Trals@iuspla. gov
`
`571-272-7822
`
`Paper 26
`Date: July 16, 2024
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`ZOHO CORPORATION and ZOHO CORPORATION PVT., LTD.,
`Petitioner,
`
`V.
`
`MEETRIX IP, LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`
`IPR2023-00377
`Patent 9,253,332 B2
`
`Before KARL D. EASTHOM, CHARLES J. BOUDREAU,and
`KARA L. SZPONDOWSKLAdministrative Patent Judges.
`
`BOUDREAU,Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`JUDGMENT
`Final Written Decision
`Determining All Claims Unpatentable
`35 U.S.C. $ 318(a)
`
`

`

`IPR2023-00377
`Patent 9,253,332 B2
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`Zoho Corporation and Zoho Corporation Pvt., Ltd. (collectively,
`
`Petitioner’) filed a Petition requesting interpartes review of claims 1—12 of
`
`U.S. Patent No. 9,253,332 B2 (Ex. 1001, “the °332 patent’). Paper 1
`
`(“Pet.”). Patent Owner Meetrix IP, LLC did notfile a Preliminary
`
`Response. Weinstituted an interpartes review ofthe challenged claims.
`
`Paper6 (“Institution Decision”or “Dec.”).
`
`After institution, Patent Ownerfiled a Responseto the Petition
`
`(Paper 10, “PO Resp.”), Petitionerfiled a Reply (Paper13, “Pet. Reply”),
`
`and Patent Ownerfiled a Sur-reply (Paper 15, “PO Sur-reply”). We helda
`
`consolidated oral hearing with IPR2023-00371, IPR2023-00378, IPR2023-
`
`00379, IPR2023-00380, and IPR2023-00382 on April 25, 2024, anda
`
`transcript ofthe hearing is includedin the record. Paper 25 (“‘Tr.”).
`
`Wehavejurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6 (2018). Under the
`
`applicable evidentiary standard, Petitioner has the burden to prove
`
`unpatentability by a preponderance ofthe evidence. See 35 U.S.C. §316(e);
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.1(d) (2023). “Preponderance ofthe evidence meansthe
`
`greater weight of evidence, evidence which is more convincing than the
`
`evidence whichis offered in opposition to it.” United States v. C.H.
`
`Robinson Co. , 760 F.3d 1376, 1383 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (internal quotations
`
`omitted). This Final Written Decision as to the patentability ofthe claims on
`
`whichweinstituted trial is issued pursuantto 35 U.S.C. § 318(a) and
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.73.
`
`For the reasonsdiscussed below, we determine Petitioner has
`
`established by a preponderance ofthe evidence that claims 1—12 ofthe
`
`°332 patent are unpatentable.
`
`

`

`IPR2023-00377
`Patent 9,253,332 B2
`
`YW.
`
`BACKGROUND
`
`A, Real Parties in Interest
`
`The parties identify themselvesas the real parties in interest. Pet. 2;
`
`Paper 23, 2 (Amended Mandatory Notices ofPatent Ownerand Related
`
`Matters).
`
`B. RelatedMatters
`
`The parties identify Meetrix IP, LLC v. Zoho Corp., No. 1:22-cv-
`
`00588-LY (W.D. Tex.) (transferred from No. 6:21-cv-01288 (W.D.Tex.),
`
`filed Dec. 10, 2021); and Meetrix IP, LLC v. Verizon Communications, Inc.,
`
`No. 1:22-cv-00758-L Y (W.D. Tex.) (transferred from No. 6:21-cv-01289
`
`(W.D. Tex.), filed Dec. 10, 2021) as related cases. Pet. 3; Paper 23, 2.
`
`Patent Owneralso identifies as related matters [PR2023-00371,
`
`IPR2023-00378, IPR2023-00379, IPR2023-00380, and IPR2023-00382,
`
`involving the sameparties andpatents related to the ’332 patent. Paper 23,
`
`2.
`
`Weadditionally note that the ’332 patent previously was the subject
`
`of two petitions for interpartes review filed by Cisco Systems, Inc. in
`
`IPR2019-00539 andIPR2019-00540, both ofwhich proceedingssettled and
`
`were dismissedprior to any decision oninstitution. IPR2019-00539,
`
`Papers 1, 8; IPR2019-00540, Papers1, 8.
`
`C. The ’332 Patent
`
`The *332 patent, titled “Voice Conference Call Using PSTN and
`
`Internet Networks,” issued February 2, 2016, from U.S. Patent Application
`
`No. 13/674,227, filed November 12, 2012, asa continuation ofU.S. Patent
`
`Application No. 12/646,892, filed December 23, 2009 (now U.S. Patent
`
`No. 8,339,997), which wasin turn a continuation ofU.S. Patent Application
`
`No. 10/796,560, filed March 9, 2004 (now U.S. Patent No. 7,664,056).
`
`

