throbber
Paper 19
`Trials@uspto.gov
`571-272-7822 Entered: January 3, 2017
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`BRIGHT HOUSE NETWORKS, LLC,
`WIDEOPENWEST FINANCE, LLC,
`KNOLOGY OF FLORIDA, INC., and
`BIRCH COMMUNICATIONS, INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`FOCAL IP, LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`Case IPR2016-01262
`Patent 7,764,777 B2
`____________
`
`
`
`Before SALLY C. MEDLEY, JONI Y. CHANG, and
`BARBARA A. PARVIS, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`MEDLEY, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`DECISION
`Granting Institution of Inter Partes Review
`37 C.F.R. § 42.108
`
`
`
`
`
`

`
`IPR2016-01262
`Patent 7,764,777 B2
`
`I. INTRODUCTION
`Bright House Networks, LLC, WideOpenWest Finance, LLC,
`Knology of Florida, Inc., and Birch Communications, Inc. (collectively
`“Petitioner”)1 filed a Petition for inter partes review of claims 18, 21, 23, 25,
`26, 28–31, 37, 38, 41, 45, and 46 of U.S. Patent No. 7,764,777 B2
`(Ex. 1001, “the ’777 patent”). Paper 1 (“Pet.”). Focal IP, LLC (“Patent
`Owner”) filed a Preliminary Response. Paper 11 (“Prelim. Resp.”).
`Petitioner filed a Reply. Paper 17 (“Reply”). Institution of an inter partes
`review is authorized by statute when “the information presented in the
`petition . . . and any response . . . shows that there is a reasonable likelihood
`that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims
`challenged in the petition.” 35 U.S.C. § 314(a); see 37 C.F.R. § 42.108.
`Upon consideration of the Petition and Preliminary Response, we conclude
`the information presented shows there is a reasonable likelihood that
`Petitioner would prevail in establishing the unpatentability of claims 18, 21,
`23, 25, 26, 28–31, 37, 38, 41, 45, and 46 of the ’777 patent.
`
`A. Related Matters
`The parties state that the ’777 patent is the subject of pending lawsuits
`in the Middle District of Florida, and these lawsuits include assertions
`against Bright House Networks, LLC, WideOpenWest Finance, LLC, YMax
`Corporation, Birch Communications, Inc., and T3 Communications, Inc.
`Pet. 4; Paper 7 (Patent Owner’s Mandatory Notices), 2–3. Another
`
`
`1 Petitioner identifies several real parties-in-interest, as well as other
`“potential real parties-in-interest” to Petitioner. Pet. 2–4.
`
`2
`
`

`
`IPR2016-01262
`Patent 7,764,777 B2
`
`petitioner filed a petition also challenging claims of the ’777 patent (i.e.,
`IPR2016-01258). Paper 7, 3.
`
`B. The ’777 Patent
`The ʼ777 patent is directed to a system for allowing a subscriber to
`select telephone service features. Ex. 1001, 1:18–21. Figure 1 of the ’777
`patent is reproduced below.
`
`
`
`Annotated Figure 1 illustrates tandem access controller 10 connected
`to conventional Public Service Telephone Network (PSTN) tandem switch
`16. Id. at 4:40, 41. According to the ’777 patent, “[d]etails of the operation
`of the existing phone network,” including directing of phone calls by
`“existing” PSTN tandem switch 16 to central offices 17, 18 are further
`described in a publication incorporated by reference, as well as “numerous
`books describing the PSTN.” Id. at 4:40–51.
`
`3
`
`

