UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`_________________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`_________________________
`
`
`
`
`
`T-MOBILE US, INC.
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`Intellectual Ventures II LLC
`Patent Owner
`_________________________
`Case No. CBM2016-00083
`U.S. Patent No. 6,115,737
`_________________________
`
`
`
`PETITION FOR COVERED BUSINESS METHOD REVIEW
`OF U.S. PATENT NO. 6,115,737
`
`
`
`Mail Stop Patent Board
`Patent Trial and Appeal Board
`U.S. Patent and Trademark Office
`P.O. Box 1450
`Alexandria, VA 22313-1450
`
`
`102092368
`
`
`
`

`
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`Page
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION ......................................................................................... 1
`
`II. OVERVIEW OF THE ’737 PATENT ......................................................... 2
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`Summary of the Specification ............................................................... 2
`
`Summary of the Relevant Prosecution History ..................................... 7
`
`State of the Art ...................................................................................... 9
`
`III. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION ........................................................................ 17
`
`A.
`
`“A customer contact services node Internet gateway (CCSN/IG)”
`(Claim 7) .............................................................................................. 18
`
`1.
`
`2.
`3.
`
`The “CCSN/IG” is a Coined Term Whose Meaning Must be
`Discerned from the Intrinsic Record ......................................... 25
`The CCSN/IG Requires an “ISCP gateway” ............................ 27
`The “ISCP gateway” Is a Conventional Gateway that Must
`Directly Interface with an ISCP that is Part of a Telephone
`Network Switch ......................................................................... 30
`
`B.
`
`“Available through the telecommunications service providers web
`server” (Claim 14) ............................................................................... 33
`
`IV. GROUNDS FOR STANDING .................................................................... 37
`
`A.
`
`The ’737 Patent Is a Covered Business Method Patent ...................... 37
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`The Challenged Claims Recite Methods Used in the Practice,
`Administration, or Management of a Financial Product or
`Service ....................................................................................... 37
`The Challenged Claims Are Not Directed to a Technological
`Invention ................................................................................... 51
`
`B.
`
`Petitioner Has Been Sued for Infringement of the ’737 Patent, and Is
`Not Estopped From Challenging the ’737 Patent Claims ................... 59
`
`
`
`
`i
`
`

`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`(Cont’d)
`
`Page
`
`C.
`
`Eligibility Based on Time of Filing .................................................... 59
`
`V.
`
`THE CHALLENGED CLAIMS ARE UNPATENTABLE UNDER 35
`U.S.C. § 101 .................................................................................................. 59
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`The Challenged Claims Are Directed to an Abstract Idea .................. 60
`
`The Challenged Claims Lack an Inventive Concept ........................... 63
`
`1.
`2.
`
`3.
`4.
`
`Claim 7 Lacks An Inventive Concept ....................................... 65
`Claim 8 and Claim 9 Do Not Add Any Inventive Concepts to
`Claim 7 ...................................................................................... 75
`Claim 14 Lacks An Inventive Concept ..................................... 76
`The Challenged Claims Do Not Satisfy the Machine-or-
`Transformation Test .................................................................. 79
`
`VI. STATEMENT OF THE PRECISE RELIEF REQUESTED FOR EACH
`CLAIM CHALLENGED ............................................................................ 81
`
`VII. MANDATORY NOTICES ......................................................................... 81
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`D.
`
`Real Parties-in-Interest and Related Matters ....................................... 81
`
`Lead and Back-up Counsel and Service Information ......................... 82
`
`Certificate of Service on Patent Owner and Complete Fee ................ 82
`
`Type-Volume Certification ................................................................. 83
`
`VIII. CONCLUSION ............................................................................................ 83
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`ii
`
`