`

`IPR2023-00377
`Patent 9,253,332 B2
`
`Ex. 1001, codes (21), (22), (45), (54), (63). The ’332 patent also claims
`
`priority from U.S. Provisional Application No. 60/453,307, filed March 10,
`
`2003. Id. at code (60).
`
`The ’332 patent discloses a system and method for supporting a
`
`multi-participant voice conferencecall using the public switchedtelephone
`
`network (PSTN) andInternet networks. Ex. 1001, code (57). The method
`
`includes (1) receiving voice datafrom a PSTN client, (11) receiving voice
`
`data from a moderator and from at least one remote client connected to the
`
`Internet, (111) mixing, using an audio mixer, the voice data from the PSTN
`
`client with the voice data from the moderatorinto a first mixed voice data
`
`that is transmittedto the remote client that is connected to the Intemet, and
`
`(iv) mixing, using a voice-over-Internet-Protocol (VoIP) mixer, the voice
`
`data from the moderator with the voice data from the remoteclient
`
`connected to the Internet into a second mixedvoicedata thatis transmitted
`
`tothe PSTN client. /d. at code (57), 3:20-45.
`
`

`

`IPR2023-00377
`Patent 9,253,332 B2
`
`Figure 3 of the 332 patent is reproduced below.
`
`ChenTemin!==
`i
`458 -
`“Clent “POTS"
`i
`Telephone
`i
`a5t
`|
`
`99
`
`
`fg
`
`
`
`meee,
`io
`
`‘
`
`_Glont Video inputdevice41
`biinputdevice452
`_
`
`AK
`}
`
`PSTNClient 42
`4¥2a
`
`Router/Moderm
`
`Uyebneensbeenseaeves sAneeeSMAREUSAMBALESANE HAOEGA RRREyS RameeENERA
`
`ag?
`
`Virtual Pavale Network
`
`astovdeo FP a|
`7 ONent #2
`18
`
`PERENSSRRREEERSTE! ARES SERED
`: AudioVideo
`i Chent #3
`a8
`
`gg
`
`Figure 3, above,illustrates an embodimentthat “allows audio video and data
`
`collaboration information to be securely transferred betweena plurality of
`
`local and remote clients preferably within a virtual private network.” /d.
`
`at 4:3, 4:39-42. This embodiment“providesthe ability for a moderator
`
`(single memberofthe conference) to dial out from a desktop computer or
`
`terminal (using a novel hybrid network structure) connecting an extemal
`
`telephoneuser’s audio into the audio/video conference” and “integrates full
`
`duplex audio, video, and data connections betweenclients conferencing on
`
`the Internet and clients conferencing on standard telephone systems.” /d.
`
`at 4:44-50. “TheInternet/PSTN hybrid network is the medium usedfor
`
`transport.” /d. at 4:50-51.
`
`

`

`IPR2023-00377
`Patent 9,253,332 B2
`
`Figure 3 “depicts the necessary equipmentand protocols to complete
`
`the dial out to PSTN network method and process” and includes VoIP
`
`moderator 401, Internet audio video clients 415, 417, and 418, and PSTN
`
`clients 412 and413. Ex. 1001,4:51—5:6. VoIP moderator 401 typically has
`
`a numberofperipherals used for real input output devices at the desktop. /d.
`
`at 4:54-5:6. The peripherals include client computing device (e.g.,a PC or
`
`other computer) 459, client terminal 455, standard desktop telephone 457,
`
`video input device or camera 451, and microphone 452. /d. at 4:56—61.
`
`PSTNclients 412 and 413 are connected to a wireless cell phoneand
`
`standard telephone handset, respectively, which are connected to globaldial
`
`network 450 based on PSTN 433.
`
`/d. at 5:1—6. Internet clients 401, 415,
`
`417, and 418 “are connected through routers or modems453 preferably in a
`
`virtual private network configuration 461.” Jd. at 5:7—9. “A virtual private
`
`network bridge 461 is used to connect local and remote clients together
`
`within a secure private network.” /d. at 5:10—11. “A local connection from
`
`the VPN bridge 407 to the voice over IP server 409 is used to transfer
`
`conference audio from any participant on the IP networkto any participant
`
`in the PSTN.” /d. at 5:11-14. “Thus, the voice over IP server 409 is
`
`responsible for transcoding audio information from the virtual private
`
`network 461 to and from the PSTN gateway 411, thus bridging the PSTN
`
`and VPN together.” /d. at 5:14-18.
`
`