`
`IPR2016-01262
`Patent 7,764,777 B2
`
`The call flow in the network illustrated in Figure 1 with tandem access
`controller 10 remains the same as that in a conventional network, “except
`that additional 3rd-party features are applied to the call.” Id. at 4:40–44.
`More specifically, in the network illustrated in Figure 1, a call from calling
`party 20 to subscriber’s phone 14 is directed to tandem access controller 10,
`which places a second call, subject to 3rd party control information to
`subscriber 12. Id. at 4:52–55. The second call is placed “to the subscriber’s
`‘private’ phone number,” without terminating the first call. Id. at 4:55–57.
`When subscriber 12 answers the call, tandem access controller 10 connects
`the first call to the second call so as to connect calling party 20 to subscriber
`12. Id. at 4:59–62.
`Figure 1 also shows web server 23 within World Wide Web 22, which
`is connected to tandem access controller 10. Id. at Fig. 1. Subscriber 12
`specifies 3rd-party call control features via web server 23 and these features
`are then relayed via World Wide Web 22 to tandem access controller 10. Id.
`at 5:13–21.
`
`C. Illustrative Claim
`Petitioner challenges claims 18, 21, 23, 25, 26, 28–31, 37, 38, 41, 45,
`and 46 of the ’777 patent. Claims 18, 37, 45, and 46 are independent claims.
`Claims 21, 23, 25, 26, and 28–31 depend directly from claim 18. Claims 38
`and 41 depend directly from claim 37. Independent claim 18, reproduced
`below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter:
`18. A method for processing an incoming call from a
`switching facility on a communication network that comprises
`edge switches for routing calls to subscribers within a local
`geographic area and switching facilities for routing calls to edge
`switches, or other switching facilities local or in other geographic
`areas the method comprising the steps of:
`
`4
`
`

`
`IPR2016-01262
`Patent 7,764,777 B2
`
`receiving a first call, which is intended for a specified
`recipient, at a controlling device in communication with the
`switching facility;
`identifying one or more control criteria previously
`associated with the specified recipient, wherein the one or more
`control criteria was entered via a web-based interface;
`initiating a second call at the controlling device in
`accordance with the control criteria associated with the specified
`recipient; and
` connecting the first and second calls at the controlling
`device after the second call is received by a communication
`device associated with the specified recipient.
`
`Id. at 15:12–30.
`
`Independent claim 37 is similar to claim 18, except that when the call
`is forwarded, the claim requires using a “packet-based connection.”
`Independent claim 45 is similar to claim 18, except that instead of initiating
`a second call to a specified recipient, the original first call is routed to a
`"voicemail server." Independent claim 46 is similar to claim 18, except that
`instead of initiating a second call to a specified recipient, the original first
`call is blocked.
`
`D. Asserted Grounds of Unpatentability
`Petitioner asserts that claims 18, 21, 23, 25, 26, 28–31, 37, 38, 41, 45,
`and 46 are unpatentable based on the following grounds (Pet. 4):
`
`5
`
`

`
`IPR2016-01262
`Patent 7,764,777 B2
`
`Reference(s)
`Archer2 and the
`Admitted Prior Art3
`Archer, Chang4 and the
`Admitted Prior Art
`Chang
`
`Basis
`
`§ 103(a)
`
`§ 103(a)
`§ 103(a)
`
`Challenged Claim(s)
`18, 21, 23, 25, 26, 28–31, 37,
`38, 41, 45, and 46
`18, 21, 23, 25, 26, 28–31, 37,
`38, 41, 45, and 46
`45 and 46
`
`II. DISCUSSION
`
`A. Claim Construction
`In an inter partes review, we construe claim terms in an unexpired
`patent according to their broadest reasonable construction in light of the
`specification of the patent in which they appear. 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b).
`Consistent with the broadest reasonable construction, claim terms are
`presumed to have their ordinary and customary meaning as understood by a
`person of ordinary skill in the art in the context of the entire patent
`disclosure. In re Translogic Tech., Inc., 504 F.3d 1249, 1257 (Fed. Cir.
`2007).
`
`1. “switching facility”
`
`Each of the independent claims 18, 37, 45, and 46 recites “switching
`facility.” Patent Owner contends that “switching facility” (1) is a switch for
`
`
`2 U.S. Patent No. 6,683,870 B1, issued Jan. 27, 2004 (Ex. 1003) (“Archer”).
`3 Admitted Prior Art (see, e.g., Ex. 1001, 1:40–46). Although discussed in
`the Petitioner’s analysis (see, e.g., Pet. 19), the Admitted Prior Art is omitted
`inadvertently from the statements of the asserted grounds. Therefore, we
`treat the statements as harmless error and presume that Petitioner intended to
`assert that claims 18, 21, 23, 25, 26, 28–31, 37, 38, 41, 45, and 46 are
`unpatentable based, in part, on the Admitted Prior Art.
`4 U.S. Patent No. 5,958,016, issued Sept. 28, 1999 (Ex. 1004) (“Chang”).
`
`6
`
`