`
`
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
` Page(s)
`
`Cases
`Accenture Global Servs., GmbH v. Guidewire Software, Inc.,
`728 F.3d 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2013) .............................................................. 67, 79, 80
`
`Alice Corp. Pty Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int’l,
`134 S. Ct. 2347 (2014) ..................................... 1, 2, 59, 60, 63, 64, 68, 69, 72, 73
`
`Ariosa Diagnostics, Inc. v. Sequenom, Inc.,
`788 F.3d 1371 (Fed. Cir. 2015) .......................................................................... 74
`
`Bilski v. Kappos,
`130 S. Ct. 3218 (2010) ............................................................................ 78, 79, 81
`
`Bloomberg Inc. v. Markets-Alert Party Ltd.,
`CBM2013-00005, Decision on Institution, Paper No. 18 (Mar. 29,
`2013) ................................................................................................................... 55
`
`Blue Calypso, LLC v. Groupon, Inc.,
`815 F.3d 1331 (Fed. Cir. Mar. 1, 2016) .............................................................. 37
`
`buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc.,
`765 F.3d 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2014) ..................................................61, 64, 65, 72, 75
`
`Content Extraction & Transmission, LLC v. Wells Fargo Bank,
`776 F.3d 1343 (Fed. Cir. 2014) .......................................................................... 62
`
`CRS Advanced Techs., Inc. v. Frontline Techs., Inc.,
`CBM2012-00005, Paper No. 17 (PTAB Jan. 23, 2013) ............................... 38, 52
`
`Cyber-Source Corp. v. Retail Decisions, Inc.,
`654 F.3d 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2011) .............................................................. 61, 75, 80
`
`DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com,
`773 F.3d 1245 (Fed. Cir. 2014) .............................................................. 64, 72, 73
`
`Dealertrack, Inc. v. Huber,
`674 F.3d 1315 (Fed. Cir. 2012) .......................................................................... 78
`
`
`
`
`iii
`
`

`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`(Cont’d)
`
`
`Digitech Image Techs., LLC v. Elecs. for Imaging,
`758 F.3d 1344 (Fed. Cir. 2014) .................................................................... 62, 72
`
`Page(s)
`
`Gotschalk v. Benson,
`408 U.S. 63 (1972) .............................................................................................. 67
`
`iHeartMedia, Inc. v. Impulse Radio, LLC,
`CBM2016-00010, Paper No. 10 (PTAB May 9, 2016) ................................ 38, 41
`
`Intellectual Ventures I, LLC v. Capital One Bank (USA),
`792 F.3d 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2015) ........................................................ 61, 66, 70, 73
`
`Intellectual Ventures II LLC v. Nextel Operations, Inc.,
`No. 1:13-cv-1635-LPS (D. Del.) ........................................................................ 82
`
`Intellectual Ventures II LLC v. T-Mobile USA, Inc.,
`No. 1:13-cv-1633-LPS (D. Del.) .............................................................. 1, 59, 81
`
`Intellectual Ventures II LLC v. U.S. Cellular Corp.,
`No. 1:13-cv-1637-LPS (D. Del.) ........................................................................ 82
`
`Internet Patents Corp. v. Active Network, Inc.,
`790 F.3d 1343 (Fed. Cir. 2015) .......................................................................... 74
`
`Interthinx, Inc. v. Corelogic Solutions, LLC,
`CBM2012-00007, Paper No. 15 (PTAB Jan. 31, 2013) ..................................... 52
`
`Irdeto Access, Inc. v. Echostar Satellite Corp.,
`383 F.3d 1295 (Fed. Cir. 2004) .................................................................... 25, 27
`
`J.T. Eaton & Co. v. Atl. Paste & Glue Co.,
`106 F.3d 1563 (Fed. Cir. 1997) .......................................................................... 25
`
`JP Morgan Chase & Co. v. Maxim Integrated Prod., Inc., CBM2014-
`00179, Paper No. 11 (PTAB Feb. 20, 2015) ...................................................... 55
`
`Microsoft Corp. v. Multi-Tech Sys.,
`357 F.3d 1340 (Fed. Cir. 2004) .............................................................. 22, 31, 36
`
`iv
`
`