`

`IPR2023-00377
`Patent 9,253,332 B2
`
`Figure 5 of the ?332 patent is reproduced below.
`
`
`
`ee=
`Moderator fj
`
`
`Client #4
`
` i
`aot
`
`405
`Conference VolP Audio
`and Call Setup
`
`
`
`
`
`_Sonference Cait VolP
`
`Audio and Gali Setup 405
`
`
`
`AudioVideo |
`
`
`
`VPNTunnel 423 } ) ef
`VPN Tunnel 425 i
`
`Chant #2
`Chent #N
`, |
`
`
`
`415
`
`
`ai?
`
`
`FIG. &
`
`403
`Conference Audio andVideo
`
`Figure 5, above,illustrates a detailed block diagram of asystem
`
`implementing the ’332 patent’s method for supporting a multi-participant
`
`voice conferencecall using PSTN andInternet networks, particularly
`
`showing the audio andvideo data flow over hybrid networks. Ex. 1001,
`
`4:46, 6:20-21. Moderator client #1 (401) initiates a call using the
`
`application code running on VoIP server 409.
`
`/d. at 6:20—60. Call initiation
`
`and call transfer may be accomplished through VPN tunnel 421 connected to
`
`moderator client 401.
`
`/d. at 6:23—25. Two connections to moderator client
`
`401 through VPN tunnel 421 are established, with the first connection 405
`
`connecting the VoIP conferencedataforcall initiation, set-up, and control
`
`405, and the second connection through the VPN tunnel connecting the
`
`conference audio and video 403 between moderator client 401 and multiple
`
`

`

`IPR2023-00377
`Patent 9,253,332 B2
`
`remote clients 413, 415, 417 connected via Internet 435.
`
`/d. at 6:25—31.
`
`VPN tunnel 421 is connected into VPN bridge 407, which maybelocated
`
`within Internet 435 at either local or remote sites. /d. at 6:31-34. As
`
`indicated in Figure 5, VPN bridge 407, which bridges the tunnels for data
`
`transfer, is responsible for connecting and establishing the VPNused for
`
`secure conferencing.
`
`/d. at 6:34—36. An additional tunnel containing the
`
`conference VoIP audioandcall set-up data 405 is connected to a separate
`
`VoIP server 409.
`
`/d. at 6:42-45.
`
`Server 409 is responsible for transcoding the VoIP audio andcall set-
`
`up control 405 in preparation for data transfer across network 437 employing
`
`the International Telecommunications Union H.323 standard for
`
`transmission of audio and video information through the Internet or switched
`
`private networks. Ex. 1001, 1:53-57, 6:45—60. H.323 network 437
`
`traverses the Internet to oneofmany PSTN gateways 411, which form a
`
`bridge between the Internet and the public switched telephone network 433.
`
`Id. at 6:47-49. The VoIP gatewaysare typically located at a local exchange
`
`carrier at individual points ofpresence throughout the world. /d. at 6:51—53.
`
`Audio telephonycalls are terminated at VoIP client 413.
`
`/d. at 6:53—54.
`
`These termination points may be located throughoutthe world.
`
`/d. at 6:54—
`
`55. Thus, the system illustrated in Figure 5 allowsfor dial-out to standard
`
`phonesfrom a client terminal with audio and video capability over IP
`
`networks, thereby allowing conferencing between multiple remotesites
`
`including secure VoIP audio components over the PSTN. /d. at 6:55—60.
`
`

`

`IPR2023-00377
`Patent 9,253,332 B2
`
`D.
`
`Illustrative Claims
`
`Independentclaims 1 and 8, reproduced below with bracketed
`
`alphanumeric reference identifiers used by Petitioner, are illustrative ofthe
`
`challenged claims.
`
`[1.P] A method for supporting a multi-participant
`1.
`audio/video conferencecall, the method comprising:
`[1.1] receiving first audio data from a Public Switched
`Telephone Network (PSTN)client;
`[1.2] receiving second audio data from a moderator;
`and
`[1.3.1]
`receiving third audio data, video data,
`collaboration data from at
`least one remote client
`[1.3.2] through a first Virtual Private Network (VPN)
`tunnel;
`.4] mixingthefirst audio data from the PSTN client with
`the second audio data from the moderator into a first
`mixed audio data;
`.5] transmitting the first mixed audio data to the remote
`client through the first VPN tunnel;
`[1.6] mixing the second audio data from the moderator with
`the third audio data from the remote client into a second
`mixed audio data; and
`[1.7] transmitting the second mixed audio data to the PSTN
`client.
`
`—[
`
`—[
`
`supporting a multi-participant
`[8.P] A system for
`8.
`audio/video conference call comprising:
`[8.1.1] a first mixer configured to mix audio data from a
`Public Switched Telephone Network (PSTN) client with
`audio data from a moderator[8.1.2] and collaboration data
`from the moderator into a mixed data;
`[8.2] a transport output configured to transmit the first mixed
`data to at least one remote client through a first Virtual
`Private Network (VPN) tunnel;
`[8.3] a second mixer configured to mix audio data from the
`moderator with audio data from the remote client
`connected to the Internet intoa first mixed audio data; and
`
`