`
`IPR2016-01262
`Patent 7,764,777 B2
`
`routing calls to edge switches or other “switching facilities” local or in other
`geographic areas; and (2) is not an edge switch or edge device. Prelim.
`Resp. 34, 40 (citing Ex. 20015 ¶¶ 68, 69, 80). Petitioner disagrees with
`Patent Owner’s narrow interpretation and contends that Patent Owner did
`not clearly and unmistakably disavow the claim scope of Patent Owner’s
`claims. Pet. 9–10; Reply 1–8.
`We begin with the plain language of the claims. Claim 18 is
`representative. The preamble of that claim recites “processing an incoming
`call from a switching facility on a communication network that comprises
`edge switches for routing calls to subscribers within a local geographic area
`and switching facilities for routing calls to edge switches, or other switching
`facilities local or in other geographic areas.” On this record, we determine
`that the preamble is limiting.
`The preamble recites not only a “switching facility” but two other
`“switching facilities.” There is nothing in claim 18 itself that indicates that
`the switching facility, the switching facilities for routing calls to edge
`switches, or the “other” switching facilities local are the same switching
`facility or make up the same structural components. Thus, we disagree with
`Patent Owner that the language of the claim itself dictates that the plain
`meaning of every “switching facility” recited in the claim be treated the
`same to mean a switch for routing calls to edge switches or other “switching
`facilities” local or in other geographic areas; and (2) is not an edge switch or
`edge device. Prelim. Resp. 35.
`
`
`5 Ex. 2001 is a Declaration of Regis J. “Bud” Bates.
`
`7
`
`

`
`IPR2016-01262
`Patent 7,764,777 B2
`
`We next turn to the Specification of the ’777 patent itself to discern
`the meaning of “switching facility.” The term “switching facility” is not
`found in the Specification of the ’777 patent. The term was added during
`prosecution. Pet. 9–10; Prelim. Resp. 35; Reply 2. Accordingly, there is not
`much, if anything intrinsically in the Specification of the ’777 patent that
`explicitly defines or informs a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time
`of the invention the meaning of “switching facility.”
`Patent Owner argues that the prosecution history makes clear that
`switching facility cannot include an edge switch. Prelim. Resp. 35–36. The
`remarks made during prosecution, however, are equivocal, and do not
`persuade us of a disavowal or disclaimer of the scope of the term “switching
`facility” to exclude an edge switch. For example, the portion of the
`prosecution history that Patent Owner cites includes a footnote for defining a
`“switching facility” as:
`Any point in the switching fabric of converging networks, also
`referred to in industry as a signal transfer point (STP), signal
`control point (SCP), session border controller (SBC), gateway,
`access tandem, class 4 switch, wire center, toll office, toll
`center, PSTN switching center, intercarrier connection point,
`trunk gateway, hybrid switch, etc.
`
`Ex. 2005, 82 n.1.
`The above description does not explain that a switching facility does
`not include an edge switch. Indeed, “[a]ny point in the switching fabric of
`converging networks” appears broad. We have considered all of the
`
`8
`
`

`
`IPR2016-01262
`Patent 7,764,777 B2
`
`arguments and evidence regarding the term “switching facility.” 6 At this
`juncture of the proceeding, we determine that the broadest reasonable
`interpretation of the term is any switch in the communication network.
`
`2. “in communication with”/“coupled to”
`
`Each of the independent claims 18, 37, and 45 recites “controlling
`device in communication with the switching facility.” Claim 46 recites
`“controlling device in communication with one of the switching facilities.”
`Claim 30, which depends from claim 29, which in turn depends from claim
`18, recites “the tandem access controller . . . coupled to . . . at least one of
`the switching facilities.” Patent Owner analyzes the “in communication
`with” and “coupled to” terms together. Prelim. Resp. 41–43. Although
`Patent Owner does not dispute that the plain and ordinary meaning of the
`term “in communication with” or “coupled to” does not require a direct
`connection between the controlling device (tandem access controller) and
`the switching facility, Patent Owner argues that the terms should be
`interpreted to mean direct communication and direct connection,
`respectively. In Patent Owner’s view, the configuration of an indirect
`connection or communication of these elements was allegedly disclaimed by
`Applicants. Id.
`
`
`6 We also considered evidence submitted in IPR2016-01258, including the
`definitions set forth in Federal Standard 1037C (Ex. 3001) and Newton’s
`Telecom Dictionary (Ex. 3002). Ex. 3001, S35 (defining “switching center”
`and “switching facility” as synonyms that mean “a facility in which switches
`are used to interconnect communications circuits on a circuit-, message-, or
`packet-switching basis”); Ex. 3002 (defining “switching centers” to refer to
`all five classes of switches in the PSTN).
`
`9
`
`