`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`(Cont’d)
`
`
`
`Page(s)
`
`Phillips v. AWH Corp.,
`415 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005) .......................................................................... 17
`
`SAP Am., Inc. v. Versata Dev. Group,
`CBM2012-00001 ................................................................................................ 55
`
`SightSound Techs., LLC v. Apple Inc.,
`809 F.3d 1307 (Fed. Cir. 2015) .................................................................... 38, 47
`
`Square, Inc. v. Protegrity Corp.,
`CBM2014-00182, Paper No. 16 (Mar. 5, 2015) ................................................. 51
`
`Ultramercial, Inc. v. Hulu, LLC,
`772 F.3d 709 (Fed. Cir. 2014) ................................. 61, 63, 64, 67, 72, 75, 79, 81
`
`Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc.,
`793 F.3d 1306 (Fed. Cir. 2015) ............................... 37, 38, 41, 51, 61, 66, 70, 77
`
`Wireless Agents LLC v. Sony Ericsson Mobile Commc’ns, AB,
`189 F. App’x 965 (Fed. Cir. 2006) ..................................................................... 26
`
`Statutes
`
`35 U.S.C. § 101 .............................................................................................. 2, 81, 83
`
`35 U.S.C. § 101 .......................................................................................................... 2
`
`35 U.S.C. § 154 ........................................................................................................ 17
`
`35 U.S.C. § 321 ........................................................................................................ 81
`
`35 U.S.C. § 321(c) ................................................................................................... 59
`
`35 U.S.C. § 324 ........................................................................................................ 83
`
`Rules
`
`Fed. R. Civ. Proc. 12(c) ........................................................................................... 59
`
`v
`
`

`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`(Cont’d)
`
`
`
`Page(s)
`
`Regulations
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.10(b) ................................................................................................ 82
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.20 ..................................................................................................... 17
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.300 ................................................................................................... 17
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.301 ............................................................................................. 37, 51
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.303 ................................................................................................... 59
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.304 ................................................................................................... 83
`
`77 Fed. Reg. 48,756,48,764 (Aug. 14, 2012) .......................................................... 55
`
`Other Authorities
`
`Ex. 1023, “History of the Web,” .............................................................................. 12
`
`Ex. 1040, Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary 286 (10th ed.
`1998) ................................................................................................................... 40
`
`Ex. 1040, Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary 1173 (10th ed.
`1993) ................................................................................................................... 48
`
`Ex. 1041, Random House Webster’s College Dictionary 336 (1996) ..................... 40
`
`Ex. 1041, Random House Webster’s College Dictionary 1332 (1996) ................... 48
`
`Ex. 1042, American Heritage Dictionary 462 (3rd ed. 1992) ................................. 40
`
`Ex. 1042, American Heritage Dictionary 1791 (3rd ed. 1992) ............................... 48
`
`Leahy-Smith America Invents Act, Pub. L. 112-29 (“AIA”), §
`18(d)(1) ............................................................................................................... 37
`
`vi
`
`

`
`Exhibit
`Number
`1001
`
`1002
`
`1003
`
`1004
`
`1005
`
`1006
`
`1007
`
`1008
`
`1009
`
`1010
`
`1011
`
`1012
`
`1013
`
`1014
`
`
`
`APPENDIX OF EXHIBITS
`
`Document
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,115,737
`September 30, 1997 Amendment and Response to Office Action from
`the Prosecution History of U.S. Patent No. 6,115,737
`December 8, 1997 Office Action from the Prosecution History of U.S.
`Patent No. 6,115,737
`June 8, 1998 Amendment and Response to Office Action from the
`Prosecution History of U.S. Patent No. 6,115,737
`July 7, 1998 Office Action from the Prosecution History of U.S. Patent
`No. 6,115,737
`November 9, 1998 Amendment and Response to Office Action from
`the Prosecution History of U.S. Patent No. 6,115,737
`November 17, 1999 Petition for Extension of Time from the
`Prosecution History of U.S. Patent No. 6,115,737
`November 23, 1999 Amendment and Response to Office Action from
`the Prosecution History of U.S. Patent No. 6,115,737
`U.S. Patent No. 5,751,961 to Smyk
`June 24, 1997 Amendment and Response to Office Action from the
`Prosecution History of U.S. Patent No. 5,751,961
`Declaration of Michael Shamos, Ph.D.
`Paul M. Eng, “Prodigy Is In that Awkward Stage” (Feb. 13, 1995),
`available at http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/1995-02-
`12/prodigy-is-in-that-awkward-stage
`Charles Bowen and David Peyton, “How to Get the Most Out of
`CompuServe” (4th ed., rev.), Bantam Books (Feb. 1989)
`John L. Viescas, “The Official Guide to the Prodigy Service,”
`Microsoft Press (1991)
`
`vii
`
`