`

`IPR2023-00377
`Patent 9,253,332 B2
`
`[8.4] a VoIP encoderto encodethefirst mixed audiodata into
`a compressed audio data;
`[8.5] the transport output further configured to transmit the
`compressed audio data tothe PSTN client through thefirst
`VPN tunnel.
`
`Ex. 1001, 9:52—10:5, 10:30—46.
`
`EE. Asserted Grounds ofUnpatentability
`
`Petitioner asserted, and weinstituted interpartes review on, the
`
`following groundsofunpatentability:
`
`Textbook‘ 3, 6, 8-11
`
`1,2,4,5,7
`
`103(a)
`Knappe, ETOWPN Textbook,
`103(a)
`jo3gay__|Knanpes Eek, VENTextbook
`Knappe, Elliott, VPN Textboo
`
`Pet. 4, 14-81.
`
`In support of its contentions, Petitioner relies on a declaration of
`
`Henry H. Houh, Ph.D. (Ex. 1003). In opposition, Patent Ownerrelies on a
`
`declaration of ThomasDye (Ex. 2001).
`
`' The Leahy-Smith America Invents Act, Pub. L. No. 112-29, 125 Stat. 284
`(2011)AIA”), amended 35 U.S.C. § 103, effective March 16, 2013.
`Because the *332 patent issued from an application filed before that date, we
`refer to the pre-AIAversion of § 103.
`* Knappe, US 7,180,997 B2, issued February 20, 2007 (Ex. 1006).
`> Elliott et al., US 6,690,654 B2, issuedFebruary 10, 2004 (Ex. 1007).
`4 Excerpts from Jim Guichard & Ivan Pepelnjak, MPLS and VPN
`Architectures (2001) (Ex. 1010).
`> Drell, US 7,089,285 B1, issued August 8, 2006 (Ex. 1008).
`° Hoke et al., US 6,701,437 B1, issuedMarch 2, 2004 (Ex. 1009).
`
`10
`
`

`

`IPR2023-00377
`Patent 9,253,332 B2
`
`I. ANALYSIS
`
`A. Legal Standards
`
`“Tn an [interpartes review], the petitioner has the burden from the
`
`onset to show with particularity why the patent it challengesis
`
`unpatentable.” Harmonic Inc. v. Avid Tech., Inc., 815 F.3d 1356, 1363 (Fed.
`
`Cir. 2016) (citing 35 U.S.C. § 312(a)(3) (2012) (requiring inferpartes
`
`review petitions to identify “with particularity ... the evidence that supports
`
`the grounds for the challenge to each claim’’)).
`
`A claim is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) if “the differences
`
`between the subject matter sought to be patented andthepriorart are such
`
`that the subject matter as a whole would havebeen obviousat the time the
`
`invention was madeto a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said
`
`subject matter pertains.” KSR Int’ Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 406
`
`(2007). The question of obviousness is resolved on the basis ofunderlying
`
`factual determinations, including (1) the scope and content ofthe priorart;
`
`(2) any differences between the claimed subject matter and thepriorart;
`
`(3) the level of skill in the art; and (4) when presented, objective evidence of
`
`obviousnessor nonobviousness, 1.e., secondary considerations. Grahamy.
`
`John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 17-18 (1966).
`
`Additionally, a patent claim “is not proved obvious merely by
`
`demonstrating that each of its elements was, independently, known in the
`
`prior art.” KSR,550U.S. at 418. An obviousness determination requires
`
`finding “both ‘that a skilled artisan would have been motivated to combine
`
`the teachings ofthe prior art references to achieve the claimed invention, and
`
`that the skilled artisan would have had a reasonable expectation of successin
`
`doing so.’” Jntelligent Bio-Sys., Inc. v. Illumina Cambridge Ltd. , 821 F.3d
`
`1359, 1367-68 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (citation omitted); see KSR, 550 U.S. at 418.
`
`11
`
`