`
`IPR2016-01262
`Patent 7,764,777 B2
`
`However, the portion of the prosecution history cited by Patent Owner
`for support (Ex. 2005, 66) is, at most, ambiguous. The Amendment that
`added the limitation “coupled to a switching facility for routing calls to edge
`switches or other switching facilities in local or other geographic areas” is
`silent as to whether “coupled to” requires a direct connection between the
`elements. Id.
`Patent Owner also contends that the controlling device cannot be
`coupled to a switching facility through an edge switch because this
`construction reflects Applicants’ disclaimer of controllers that applied call
`control features through an edge switch. As discussed above, we are not
`persuaded by Patent Owner’s disclaimer arguments that the term “switching
`facility” excludes an edge switch.
`Based on the record before us at this juncture of the proceeding, we
`determine that the broadest reasonable interpretation of “coupled to” and “in
`communication with” includes direct or indirect coupling and
`communication.
`
`3. “controlling device”
`Each of the independent claims 18, 37, 45, and 46 recites a
`“controlling device.” Patent Owner does not dispute that the plain and
`ordinary meaning of this term does not exclude an edge device or a system
`that communicates with an edge device. Nonetheless, relying on its
`prosecution disclaimer arguments presented in connection with the term
`“switching facility,” Patent Owner alleges that a “controlling device” cannot
`be an edge device or apply call control features through an edge switch.
`Prelim. Resp. 40–41. We have considered and addressed Patent Owner’s
`prosecution disclaimer arguments and the evidence before us. As discussed
`
`10
`
`

`
`IPR2016-01262
`Patent 7,764,777 B2
`
`above, we are not persuaded by those disclaimer arguments. Based on the
`present record, we determine that the broadest reasonable interpretation of
`“controlling device” does not exclude an edge device or call control features
`through an edge switch.
`At this juncture of the proceeding, we determine that it is not
`necessary to provide an express interpretation of any other term of the
`claims.
`
`B. Obviousness of claims 18, 21, 23, 25, 26, 29–31, 37, 38, 41, 45, and 46
`over Archer, Chang, and the Admitted Prior Art
`
`Petitioner contends claims 18, 21, 23, 25, 26, 29–31, 37, 38, 41, 45,
`and 46 are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over Archer,
`Chang, and the Admitted Prior Art. Pet. 18–54. Relying on the testimony of
`Dr. Thomas La Porta, Petitioner explains how the combination of Archer,
`Chang, and the Admitted Prior Art describes all of the claim limitations and
`provides a reason to combine. Id. (citing Ex. 1002).
`
`1. Overview of Archer
`Archer is directed to transmitting simultaneously call notifications to
`communication devices, such as a telephone, pager, and computer. Ex. 1003
`Abstract. Figure 2 of Archer is reproduced below.
`
`11
`
`

`
`IPR2016-01262
`Patent 7,764,777 B2
`
`
`
`Figure 2 is a communication system.
` As shown in Figure 2 above, telephone 114 is connected to circuit-
`switched network 118. Id. at 4:66–67. Circuit-switched network 118 is a
`plain old telephone service (POTS) network such as the PSTN. Id. at 5:5–8.
`Circuit-switched network 118 is coupled to converter 126, which converts
`telephone signals into packets. Id. at 5:32–34. The packets are formatted in
`accordance with IP and routed through packet-switched network 130. Id. at
`5:41–46. Packet-switched network 130 is the Internet. Id. at 6:3–11.
`Converters 132a and 132b are coupled to packet-switched network 130 to
`convert digital packets into signals which can be transmitted across
`circuit-switched network 136. Id. at 8:18–21. In the preferred embodiment,
`converters 126 and 132 are interchangeable depending on which device 114,
`120, or 134 initiates the call and where the call is routed. Id. at 8:23–26.
`Server processor 128 queries database 138 using the number
`generated at telephone 114 to look up the forwarding phone numbers
`
`12
`
`