`
`Exhibit
`Number
`
`1015
`
`1016
`1017
`
`1018
`
`1019
`
`1020
`1021
`1022
`
`1023
`
`1024
`
`1025
`
`1026
`
`1027
`1028
`1029
`1030
`
`
`
`Document
`
`Barbara T. Bauer and Richard G. Keene, “Opening the Public Network
`to Customer Access and Control,” Proceedings of the IEEE
`International Conference on Communications (June 11-14, 1989)
`(“Bauer”)
`U.S. Patent 5,220,501 to Lawlor, et al.
`U.S. Patent 5,771,354 to Crawford
`Ira W. Cotton, “Computer Network Interconnection: Problems and
`Prospects,” National Bureau of Standards (1977) (“Cotton I”)
`Ira W. Cotton, “Local Area Networking,” National Bureau of
`Standards (1978) (“Cotton II”)
`U.S Patent 5,163,086 to Ahearn et al.
`U.S. Patent 5,654,957 to Koyama
`U.S. Patent 5,742,762 to Scholl et al.
`Tim-Berners Lee, “History of the Web,” available at
`http://webfoundation.org/about/vision/history-of-the-web/
`R. Braden, et al., Request for Comment 1009, “Requirements for
`Internet Gateways” (“Braden”)
`Leon Wang, et al., “Multidisciplinary Social Networks Research,”
`Proceedings of the Second International Conference, MISNC (Sept. 1-
`3, 2015) (“Wang”)
`Gene Steinberg and John Stroud, “Using America Online,” Que
`Corporation (1994)
`U.S. Patent 5,737,592 to Nguyen, et al.
`U.S. Patent 5,247,571 to Kay, et al.
`U.S. Patent 5,418,844 to Morrisey, et al.
`U.S. Patent 5,572,583 to Wheeler, Jr., et al.
`
`viii
`
`

`
`Exhibit
`Number
`1031
`1032
`
`1033
`
`1034
`
`1035
`
`1036
`
`1037
`
`1038
`
`1039
`
`1040
`
`1041
`1042
`
`1043
`
`1044
`
`
`
`Document
`
`U.S. Patent 5,621,787 to McKoy, et al.
`U.S. Patent 5,566,235 to Hetz
`“Sprint launches Internet site tonight (Fri.) to give residential
`customers ability to sign up for calling cards,” Communications Daily
`(June 9, 1995) (“Comm Daily Article”)
`“Sprint Stop Takes Shape,” Communications Week (June 12, 1995)
`(“CW Article”)
`“Sprint Calling Plans,” Multimedia Week (June 19, 1995)
`(“Multimedia Week Article”)
`“The Web Hotlist: Web sites worth checking out,” InfoWorld (July 10,
`1995) (“InfoWorld Article”)
`“New roles developed for Web,” ADWEEK Western Edition (July 10,
`1995) (“ADWEEK Article”)
`“MCI and Sprint Explore Intangibles of the Web,” Adweek Eastern
`Edition (July 10, 1995) (“MCI Article”)
`“Telecom Goes Online to Brace Corporate Image,” Interactive
`Marketing News, Phillip’s Media Group (August 18, 1995) (“Sprint
`Article”)
`Excerpts from Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary (10th ed.
`1998)
`Excerpts from Random House Webster’s College Dictionary (1996)
`Excerpts from American Heritage Dictionary (3rd ed. 1992)
`Excerpts from Intellectual Ventures I, LLC, and Intellectual Ventures
`II, LLC v. AT&T et al, Case No. 12-193-LPS, D.I. 231, 232, Joint
`Claim Construction Chart (D. Del. Apr. 3, 2014)
`Excerpts from Intellectual Ventures I, LLC, and Intellectual Ventures
`II, LLC v. AT&T et al, Case No. 12-193-LPS, D.I. 252, Plaintiffs’
`Opening Claim Construction Brief (D. Del. June 11, 2014)
`
`ix
`
`