`

`IPR2023-00377
`Patent 9,253,332 B2
`
`Further, an assertion of obviousness “cannot be sustained by mere
`
`conclusory statements; instead, there must be some articulated reasoning
`
`with some rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion of
`
`obviousness.” KSR, 550 U.S. at 418; In re NuVasive, Inc. , 842 F.3d 1376,
`
`1383 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (a finding of a motivation to combine “must be
`299
`
`supported by a ‘reasoned explanation’”
`
`(citation omitted)).
`
`B. Level ofOrdinary Skill in the Art
`
`Determining whether an invention would have been obvious under
`
`35 U.S.C. § 103 requires resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent
`
`art at the time ofthe effective filing date ofthe claimed invention. Graham,
`
`383 U.S. at 17. The person of ordinary skill in the art is a hypothetical
`
`person who knowsthe relevant art. /n re GPAC Inc. , 57 F.3d 1573, 1579
`
`(Fed. Cir. 1995). Factorsin determining the level of ordinary skill in the art
`
`include the types ofproblems encounteredin the art, the sophistication ofthe
`
`technology, and educational level of active workersin the field. 7d. One or
`
`more factors may predominate. /d.
`
`Petitioner asserts a person of ordinary skill in the art
`
`would have had a bachelor’s degree in computer science,
`computer en gineering, or an equivalent, and three or moreyears
`of professional experience relating to conferencing systemsin
`packet-based networks, or without said professional experience,
`further education relating to conferencing systems in packet-
`based networks.
`
`Pet. 9 (citing Ex. 1003 99 24-28).
`
`Patent Ownerdisagrees with Petitioner’s proposal “because it is too
`
`specialized and would instead be properly characterized as a person of
`
`extraordinary skill in the art.” PO Resp. 11 (citing Ex. 2001 49 3-4).
`
`Instead, according to Patent Owner, a person of ordinary skill in the art
`
`12
`
`

`

`IPR2023-00377
`Patent 9,253,332 B2
`
`“would have a bachelor’s degree in electrical en gineering, computerscience,
`
`or equivalent with two years or more ofexperience in computing systems
`
`development.” /d. (citing Ex. 2001 4 3).
`
`Petitioner disputes Patent Owner’s proposal, arguing that “[t]he °332
`
`patent specifically notes that the invention ‘relates to computer system
`
`architectures, and moreparticularly to audio and video telecommunications
`299
`for collaboration over hybrid networks.” Reply 1. Petitioner also argues
`
`that none ofPatent Owner’s argumentsrest on the alleged difference in the
`
`proposedlevel of skill in the art, and undereither definition the result is the
`
`same.
`
`/d. at 1-2.
`
`Weagree with Petitioner. Although Patent Owner proposes an
`
`alternative level of ordinary skill in the art, Patent Ownerdoesnot explain
`
`how it impacts Petitioner’s contentions or Patent Owner’s arguments in
`
`opposition. Indeed, at the hearing, Patent Owner’s counselstated “I can’t
`
`point to a material difference that would change the outcome ofthis.” Tr.
`
`49:10—15. Therefore, it appears that neither party contendsthat the
`
`differencesin their proposals affects the outcomeofthis proceeding.
`
`Nothing in the full record persuadesus that our preliminary finding in
`
`the Institution Decision, adopting Petitioner’s proposal, was incorrect. See
`
`Dec. 10-11. Therefore, we maintain our adoption ofPetitioner’s proposed
`
`level of ordinary skill in the art, as consistent with the evidence ofrecord,
`
`including the asserted prior art andthe ’332 patent’s specification, except
`
`that we delete the qualifier “or more” in the phrase “three or more years”to
`
`eliminate vagueness as to the stated amountofprofessional experience.
`
`However, our findings would not change even under Patent Owner’s
`
`proposedlevelof skill in the art.
`
`13
`
`

`

`IPR2023-00377
`Patent 9,253,332 B2
`
`C. Claim Construction
`
`In an interpartes review, we apply the same claim construction
`
`standardas would be usedbya district court to construe a claim in acivil
`
`action involving the validity or infringement ofa patent. 37 C.F.R.
`
`§ 42.100(b). Under that standard, claim termsare given their ordinary and
`
`customary meaning, as would have been understood by a person of ordinary
`
`skill in the art at thetime ofthe invention,in light ofthe language ofthe
`
`claims, the specification, and the prosecution history ofrecord. /d.;
`
`Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1312-19 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc),
`
`Thorner v. Sony Comput. Entm’t Am. LLC, 669 F.3d 1362, 1365—66 (Fed.
`
`Cir. 2012). “The Boardis required to construe ‘only those terms... that are
`
`in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.’”
`
`Realtime Data, LLC v. lancu, 912 F.3d 1368, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (quoting
`
`Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir.
`
`1999))).
`
`Petitioner alleges that “no claim term requires express construction for
`
`the Board to evaluate the patentability ofthe claims”and relies on the
`
`ordinary and customary meaning under Phillips. Pet. 9-10. Patent Owner
`
`disagrees, arguing that the claim terms should instead be construed
`
`consistent with how they were construed in a claim construction orderin
`
`Meetrix IP, LLC v. Citrix Systems, Inc. et al., Case No. 1:16-cv-1033-LY,
`
`Dkt. No. 69 (W.D.Tex.).”7 PO Resp. 12 (citing Ex. 2002 (claim construction
`
`order)). Patent Ownerprovidesthe district court’s construction for thirteen
`
`T Petitioner wasnota partyto this district court litigation. See Tr. 8:21—23
`(Petitioner’s counsel stating “We were not involved, Zoho wasnot involved
`in that claim construction process that resulted in the construction from the
`Western District of Texas.”’).
`
`14
`
`

