (P.T.A.B.) (institution denied); Amazon.com, Inc. v. VoIP-Pal.com,
`
`
`
`2
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 10,880,721
`
`Inc., No. IPR2022-01181 (P.T.A.B.) (institution denied); Samsung Electronics Co.,
`
`Ltd. v. VoIP-Pal.com, Inc., No. IPR2022-01392 (P.T.A.B.) (pending); Samsung
`
`Electronics Co., Ltd. v. VoIP-Pal.com, Inc., No. IPR2022-01393 (P.T.A.B.)
`
`(pending). To Petitioner’s knowledge, there are no other judicial or administrative
`
`matters that would affect or be affected by a decision here.
`
`Certain claims of the related ’234 Patent are subject to a petition for IPR in
`
`Meta Platforms, Inc. v. VoIP-Pal.com, Inc., No. IPR2022-01231 (P.T.A.B.)
`
`(pending); Meta Platforms, Inc. v. VoIP-Pal.com, Inc., No. IPR2022-01232
`
`(P.T.A.B.) (pending); Google LLC v. VoIP-Pal.com, Inc., No. IPR2022-01072
`
`(P.T.A.B.) (institution denied); Google LLC v. VoIP-Pal.com, Inc., No. IPR2022-
`
`01073 (P.T.A.B.) (institution denied); Amazon.com, Inc. v. VoIP-Pal.com, Inc., No.
`
`IPR2022-01178 (P.T.A.B.) (institution denied); Amazon.com, Inc. v. VoIP-Pal.com,
`
`Inc., No. IPR2022-01179 (P.T.A.B.) (institution denied); Samsung Electronics Co.,
`
`Ltd. v. VoIP-Pal.com, Inc., No. IPR2022-01390 (P.T.A.B.) (pending); Samsung
`
`Electronics Co., Ltd. v. VoIP-Pal.com, Inc., No. IPR2022-01391 (P.T.A.B.)
`
`(pending).
`
`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
`
`
`
`3
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 10,880,721
`
`Amanda Tessar
`Kourtney Mueller Merrill
`(Reg. No. 53,683)
`(Reg. No. 58,195)
`tessar-ptab@perkinscoie.com
`merrill-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
`D.
`37 C.F.R. §42.8(b)(4): Service Information
`Petitioner concurrently submits a Power of Attorney, 37 C.F.R. §42.10(b), and
`
`consents to electronic service to TMobile-VOIP@perkinscoie.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. 50-0665 the 37 C.F.R. §42.15(a)(1) fee and any
`
`additional fees due for this Petition.
`
`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 month of institution of the trial Petitioner seeks to join under 37
`
`C.F.R. §§ 42.122, 42.222; (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.
`
`
`
`4
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 10,880,721
`
`V. OVERVIEW OF CHALLENGE AND RELIEF REQUESTED
`A.
`Prior-Art References
`U.S. Patent No. 7,668,159 (“Buckley”) (EX1005), filed August 3,
`1.
`
`2007 and granted 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 July 31, 2001
`
`and granted 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 May 9, 2007 and
`
`granted May 20, 2014, is prior-art under at least pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. §102(e).
`
`B. Relief Requested
`Petitioner requests cancellation of the Challenged Claims as unpatentable
`
`under 35 U.S.C. §103 as follows:
`
`
`
`5
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 10,880,721
`
`Ground
`
`Claims
`
`Proposed Statutory Rejection
`
`I
`
`II
`
`III
`
`IV
`
`1, 2, 6, 9, 14-16. 20, 25, 34, 38-
`39, 43, 46, 49-50, and 135-136 Obvious under §103 over Buckley
`Obvious under §103 over Buckley
`in view of Ejzak
`
`50 and 140
`
`1, 2, 6, 9, 14-16. 20, 25, 34, 38-
`39, 43, 45-46, 49-50, and 135-
`136
`
`50 and 140
`
`Obvious under §103 over Buckley
`in view of Bates
`
`Obvious under §103 over Buckley
`in view Bates and further in view
`of Ejzak
`
`VI. DISCRETIONARY DENIAL IS NOT APPROPRIATE
`Institution is appropriate under the six-factor test set forth in Apple Inc. v.