`
`Exhibit
`Number
`
`1045
`
`1046
`
`1047
`
`1048
`
`1049
`
`1050
`
`1051
`
`1052
`
`1053
`
`
`
`Document
`
`Excerpts from Intellectual Ventures I, LLC, and Intellectual Ventures
`II, LLC v. AT&T et al, Case No. 12-193-LPS, D.I. 254, Defendants’
`Opening Claim Construction Brief (D. Del. June 11, 2014)
`Excerpts from Intellectual Ventures I, LLC, and Intellectual Ventures
`II, LLC v. AT&T et al, Case No. 12-193-LPS, D.I. 272, Plaintiffs’
`Responsive Claim Construction Brief (D. Del. Aug. 8, 2014)
`Excerpts from Intellectual Ventures I, LLC, and Intellectual Ventures
`II, LLC v. AT&T et al, Case No. 12-193-LPS, D.I. 275, Defendants’
`Responsive Claim Construction Brief (D. Del. Aug. 8, 2014)
`Excerpts from Intellectual Ventures I, LLC, and Intellectual Ventures
`II, LLC v. AT&T et al, Case No. 12-193-LPS, D.I. 438, Memorandum
`Opinion Regarding Claim Construction (D. Del. Mar. 24, 2015)
`(“Claim Construction Order”)
`Excerpts from Intellectual Ventures I, LLC, and Intellectual Ventures
`II, LLC v. AT&T et al, Case No. 12-193-LPS, D.I. 459, Defendants’
`Opening Brief in Support of Defendants’ Motion for Judgment on the
`Pleadings (D. Del. Apr. 14, 2015) (“Defendants’ Motion”)
`Excerpts from Intellectual Ventures I, LLC, and Intellectual Ventures
`II, LLC v. AT&T et al, Case No. 12-193-LPS, D.I. 524, Plaintiffs’
`Opposition to Defendants’ Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings (D.
`Del. June 1, 2015) (“Plaintiffs’ Opposition Brief”)
`Excerpts from Intellectual Ventures I, LLC, and Intellectual Ventures
`II, LLC v. AT&T et al, Case No. 13-1633-LPS, D.I. 298, Declaration of
`Dr. Tim Williams in Support of Plaintiffs’ Opposition to Defendants’
`Motion to Strike (D. Del. June 1, 2015)
`Excerpts from Intellectual Ventures I, LLC, and Intellectual Ventures
`II, LLC v. AT&T et al, Case No. 12-193-LPS, D.I. 599, Defendants’
`Reply Brief in Support of Defendants’ Motion for Judgment on the
`Pleadings (D. Del. Aug. 5, 2015) (“Defendants’ Reply Brief”)
`Excerpts from Intellectual Ventures I, LLC, and Intellectual Ventures
`II, LLC v. AT&T et al, Case No. 12-193-LPS, D.I. 718, Transcript of
`Hearing on Defendants’ Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings (D.
`
`x
`
`

`
`
`
`Exhibit
`Number
`
`Document
`Del. Nov. 24, 2015) (“Hearing Transcript”)
`
`Austen Zuege, “A New Theory for Patent Subject Matter Eligibility: A
`Veblenian Perspective,” 5 Cybaris An Intell. Prop. L. Rev. 211 (2014)
`
`1054
`
`
`
`xi
`
`