`

`IPR2023-00377
`Patent 9,253,332 B2
`
`terms, including “virtual private network (VPN),” “VPN tunnel,” and “first
`
`mixed audio data,” as recited, for example, in claims | and 8; “second mixed
`
`audio data,” as recitedin claims 1, 7, and 9; “third mixedaudio data,” as
`
`recited in claim 2; “first mixer’ and “second mixer,” as recited in claim 8;
`
`and “third mixer,” as recitedin claim 9.
`
`/d. at 12—13. Petitionerresponds
`
`that Patent Owner’s alleged disagreementis irrelevant because “only a
`
`handful ofthe listedtermsappearsin the claims ofthe ’332 patent,” and
`
`“[m Joreover, the subsequent Patent Owner argumentsdo notrely on any of
`
`these claim constructions.” Reply 2. Still further, Petitioner contends, “[t]he
`
`application ofthe priorart referencesin the Petition to the claim lan guage of
`
`the challenged claims does not require any ofthese constructionsnor1sit at
`
`odds with them,” and “[u]nder the plain and ordinary meaningofthe claim
`
`terms, the challenged claims are unpatentable.” /d.
`
`Weagree with Petitionerthat no claim construction is necessary for
`
`purposes ofthis Decision. Patent Owner doesnot argue, and we do not
`
`discern, that any claim termsare in controversy on the current record.® See
`
`® Although Patent Owner mentionsthe district court’s claim construction for
`“Virtual Private Network (VPN)and “VPNtunnel”in connection with its
`arguments for claims 1 and 8(PO Resp. 21, 28), Petitioner argues, and we
`agree, that Patent Owner’s arguments do not suggest that Petitioner’s
`arguments are inconsistent with any ofthese constructions. Reply 2; see Tr.
`8:1—9:1 (Petitioner’s counsel stating that “We don’t actually have a problem
`with [the district court’s] construction [ofVPN].
`I think it may be overly
`broad, but it doesn’t impact our analysis in either way.”); Tr. 9:2—14
`(Petitioner’s counselstating that “[T]here’s no difference between how Dr.
`Houhapplied tunneling and howthe[district court] construed it, so we’ re
`fine with either construction... In fact, I see them as the same
`construction.”); Tr. 47:11—13 (Patent Owner’s counselstating “I agree with
`[Petitioner’s counsel] that 1t may not matter whetherhis construction,his
`
`15
`
`

`

`IPR2023-00377
`Patent 9,253,332 B2
`
`Realtime Data, LLC v. lancu, 912 F.3d 1368, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (“The
`
`Boardis required to construe ‘only those terms. . . that are in controversy,
`299
`
`and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.’”
`
`(quoting Vivid
`
`Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999))).
`
`D. Obviousness over Knappe, Elliott, and VPN Textbook
`(Petitioner’s Ground I)
`
`Petitioner alleges claims 1, 2,4, 5, and 7 of the ’332 patent are
`
`unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over Knappe, Elliott, and
`
`VPN Textbook. Pet. 4, 14-50. After reviewing the entire record developed
`
`at trial, we determinethat Petitioner has shown, by a preponderance ofthe
`
`evidence, that claims 1,2, 4,5, and 7 would have been obvious on the
`
`asserted ground.
`
`Webegin our analysis with an overview ofKnappe,Elliott, and VPN
`
`Textbook.
`
`1. Knappe
`
`Knappe,titled “Method and System for Improving the Intelligibility
`
`of a Moderator During a Multiparty Communication Session,”relates
`
`“generally to the field ofmultiparty communications.” Ex. 1006, code (54),
`
`1:8-9. Knappe’s system receivesa plurality ofparticipant voice streams
`
`from a plurality of conference participants, with an incoming moderator
`
`voice stream received from a moderator.
`
`/d. at code(57). The plurality of
`
`participant voice streams and the moderatorvoice stream are transmitted
`
`such that the intelligibility ofthe moderator voice stream is improved
`
`relative to at least one ofthe participant voice streams. /d.
`
`expert’s construction from thetextbookis usedor oursis for virtual private
`network.”).
`
`16
`
`