`
`Fintiv, Inc., IPR2020-00019, Paper 11, at 3 (PTAB Mar. 20, 2020), as further
`
`clarified by Director Vidal’s June 21, 2022 interim procedure for discretionary
`
`denials
`
`(the
`
`“Memorandum”)
`
`(available
`
`at
`
`https://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/documents/interim_proc_discretionary_d
`
`enials_aia_parallel_district_court_litigation_memo_20220621_.pdf).
`
`Turning to the fourth and dispositive factor here (overlap between issues),
`
`Petitioner stipulates that, if the IPRs are instituted, Petitioner will not pursue the
`
`grounds raised, or that reasonably could have been raised, in these proceedings.
`
`Sotera, IPR2020-01019, Paper 12, at 18-19. There is therefore no overlap with
`
`arguments made in the district court proceedings. This stipulation “mitigates
`
`
`
`6
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 10,880,721
`
`concerns of potentially conflicting decisions and duplicative efforts between the
`
`district court and the PTAB,” and the Director has clarified that the PTAB will not
`
`discretionarily deny institution where, as here, Petitioner has made a Sotera
`
`stipulation. Memorandum, 7-8.
`
`Discretionary denial under the Fintiv factors is therefore not appropriate.
`
`However, turning briefly to the additional factors for the sake of completeness, for
`
`the first factor (stay), Petitioner is requesting institution on all asserted claims in the
`
`related action and timely sought leave to join the Meta proceedings within one month
`
`of institution. The relevant facts therefore favor a stay. See Fintiv, IPR2020-00019,
`
`Paper 15 at 12 (PTAB May 13, 2020) (informative); HP v. Neodron, IPR2020-
`
`00459, Paper 17 at 35-36 (PTAB Sept. 14, 2020).
`
`The second (proximity of trial dates) and third (investment in parallel
`
`proceedings) factors are at least neutral. While the Texas court set a tentative trial
`
`date of July 17, 2023 for the Amazon trial, no date has been set for Petitioner’s trial.
`
`Indeed, the court has indicated that it will hold trials in order of case number,
`
`meaning that both the Amazon and Verizon trials will need to occur before it will be
`
`Petitioner’s turn. Petitioner has also committed that it will not raise any invalidity
`
`arguments that could have been raised in these proceedings, such that the district
`
`court action will have no impact on the grounds under review here.
`
`
`
`7
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 10,880,721
`
`While the fifth factor (parties) may weigh slightly in favor of denial because
`
`the parties are the same as one of the pending district court actions, under the
`
`“holistic view” of whether integrity of the system and efficiency are best served, the
`
`factors here indicate that institution is proper. Samsung Elecs. Co. v. Dynamics,
`
`IPR2020-00505, Paper 11 at 15 (PTAB Aug. 12, 2020).
`
`The sixth factor (other circumstances) also weighs in favor of institution
`
`because of the strength of the petition, which has already been confirmed through
`
`institution of the Meta proceedings: “[T]he PTAB will not rely on the Fintiv factors
`
`to discretionarily deny institution … where a petition presents compelling evidence
`
`of unpatentability.” Memorandum, 2; see also Thryv, Inc. v. Click-To-Call Techs.,
`
`140 S. Ct. 1367, 1374 (2020).
`
`VII. THE ’721 PATENT
`A. Technology Summary
`Traditional Public Switched Telephone Networks (PSTNs) route telephone
`
`calls over circuit-switched telephone (aka “voice”) networks.1 See EX1007 1:19-22.
`
`
`1 Such networks are known as “circuit-switched” because they can involve a
`
`dedicated circuit connection to transmit data (as electrical signals) between the
`
`caller and destination node. In contrast, “packet-switched” networks (such as the
`
`Internet) break data into smaller packets that are separately routed over network
`
`
`
`8
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 10,880,721
`
`The ’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 VoIP). EX1001 8:36-42, 9:9-16.
`
`The ’721 Patent’s process begins when a mobile telephone (purple2 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.
`
`
`connections to the recipient, which reassembles the packets when received. See
`
`EX1003 ¶40.
`
`2 Color in the diagrams in this petition are annotations added by Petitioner for
`
`illustration. 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 can be routed over IP network 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 this manner avoids such charges. EX1011 (prior
`
`art) `1:7-19 (“By moving voice traffic to IP networks, companies may reduce or
`
`eliminate certain toll charges associated with transporting calls over [PSTN]”).