`
`
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`T-Mobile US, Inc. (“Petitioner”) hereby petitions for institution of covered
`
`business method review of U.S. Patent No. 6,115,737 (the “’737 Patent”)
`
`(Ex. 1001). Intellectual Ventures, the current assignee of the ’737 Patent is
`
`asserting the patent in infringement litigation against T-Mobile US. See
`
`Intellectual Ventures II LLC v. T-Mobile USA, Inc., No. 1:13-cv-1633-LPS (D.
`
`Del.).1 The ’737 Patent concerns conventional methods for a paying customer to
`
`order and cancel services provided to the customer by a service provider, and to
`
`alter account information (including billing information) for the customer
`
`maintained by the service provider. Claims 7-9 and 14 (“the Challenged Claims”)
`
`of the ’737 Patent recite a mere idea, namely, allowing a customer to access and
`
`modify his or her account information, adding nothing more than the conventional
`
`feature of using computer servers and computer gateways connected to the Internet
`
`in order to effectuate such access.
`
`The ’737 Patent does not claim any inventive concept that would make the
`
`abstract idea of providing access to customer account information over the Internet
`
`eligible for patenting. See generally Alice Corp. Pty Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int’l, 134 S.
`
`1 Intellectual Ventures also asserts the ’737 Patent against AT&T and Sprint in
`
`related litigations. AT&T and Sprint had no part in the preparation of the instant
`
`Petition and are not real parties-in-interest.
`
`1
`
`

`
`
`
`Ct. 2347 (2014); 35 U.S.C. § 101. As the Supreme Court held in Alice, “the use of
`
`a computer to obtain data, adjust account balances, and issue automated
`
`instructions; all of these computer functions are ‘well-understood, routine,
`
`conventional activit[ies]’ previously known to the industry.” Alice Corp., 134 S.
`
`Ct. at 2359. The Challenged Claims are no different. Thus, Petitioner respectfully
`
`requests institution of covered business method review of claims 7-9 and 14 of the
`
`’737 Patent, and cancellation of the same as unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
`
`II. OVERVIEW OF THE ’737 PATENT
`The ’737 Patent is entitled “System and Method for Accessing Customer
`
`Contact Services over a Network” and describes a system and method that connect
`
`a customer, via the Internet and the World Wide Web, to information and services
`
`available from a service provider.
`
`A.
`
`Summary of the Specification
`
`The ’737 Patent relates to use of the Internet by a paying customer to access
`
`and manipulate customer-specific information maintained by, and paid services
`
`provided by, a service provider. Ex. 1001, ’737 Patent, 1:14-16; 3:16-17; 8:61-63.
`
`More specifically, the ’737 Patent discloses a system that “connects a user to the
`
`services and to information from a provider via the Internet” including information
`
`about billing and usage. Ex. 1001, Abstract; 1:29-31, 4:6-7, 6:42-44, 6:53-56,
`
`10:23-25.
`
`2
`
`

`
`
`
`The ’737 Patent builds upon well-known and conventional customer service
`
`platforms available at the time of the Patent. These platforms included telephonic-
`
`based systems such as interactive voice request (IVR) systems. Id., 1:18-21.
`
`According to the ’737 Patent, however, telephony-based customer support systems
`
`had one drawback—customer impatience when presented with a large number of
`
`options or lengthy alphanumeric data, such as customers’ line-by-line billing
`
`records. Id., 1:23-31.
`
`The ’737 Patent proposes replicating conventional telephony-based systems
`
`on the service provider’s website—essentially taking a conventional process and
`
`saying “do it on the Internet.” Id., 1:15-17, 3:45-49. Indeed, the Internet-based
`
`systems of the ’737 Patent re-use the existing telephony-based customer support
`
`infrastructure. Id., 4:11-15. The ’737 Patent calls the ecosystem of existing
`
`databases for facilitating telephony-based customer support systems “the corporate
`
`database and operations system,” which differ depending on the type of operations
`
`system that the customer accesses. Id., 6:53-56, 7:52-55. In the case of an
`
`operations system of a telephone service provider, for example, such systems
`
`include the line information database (LIDB) and a database the ’737 Patent refers
`
`to as the “BOSS.” Id., 6:40-52, 8:3-4. The LIDB contains information regarding
`
`telephone service subscribers, including “information essential for making collect
`
`calls, calls billed to third numbers, and calls charged to calling cards.” Id., 6:41-
`
`3
`
`