`
`IPR2016-01262
`Patent 7,764,777 B2
`
`assigned to the user. Id. at 6:33–37. Server processor 128 will then transmit
`the packets simultaneously to each of destinations 132, 134. Id. at 7:3–4.
`Figure 4 is reproduced below.
`
`Figure 4 is a flowchart of software that executes on
`server processor 128
`
`
`
`13
`
`

`
`IPR2016-01262
`Patent 7,764,777 B2
`
`As illustrated in Figure 4, server processor 128 extracts subscriber
`information received in a packet (step 52) and queries database 138 (step
`54). Id. at 6:56–59. Server processor 128 creates IP packets for each
`destination (id. at 6:63–67), multicasts the packets (id. at 7:3–4, Fig. 4 (step
`62)), and upon receipt of confirmation, terminates or connects the call with
`each of the destinations thereby establishing communications between the
`caller and the called party (id. at 7:15–21, Fig. 4, steps 64–68).
`
`2. Overview of Chang
`Chang discloses a system that has a web browser interface for
`allowing subscribers to control call features. Ex. 1004, Abstract, 4:45–58,
`7:9–16. Figure 1 of Chang is reproduced below.
`
`Figure 1 of Chang illustrates a telephone network that includes one or
`more tandem switching offices (11T) that provide connections between end
`offices and/or between other tandem offices. Id. at 8:2–5. Secure access
`
`
`
`14
`
`

`
`IPR2016-01262
`Patent 7,764,777 B2
`
`platform 25 allows the subscribers to control their call features using a Web
`browser through the Internet, and provides user control selections to the
`tandem switches (11T) through Service Control Point (SCP) 19 and
`Signaling Transfer Point (STP) 15 using Signaling System 7 (SS7). Id. at
`Abstract, 8:48–9:7, 11:9–12:17, 12:64–13:27.
`
`3. Discussion
`Petitioner asserts that the combination of Archer, Chang, and the
`Admitted Prior Art describes all of the elements of claims 18, 21, 23, 25, 26,
`29–31, 37, 38, 41, 45, and 46 and provides a rationale for combining Archer,
`Chang, and the Admitted Prior Art. Pet. 17–54. We begin our analysis with
`independent claim 18.
`The preamble of claim 18 recites “a communication network that
`comprises edge switches for routing calls to subscribers within a local
`geographic area and switching facilities for routing calls to edge switches, or
`other switching facilities local or in other geographic areas.” Ex. 1001,
`15:12–17.
`Petitioner contends that Archer describes a communication network
`that contains the claimed edge switches and switching facilities in the form
`of (1) tandem switches in circuit-switched networks (118, 136) which is
`preferably the PSTN and (2) converters/gateways (126, 132) which
`interconnect tandem switches in the PSTN and the packet-switched network
`130. Pet. 19 (citing Ex. 1003, Figs. 2, 6, 5:5–35; Ex. 1010, 87 n.1; Ex. 1002
`¶¶ 113–119). Petitioner contends that an ordinarily skilled artisan would
`have recognized that the PSTN consists of edge switches (switches that
`connect to end-user devices, like telephones, within a local geographic area)
`and switching facilities (e.g., tandem or class 4 switches) for connecting
`
`15
`
`