`
`
`
`10
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 10,880,721
`
`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 contains symmetric claims from the access server’s perspective,
`
`e.g., 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, ¶¶45-47.
`
`
`
`12
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 10,880,721
`
`VIII. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
`A. Agreed constructions
`This Petition applies the parties’ agreed constructions in the Litigation for the
`
`following terms governed by 35 U.S.C. § 112 ¶ 6:
`
`Claim Term
`
`Agreed Construction
`
`“means for receiving, from a user of
`
`Function: receiving, from a user of the
`
`the wireless apparatus, a destination
`
`mobile telephone, a destination node
`
`node identifier”
`
`(claim 20)
`
`identifier
`
`Structure: a dialing input, which is a key
`
`pad, a voice recognition unit, or a
`
`parameter memory with prestored
`
`destination node identifiers
`
`“means for transmitting an access
`
`Function: transmitting an access code
`
`code request message to an access
`
`request message to an access server
`
`server”
`
`(claim 20)
`
`Structure: a network interface
`
`“means for receiving an access code
`
`Function: receiving an access code reply
`
`reply message from the access server
`
`message from the access server in
`
`
`
`13
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 10,880,721
`
`in response to the access code request
`
`response to [said/the] access code request
`
`message”
`
`(claim 20)
`
`message
`
`Structure: a network interface
`
`“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 34, 77)
`
`Structure: a network interface
`
`“means for transmitting the access
`
`Function: transmitting [said/an/the]
`
`code reply message including the
`
`access code reply message including
`
`access code to the wireless apparatus”
`
`[said/the] access code to the [mobile
`
`(claims 34, 77)
`
`telephone/wireless apparatus]
`
`Structure: a network interface
`
`B.
`“gateway” (Claims 1, 20, 38)
`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;
`
`EX1001, Fig. 1, 23:21-32, 32:3-6; EX1003, ¶¶49-51. The W.D.Tex. court similarly
`
`construed the term to mean “[a] device that connects networks and can adjust a
`
`protocol of traffic moving between the connected networks.” EX1012, 3.
`
`
`
`14
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 10,880,721
`
`Patent Owner contended this term carries an unspecified “plain and ordinary
`
`meaning,” without clarifying what that meaning is. EX1013, 8.
`
`The asserted grounds satisfy all the above constructions, as explained below.
`
`C.
`
`to establish
`the wireless apparatus
`for causing
`“means
`through
`the
`the destination node
`communications with
`communications channel identified by the access code” (Claim 20)
`The Board should construe this term as performing the function of “causing
`
`the wireless apparatus to establish communications with the destination node
`
`through the communications channel identified by the access code” and as
`
`incorporating the structure of “a network interface, including switched line channels
`
`in a public switched telephone network (PSTN).” EX1001, 9:25-27, 9:50-62, 13:38-
`
`48, 23:38-52; EX1003 ¶55. Patent Owner argued the term should instead incorporate
`
`the structure of “[m]obile 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.” EX1018. The asserted grounds satisfy both
`
`constructions, as explained below.
`
`D.
`
`“means for communicating with the routing controller to obtain
`from the routing controller the access code” (Claim 34)
`The Board should construe this term as performing the function of
`
`“communicating with said routing controller to obtain from said routing controller
`
`said access code” and as incorporating the structure of “an input/output port that
`
`
`
`15
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 10,880,721
`
`transmits the access code request message, as received from the mobile telephone,
`
`to the routing controller and receives, from the routing controller, the access code
`
`reply message.” EX1001, 14:40-53, 14:58-64; EX1003 ¶57. Patent Owner argued
`
`the term should instead incorporate the structure of “[a]n I/O port of an access server
`
`and/or an I/O port of a routing controller.” EX1018. The asserted grounds satisfy
`
`both constructions, as explained below.
`
`***
`
`Petitioner does not contend that any other terms require construction to
`
`resolve this Petition.
`
`IX. OVERVIEW OF THE PRIOR ART
`A. Buckley
`Buckley teaches routing PSTN calls over packet-switched networks. See
`
`EX1005, Abstract. Buckley’s Figure 1 depicts example components that may be
`
`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.
`
`
`
`16
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 10,880,721
`
`
`
`Buckley’s Application Server (AS) (element 114-1 through 114-N) 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
`
`
`
`17
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 10,880,721
`
`message (element 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 communicatio