`
`
`
`46. The BOSS system “is an operations system used to maintain customer billing
`
`and payment information.” Id., 8:3-4.
`
`To provide a connection between the existing databases for facilitating
`
`telephony-based customer support systems and the Internet, the ’737 Patent
`
`describes what it coins a “customer contact service node Internet gateway”
`
`(CCSN/IG). Id., 5:5-18. The CCSN/IG is simply a standard and conventional web
`
`server and Internet gateway, as illustrated in Figure 2, element 104, configured to
`
`mediate between existing corporate databases that include billing data and usage
`
`information and the Internet. Id., 4:48-51, 7:19-26.
`
`
`
`The ’737 Patent system thus enables access and manipulation of customer-
`
`specific billing, usage and other information maintained by a service provider and
`
`order or cancel paid services provided by a service provider. Id., 2:28-33, 3:40-43,
`
`3:56-59, 8:31-34. The simplicity and breadth of the ’737 Patent in this regard is
`
`4
`
`

`
`succinctly summarized in the flowchart of Figure 5. Id., 9:65-10:19.
`
`
`
`
`
`According to the ’737 Patent, and as seen in Figure 5, customers can use any
`
`device to access the Internet. Id., 6:12-17. Once connected to the Internet,
`
`customers use a graphical user interface in a web browser to access the same
`
`functionality previously provided by telephony prompt-and-response systems. Id.,
`
`3:4-14. For example, Figures 4A-4E of the ’737 Patent illustrate exemplary web
`
`pages implementing a customer support mechanism to engage in a commercial
`
`transaction such as ordering services, canceling services, or reviewing billing
`
`information from a telephone service provider. Id., 5:52-54. First, the customer is
`
`provided an opportunity to enter a request (e.g., review or pay a bill), as shown in
`
`5
`
`

`
`
`
`Figure 4A. Id., 8:61-63. Next, the customer is presented with a confirmation
`
`screen where the customer’s previous request is displayed for confirmational
`
`purposes, as shown in Figure 4B. Id., 8:63-67. The customer then is provided an
`
`opportunity to accept, or submit, the customer’s request, as shown in Figure 4C.
`
`Id., 9:9-27. Once the request is submitted, a screen displays information about the
`
`request, such as subscription status to a service that was the subject of the request,
`
`as shown in Figure 4D. Id., 9:28-44. Finally, another verification screen is
`
`provided to inform the customer that the request has been accepted and executed,
`
`as shown in Figure 4E. Id., 9:45-56.
`
`The systems and methods of the ’737 Patent can be utilized to access
`
`customer-specific information such as billing data and inform customers of service
`
`charges subscribed to when activating a specific service. Id., 4:6-7, 8:55-58, 9:32-
`
`36. The systems and methods of the ’737 Patent are designed to facilitate a
`
`financial transaction, such as ordering new services, canceling services, reviewing
`
`a bill to determine how much to pay, paying that bill, and updating or changing
`
`existing services from service providers. Id., 3:56-59. In this manner, the ’737
`
`Patent focuses on transactions that impose financial obligations for customers of
`
`telecommunications service providers over the Internet, so that service providers
`
`can market and sell their services to paying customers. Id., 3:39-43.
`
`6
`
`

`
`
`
`B.
`
`Summary of the Relevant Prosecution History
`
`The application that became the ’737 Patent was filed on July 24, 1996. On
`
`June 30, 1997, the Examiner issued an office action rejecting pending claims 1-9 as
`
`obvious over Chen et al. (U.S. Patent No. 5,590,197) in view of Judson (U.S.
`
`Patent No. 5,572,643). In response, Applicants attempted to draw a distinction
`
`between their “ISCP gateway” and a “generic gateway,” such as the one allegedly
`
`taught in Judson.
`
`Additionally, regarding dependent claim 5, the Examiner contends
`that Judson discloses the claimed ISCP gateway. Applicants disagree
`and note that as described in the present application and in more detail
`in the application incorporated into the current application by
`reference,
`the ISCP of
`the present
`invention
`is part of a
`telecommunications network element and preferably
`includes
`applications to control telephone service. A basic concept, according
`to the present invention, is to extend the telecommunications
`capabilities of
`the
`ISCP,
`including particular
`customized
`telecommunications service options, to provide access to Internet, and
`specifically the worldwide Web. Thus, though Judson may disclose a
`generic gateway, Judson does not disclose the ISCP gateway recited
`in dependent claim 5. For at least this reason, dependent claim 5 is
`allowable over the combination of Chen et al. and Judson.
`
`Ex. 1002, Sept. 30, 1997 Response to Office Action, at 6.
`
`On December 8, 1997, the Examiner issued another office action that again
`
`rejected pending claims 1-9 as obvious over Chen and Judson. Ex. 1003 (Dec. 8,
`
`7
`
`