`
`IPR2016-01262
`Patent 7,764,777 B2
`
`multiple edge switches to each other and to other switching facilities in other
`geographical areas. Id. (citing Ex. 1001, 1:40–46, 4:44–51; Ex. 1002 ¶¶
`114–117). Petitioner further contends that Archer describes
`converters/gateways (126, 132) which are switching facilities that serve to
`interconnect tandem switches in the PSTN and the packet-switched network.
`Id. at 19–20 (citing Ex. 1003, Figs. 2, 3, 6, 5:32–67; Ex. 1002 ¶ 119).
`The preamble of claim 18 further recites “processing an incoming call
`from a switching facility on a communication network.” Petitioner contends
`that Archer describes processing an incoming call (by way of server
`processor 128 and database 138) from gateway 126 (switching facility) on
`the communication network, and indirectly from a tandem switch on the
`circuit-switch network portion (e.g., PSTN 118). Id. at 21 (citing Ex. 1003,
`Figs. 2, 4–6, and several passages therein; Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 128–129).
`Claim 18 recites “receiving a first call, which is intended for a
`specified recipient, at a controlling device in communication with the
`switching facility.” Petitioner contends, for example, that Archer describes
`receiving a first call (by way of server processor 128) intended for a
`recipient (i.e. a subscriber of a telephone service) and that the server
`processor is in communication with tandem switches in the PSTN or in
`direct communication with gateway 126. Id. at 25 (citing Ex. 1003, 2:9–14,
`4:31–38, 7:33–39, 7:44–50, 8:50–58, Fig. 5; Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 138–139).
`Claim 18 further recites “identifying one or more control criteria
`previously associated with the specified recipient, wherein the one or more
`control criteria was entered via a web-based interface.” Petitioner asserts,
`for example, that Archer describes that server processor (128) executes
`software to identify one or more control criteria that are previously
`
`16
`
`

`
`IPR2016-01262
`Patent 7,764,777 B2
`
`associated with the specified recipient (e.g. the called subscriber of a find
`me/follow me telephone service) by such software extracting subscriber
`identification information (e.g. subscriber’s called telephone number) from
`the digital packets communicated from gateway (126) and querying database
`(138) to retrieve the subscriber’s previously setup control criteria. Id. at 27
`(citing Ex. 1003, Figs. 4, 5, 4:37–47, 6:33–38, 6:48–62, 7:33–37, 8:57–67;
`Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 147–148). Petitioner further contends, for example, that Chang
`describes a subscriber’s personal computer running common web browser
`software to obtain a graphical user interface, preferably an Internet web page
`over the Internet from Secure Access Platform. Chang uses the interface,
`Petitioner asserts, to set criteria of various call features that are then stored in
`a database and used to control later implementation of telephone services in
`the PSTN. Id. at 31 (citing Ex. 1004, Fig.1, 4:45–58, 5:24–32, 6:22–27,
`11:30–54, 12:11–17, 12:64–13:28, 21:1–21; 1002 ¶¶ 166–171). Petitioner
`also provides a reason for combining Archer and Chang. Pet. 32.
`Claim 18 recites “initiating a second call at the controlling device in
`accordance with the control criteria associated with the specified recipient.”
`Petitioner asserts that Archer describes initiating a second call at the
`controlling device in accordance with control criteria associated with the
`recipient through Archer’s find me/follow me forwarding feature to reach
`the subscriber at one or more different locations. Id. at 36 (citing Ex. 1003,
`2:9–18, 2:45–49, 6:3–13, 6:63–67, 9:10–30, 8:63–9:9, Figs. 2, 4–6; Ex. 1002
`¶¶ 191–192).
`Claim 18 further recites “connecting the first and second calls at the
`controlling device after the second call is received by a communication
`device associated with the specified recipient.” Petitioner contends that
`
`17
`
`