`

`IPR2023-00377
`Patent 9,253,332 B2
`
`Figure | of Knappeis reproduced below.
`
`| COMMURICAHIONS $
`DEVICE
`
`| COMMUNICATIONS
`
`
`DEVICE
`
`| CONFERENCE
`(BRIDGE
`
`
` COMMUNICATIONS [-*
`
`
`
`|
`
`DRACE
`f™
`16
`
`| COMMUNICATIONS
`DEVICE
`
`PIG.
`
`7
`
`13
`
`Figure 1, above,is a block diagram of an embodiment ofKnappe’s
`
`communication system 12. Ex. 1006, 2:59-61, 3:24—25. In the illustrated
`
`embodiment, communication system 12 is a distributed system transmitting
`
`audio, video, voice, data, and other suitable types ofreal-time and/or non-
`
`real-time traffic between source and destination endpoints. /d. at 3:25—29.
`
`Communication system 12 may be used to conduct multi-party telephone
`
`conference communication sessions, and components ofthe system may be
`
`configured to automatically improvetheintelligibility of a moderator during
`
`a multi-party communication session, while allowing the moderator to
`
`exercise control and influence over the telephone conference, without
`
`completely silencing the otherparticipants.
`
`/d. at 3:29-38. Communication
`
`system 12 includes a network 14 connecting a plurality of communication
`
`devices 16 to each other and to analog telephones 18 through gateway 20
`
`and public switched telephone network (PSTN) 22.
`
`/d. at 3:41—45.
`
`17
`
`

`

`IPR2023-00377
`Patent 9,253,332 B2
`
`Communication devices 16, analog telephones 18, and gateway 20 are
`
`connected to network 14 and/or PSTN 22 through twisted pair, cable, fiber
`
`optic, radio frequency, infrared, microwave,or other wireline or wireless
`
`links 28.
`
`/d. at 3:45—49,
`
`Network 14 may be the Internet, a wide area network (WAN),alocal
`
`area network (LAN), or other suitable packet-switched network. Ex. 1006,
`
`3:50-52. In the Internet embodiment, network 14 transmits information in
`
`Internet Protocol (IP) packets. /d. at 3:53-54. Telephony voice information
`
`in communication system 12 is transmitted in the VoIP format, and real-time
`
`IP packets (such as VoIP packets) are encapsulated in real-time transport
`
`protocol (RTP) packets for transmission over network 14.
`
`/d. at 3:54—S8.
`
`For voice calls, according to Knappe, communication devices 16 comprise
`
`real-time applicationsthat play traffic as it is recetved, and to which packet
`
`delivery cannot be interrupted without severely degrading performance. /d.
`
`at 4:5-9. A codec (coder/decoder) converts audio, video, or other suitable
`
`signals generated by users, from analog signals into digital form. /d.
`
`at 4:9-11. The digital encoded data is encapsulated into IP or other suitable
`
`packets, for transmission over network 14.
`
`/d. at 4:11—13. IP packets
`
`received from network 14 are converted back into analog signals, and played
`
`tothe user. /d. at 4:13—14.
`
`Gateway 20 included in communication system 12 in Figure 1
`
`provides conversion between analog and/or digital formats. Ex. 1006,
`
`4:18-19. Analog telephones 18 communicate standardtelephony signals
`
`through PSTN 22 to gateway 20, where the signals are converted to IP
`
`packets in VoIP format. /d. at 4:19—22. Similarly, VoIP packets received
`
`from network 14 are converted into standard telephonysignals for delivery
`
`to destination telephone 18 through PSTN 22.
`
`/d. at 4:22—25. Gateway 20
`
`18
`
`

`

`IPR2023-00377
`Patent 9,253,332 B2
`
`also translates between the networkcall control system and the Signaling
`
`System 7 (SS7) protocol and/or other signaling protocols used in PSTN 22.
`
`Id. at 4:25—28.
`
`As shownin Figure 1, network 14 includesa call manager 30, which
`
`managescalls in the network and provides voicemail, bridging, multicasting,
`
`call hold, conference call, and other multiparty communicationsfor
`
`communicationsdevices 16. Ex. 1006, 4:29-57. Network 14 also includes
`
`a conference bridge 32, which provides conference call and other suitable
`
`audio, video, and/orreal-time multiparty communication sessions between
`
`communication devices 16.
`
`/d. at 4:29-41, 4:58-5:2. Conference bridge 32
`
`includesa controller, buffers, converters, a normalizer, a mixer, anda
`
`database. /d. at 5:49-55. “[C]all manager 30 controls the conference
`
`bridge 32 to set up, process and tear down conference calls and other
`
`multiparty communication sessions.” /d. at 5:29-31. “The call manager 30
`
`and the conference bridge 32 may be located in a centralfacility or have
`
`their functionality distributed across and/or at the periphery ofthe
`
`network 14.” Jd. at 4:30-33.
`
`For conference calls, call manager 30 identifies participants based on
`
`the called numberor other suitable criteria. Ex. 1006, 5:26—-39. Call
`
`manager 30 controls conference bridge 32 to set up, process, and tear down
`
`conferencecalls and other multiparty communication sessions.
`
`/d. During
`
`multiparty communicationssessions, participants are connected and stream
`
`media through conference bridge 32.
`
`/d. The media is cross-connected and
`
`mixed to produce conference output streams for each participant. /d. The
`
`conference output stream for a participant includes the mediaofall other
`
`participants, or of a subset of other participants (or of other suitable mix
`
`dictated by the type ofmultiparty session and/orparticipant). Jd.
`
`19
`
`

`

`IPR2023-00377
`Patent 9,253,332 B2
`
`Figure 2 of Knappeis reproduced below.
`
`20
`“sy,
`t
`CONTROLLER
`
`CONFERENCE BRIDGE
`“4
`a4
`.
`|
`| CONVERTERS
`
`MIXER
`
`nao
`
`FIG. &
`
`b
`DATABASE
`
`fo
`\
`CONFERENCE
`_ PARAMETERS
`' CONFERENC
`| PARTICIPANTS
`
`| CONFERENCE
`PARTICIPANTS |
`
`|
`
`|
`
`| PARTICIPANT
`| PRIORITIES
`
`| PARTICIPANT
`| PRIORITIES
`
`|
`
`Figure 2, above,is a block diagram illustrating details of conference
`
`bridge 32. Ex. 1006, 2:62—64. Asillustrated, conference bridge 32 includes
`
`mixer 58. “[M]ixer 58 includesa plurality of summersor other suitable
`
`signal processing resources each operable to sum, add or otherwise combine
`
`a plurality of input streams into conference output streamsfor participants to
`
`a conference call.” /d. at 6:33—37.
`
`20
`
`

`

`IPR2023-00377
`Patent 9,253,332 B2
`
`Figure 3 of Knappeis reproduced below.
`
`PARTICIPANT INPUTS
`
`
` MONAURAL MEXER
`
`
`108
`
`
`108
`
`CONFERENCE OUTPUTS
`
`Figure 3, above,is a block diagram illustrating an embodiment ofKnappe’s
`
`mixer 58 (supra Figure 2) in the form ofmonaural mixer 80. Ex. 1006,
`
`2:65—67, 6:52—55. Monaural mixer 80 illustrated in Figure 3 receives
`
`participantinput streams 84, and combines the streams in summers 82 to
`
`generate conference output streams 86 for each participant to a conference
`
`call.
`
`/d. at 6:59-62. In oneembodiment, a summer82/108 assigned to each
`
`participant “receives audio input streams from each otherparticipant to the
`
`conferencecall,” and “combinesthe audio input streams to generate a
`
`conference output stream for delivery to the participant.” /d. at 6:63—-67.?
`
`During normal operation, each participant receives the audio input of each
`
`otherparticipant. /d. at 7:1-2. For example, the conference output stream of
`
`participant 1 includes the audio inputs ofparticipants 2—5, the conference
`
`output stream ofparticipant 2 includes the audio inputs ofparticipants 1 and
`
`? Knapperefers to “summer 108” in connection with Figure 7 and
`“summers 82” in connection with Figure 3, although Figure3 shows
`summers 108. Compare Ex. 1006, 8:24—26, with id. at 6:59-63.
`
`21
`
`

`

`IPR2023-00377
`Patent 9,253,332 B2
`
`3-5, the conference output stream ofparticipant 3 includes the audio inputs
`
`of participants 1—2 and 4—S, the conference output stream ofparticipant 4
`
`includes the audio inputs ofparticipants 1-3 and 5, and the conference
`
`output stream ofparticipant 5 includes the audio inputs ofparticipants 1—4.
`
`Id. at 7:2-11.
`
`2. Elliott
`
`Elliott, titled “Method and System for Multi-Media Collaboration
`
`Between Remote Parties,” relates to “computer networksand specifically to
`
`a method and system for multi-media collaboration between remoteparties.”
`
`Ex. 1007, code (54), 1:27—30. According to Elliott, “[m Julti-media
`
`collaboration refers to the use ofmore than one mediastream (e. g.: voice,
`
`fax, data, video, etc.) used in collabo