`
`
`
`1997 Rejection) at 4. In response, Applicants once again attempted to distinguish
`
`their “ISCP gateway” from the disclosure in Judson:
`
`The Examiner’s interpretation of Judson in light of dependent claim 5
`is flawed since the ISCP gateway recited in dependent claim 5 is not
`an operating system. As disclosed in the paragraph bridging pages 12
`and 13 of the instant application, the ISCP gateway 202 implements
`the application function of the gateway and responds to user queries
`forwarded by the Web server 201. Every computer (e.g., web server)
`needs an operating system, not an ISCP gateway, to function. The
`ISCP gateway 202 runs on an operating system to perform the
`functions described above.
`
`Ex. 1004, June 8, 1998 Response to Office Action, at 7.
`
`After three subsequent office actions and responses by Applicants, the
`
`Examiner issued a notice of allowability on December 6, 1999.
`
`U.S. Patent 5,751,961 to Smyk (“Smyk”)—which shares an inventor with
`
`the ’737 Patent and is explicitly incorporated by reference into the ’737 Patent (see
`
`1:7-12)—also includes disclosure and a discussion in its prosecution history of the
`
`ISCP gateway disclosed by the ’737 Patent. Specifically, in response to office
`
`action issued during the prosecution of Smyk, Applicant argued the following to
`
`differentiate the “ISCP gateway” from the cited prior art:
`
`The Examiner contends that Messmer discloses an ISCP gateway.
`This, however, is not correct. As described in the present application
`and in more detail in the various applications incorporated into the
`
`8
`
`

`
`
`
`current application by reference, the ISCP of the present invention is
`part of a telecommunications switch and preferably includes
`applications implemented in telephone network service control points
`to provide telephone service control and instantiation.
`
`Ex. 1010, June 24, 1997 Response to Office Action, at 3-4.
`
`“Thus, though Messmer may disclose a generic gateway, Messmer
`does not disclose the ISCP gateway defined by independent claim 9.
`For at least this reason, independent claim 9, and claims 10-12, which
`depend therefrom, are allowable over Messmer. Applicants request
`reconsideration and withdrawal of this rejection.”
`
`Id. at 4.
`
`However, Applicants do not explain how their ISCP gateway differs in any
`
`way from a generic gateway except in the way it is connected. That is, Applicants
`
`merely explain that it is part of a network element and is connected to a web
`
`server. But that does not distinguish the ISCP gateway in the ’737 Patent from a
`
`generic one. In fact, nowhere in the prosecution history of either the ’737 or Smyk
`
`Patents is there an explanation by Applicants of how their ISCP gateway differs in
`
`any way from a generic gateway except in the way it is connected.
`
`C.
`
`State of the Art
`
`The art of network architecture dates back to at least the 1970s. Ex. 1011,
`
`Shamos Decl., ¶ 49. Patent applications and other prior art drawn to processing
`
`requests for customer-specific information accelerated rapidly during the 1990s
`
`9
`
`

`
`
`
`with the rise of the Internet. Id. As developments in networking occurred, those of
`
`skill in the art would progressively apply those developments to improve existing
`
`networks. Id.
`
`As the Background section of the ’737 Patent explains, there had already
`
`been an “explosion in the use of the Internet” by 1996. Ex. 1001, 1:36. In
`
`particular, by 1996, accessing the World Wide Web (the “web”) had become a
`
`popular way to explore the Internet, requiring a customer to “install on his/her
`
`computer WWW browser software and transmission control protocol/Internet
`
`protocol (TCP/IP) software and obtain a network connection from an Internet
`
`access provider.” Id., 1:58-62. Using a web browser, a customer was able to enter
`
`a specific Uniform Resource Locator (URL) in order to access a site hosted by a
`
`compan