`
`IPR2016-01262
`Patent 7,764,777 B2
`
`Archer meets the limitation in the form of software executing on server
`processor (128) initiating voice digitization and commencing the connection
`when server processor (128) receives a pickup notification from a
`subscriber’s communication device. Id. at 41 (citing Ex. 1003, Figs. 4, 5,
`9:30–37, 9:50–59, 7:14–21; Ex. 1002 ¶ 207).
`Independent claims 37, 45, and 46 are similar to claim 18. Petitioner
`has made a showing with respect to claims 37, 45, and 46 similar to its
`showing with respect to claim 18. See, e.g., Pet. 18–54. To the extent that
`claims 37, 45, and 46 are different from claim 18, Petitioner has accounted
`for such differences. We also have reviewed Petitioner’s showing with
`respect to dependent claims 21, 23, 25, 26, 28–31, 38, and 41.
` Patent Owner’s arguments are premised on its proposed narrow
`interpretation of “switching facility” and “in communication with.” Prelim.
`Resp. 48–56. At this juncture of the proceeding, and for reasons provided
`above, we have not adopted Patent Owner’s proposed interpretations.
`Accordingly, we are not persuaded by Patent Owner’s arguments.
`Based on the current record before us, we determine that there is a
`reasonable likelihood that Petitioner would prevail in establishing that
`claims 18, 21, 23, 25, 26, 28–31, 37, 38, 41, 45, and 46 are unpatentable
`over Archer in combination with Chang and the Admitted Prior Art.
`
`C. Remaining Grounds Challenging the Claims of the ’777 Patent
`Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 316(b), rules for inter partes proceedings
`were promulgated to take into account the “regulation on the economy, the
`integrity of the patent system, the efficient administration of the Office, and
`the ability of the Office to timely complete proceedings.” The promulgated
`rules provide that they are to “be construed to secure the just, speedy, and
`
`18
`
`

`
`IPR2016-01262
`Patent 7,764,777 B2
`
`inexpensive resolution of every proceeding.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.1(b). As a
`result, and in determining whether to institute an inter partes review of a
`patent, the Board, in its discretion, may “deny some or all grounds for
`unpatentability for some or all of the challenged claims.” 37 C.F.R.
`§ 42.108(b).
`Based on the record before us, we exercise our discretion and decline
`to institute review based on any of the other asserted grounds advanced by
`Petitioner that are not identified below as being part of the trial. See, e.g.,
`37 C.F.R. § 42.108(a).
`
`III. CONCLUSION
`For the foregoing reasons, we determine that the information
`presented establishes a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner would prevail in
`showing that claims 18, 21, 23, 25, 26, 28–31, 37, 38, 41, 45, and 46 of the
`’777 patent are unpatentable. At this preliminary stage, we have not made a
`final determination with respect to the patentability of the challenged claims
`or any underlying factual and legal issues.
`
`IV. ORDER
`
`Accordingly, it is:
`
`ORDERED that pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 314(a), an inter partes
`
`review is hereby instituted as to claims 18, 21, 23, 25, 26, 28–31, 37, 38, 41,
`45, and 46 of the ’777 patent on the following grounds of unpatentability:
`References
`Basis
`Challenged Claims
`18, 21, 23, 25, 26,
`28–31, 37, 38, 41,
`45, and 46
`
`Archer, Chang, and the Admitted
`Prior Art
`
`§ 103(a)
`
`
`
`19
`
`

`
`IPR2016-01262
`Patent 7,764,777 B2
`
`FURTHER ORDERED that pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 314(c) and
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.4, notice is hereby given of the institution of a trial, which
`commences on the entry date of this decision; and
`FURTHER ORDERED that the trial is limited to the grounds
`identified immediately above, and no other ground is authorized.
`
`FOR PETITIONER:
`
`Patrick McPherson
`Christopher Tyson
`DUANE MORRIS LLP
`pdmcpherson@duanemorris.com
`cjtyson@duanemorris.com
`
`Wayne Stacy
`BAKER BOTTS L.L.P.
`wayne.stacy@bakerbotts.com
`
`FOR PATENT OWNER:
`
`Brent Bumgardner
`John Murphy
`NELSON BUMGARDNER, P.C.
`bbumgardner@nbclaw.net
`murphy@nelbum.com
`
`20

This document is available on Docket Alarm but you must sign up to view it.


Or .

Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.

After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.

Accept $ Charge
throbber

Still Working On It

This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.

Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.

throbber

A few More Minutes ... Still Working

It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.

Thank you for your continued patience.

This document could not be displayed.

We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

Set your membership status to view this document.

With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll get a whole lot more, including:

  • Up-to-date information for this case.
  • Email alerts whenever there is an update.
  • Full text search for other cases.
  • Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.

Become a Member

One Moment Please

The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.

Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.

Your document is on its way!

If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.

Sealed Document

We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.

If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.


Access Government Site

We are redirecting you
to a mobile optimized page.





Document Unreadable or Corrupt

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket

We are unable to display this document.

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket