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 CBM2016-00083
`Patent 6,115,737
`___________________
`
`PATENT OWNER INTELLECTUAL VENTURES II LLC’S
`PRELIMINARY RESPONSE TO PETITION
`
`
`
`
`
`Mail Stop “PATENT BOARD”
`Patent Trial and Appeal Board
`U.S. Patent and Trademark Office
`P.O. Box 1450
`Alexandria, VA 22313-1450
`
`
`
`

`
`
`
`
`
`CBM2016-00083
`U.S. Pat. No. 6,115,737
`
`Table of Contents
`
`Introduction ......................................................................................................... 1
`I.
`II. Technology Overview of the ’737 Patent ............................................................ 2
`A. The problem: existing self-service customer care and account management
`services lacked flexibility. ............................................................................. 2
`B. The’737 patent provides an important solution. ........................................... 3
`C. The extensive prosecution history attests to the novelty of the claimed
`inventions. ..................................................................................................... 6
`D. State of the art. .............................................................................................. 9
`III. Claim Construction ............................................................................................13
`A. Patent Owner’s definition of “CCSN/IG” follows the accepted rules of
`claim construction. ......................................................................................13
`1. Patent Owner’s construction is based on the claim language, the
`specification, and the file history. ...........................................................14
`2. The Board should reject Petitioner’s construction as too narrow: an
`integrated service control point is not limited to part of a telephone
`network switch. .......................................................................................18
`3. The CCSN/IG and the CCSN are not a conventional. ............................24
`B. Available through telecom service providers’ web server..........................27
`IV. The Board Should Deny Institution Because Petitioner Did Not Meet Its
`Burden that the ’737 Patent is Eligible for CBM Review .................................27
`A. The ’737 patent does not meet the financial prong of CBM eligibility. .....28
`1. None of the claims of the ’737 patent recite a financial product or
`service. .....................................................................................................30
`2. The embodiments in the specification are insufficient to make the
`challenged claims eligible for CBM review. ..........................................35
`3. Conclusion. ..............................................................................................44
`B. Because the ’352 patent is for a technological invention, Petitioner cannot
`satisfy the second prong of the CBM test. ..................................................45
`V. Petitioner has failed to show that claims 7–9 and 14 are directed to patent
`ineligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101. ..............................................49
`A. Legal framework. ........................................................................................51
`1. The challenged claims are not directed to an abstract idea. ....................52
`
`- i -
`
`

`
`
`
`
`
`CBM2016-00083
`U.S. Pat. No. 6,115,737
`
`2. The claims recite a novel and non-obvious technical application. .........61
`3. The challenged claims satisfy the machine-or-transformation test. .......68
`VI. Conclusion. ........................................................................................................70
`
`
`- ii -
`
`

`
`
`
`
`
`CBM2016-00083
`U.S. Pat. No. 6,115,737
`
`Table of Authorities
`
`
`Cases:
`
`Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank International,
`134 S. Ct. 2347 (2014) ......................................................................................passim
`
`Apple Inc. v. SightSound Techs., LLC,
`CBM2013-00019, Paper 17 (PTAB Oct. 8, 2013) ............................................ 30, 62
`
`Apple Inc. v. SightSound Tech., LLC,
`CBM2013-00020, Paper 14 ( PTAB Oct. 8, 2013) ................................................. 41
`
`Apple Inc. v. SightSound Tech., LLC,
`CBM2013-00023, Paper 12 ( PTAB Oct. 8, 2013) ................................................. 41
`
`AT&T Mobility LLC v. Intellectual Ventures II LLC,
`CBM2015-00185, Paper 10 (PTAB May 4, 2016) .................................................. 43
`
`Bancorp Servs., L.L.C. v. Sun Life Assurance Co. of Can.,
`687 F.3d 1266 (Fed. Cir. 2012)................................................................................ 69
`
`Bascom Glob. Internet Servs., Inc. v. AT&T Mobility LLC,
`No. 2015-1763, 2016 WL 3514158 (Fed. Cir. June 27, 2016) .............. 52, 62, 64, 66
`
`Bilski v. Kappos,
`561 U.S. 593 (2010) ........................................................................................... 68, 69
`
`Blue Calypso LLC v. Groupon, Inc.,
`No. 2015-1391, 2016 WL 791107 (Fed Cir. March 1, 2016) .................................. 30
`
`buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc.,
`765 F.3d 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2014).......................................................................... 58, 59
`
`Content Extraction & Transmission LLC v. Wells Fargo Bank,
`76 F.3d 1343 (Fed. Cir. 2014) .................................................................................. 58
`
`DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P.,
`773 F.3d 1245 (Fed. Cir. 2014).......................................................................... 51–52
`
`- iii -
`
`
`
`

`
`
`
`
`
`CBM2016-00083
`U.S. Pat. No. 6,115,737
`
`Diamond v. Diehr,
`450 U.S. 175 (1981) ................................................................................................. 67
`
`Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp.,
`822 F.3d 1327 (Fed. Cir. 2016).............................................................. 51, 52, 57, 60
`
`FFF Enterprises, Inc. v. AmerisourceBergen Specialty Group, Inc.,
`CBM2014-00154, Paper 14 (PTAB Jan. 29, 2015) ................................................. 30
`
`Google Inc. v. Network-1 Technologies, Inc.,
`CBM2015-00113, Paper 7 (PTAB. Oct. 19, 2015) ................................................. 61
`
`Intermix Media, LLC v. Bally Gaming, Inc.,
`CBM2015-00154, Paper 10 (PTAB. Jan. 20, 2016) ................................................ 61
`
`Internet Patents Corp. v. Active Network, Inc.,
`790 F.3d 1343 (Fed. Cir. 2015)................................................................................ 57
`
`J.P. Morgan Chase & Co. v. Intellectual Ventures II LLC,
`CBM2014-00160, Paper 11 (PTAB Jan. 29, 2015) ................................................. 33
`
`NRT Technology Corp. v. Everi Payments, Inc.,
`CBM2015-00167, Paper 14 (PTAB. Jan. 22, 2016) ................................................ 61
`
`Par Pharm., Inc. v. Jazz Pharms., Inc.,
`CBM2014-00149, Paper 12 (PTAB Jan. 13, 2015) ................................................. 31
`
`PNC Fin. Servs. Group, Inc. v. Intellectual Ventures I LLC,
`CBM2014-00032, Paper 13 (PTAB May 22, 2014) ................................................ 33
`
`Salesforce.com, Inc. v. Applications in Internet Time LLC,
`CBM2014-00162, Paper 11 (PTAB Feb. 2, 2015) .................................................. 33
`
`Sega of Am., Inc. v. Uniloc USA, Inc.,
`CBM2014-00183, Paper 11 (PTAB Mar. 10, 2015) ............................................... 32
`
`ServiceNow, Inc. v. Hewlett-Packard, Co.,
`CBM2015-00108, Paper 10 (PTAB Oct. 7, 2015) ................................ 29, 30, 36, 43
`
`Sightsound Tech., LLC v. Apple Inc.,
`809 F.3d 1307 (Fed. Cir. 2015)................................................................................ 41
`- iv -
`
`

`
`
`
`
`
`CBM2016-00083
`U.S. Pat. No. 6,115,737
`
`
`Sony Corp. of Am. v. Network-1 Tech., Inc.,
`CBM2015-00078, Paper 7 (PTAB July 1, 2015)............................................... 32, 44
`
`Ultramercial, Inc. v. Hulu, LLC,
`772 F.3d 709 (Fed. Cir. 2014) ............................................................................ 58, 69
`
`Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP America, Inc.,
`793 F.3d 1306 (Fed. Cir. 2015).........................................................................passim
`
`Westlake Serv’s, LLC v. Credit Acceptance Corp.,
`CBM2014-00008, Paper 30 (PTAB Mar. 31, 2014) ............................................... 62
`
`Regulations:
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.301(a) ............................................................................................... 28
`37 C.F.R. § 42.301(b) .............................................................................................. 45
`37 C.F.R. § 42.304(a) ............................................................................................... 28
`37 C.F.R. § 42.304(b) .............................................................................................. 67
`
`
`
`
`
`Other Authorities:
`
`AIA § 18(d) (1) ............................................................................................ 28, 30, 45
`Office Patent Trial Practice Guide,
`77 Fed. Reg. 48756, 48763 (Aug. 14, 2012) ..................................................... 28, 44
`
`- v -
`
`

`
`
`
`CBM2016-00083
`U.S. Pat. No. 6,115,737
`
`Exhibit List
`
`
`Description
`
`Bellcore, BOC Notes on the LEG Networks 1994, Special Report
`SR-TSV-002275, Issue 2, April 1994
`
`
`
`Exhibit No.
`
`2001
`
`
`
`- vi -
`
`
`
`

`
`
`
`I.
`
`Introduction.
`
`
`
`CBM2016-00083
`U.S. Pat. No. 6,115,737
`
`The Board should decline Petitioner’s invitation to institute trial on the
`
`challenged claims of U.S. Patent No. 6,115,737 (the ’737 patent). First, the ’737
`
`patent is not CBM eligible. Congress restricted CBM eligibility to patents that
`
`recite a financial service or product. In Section IV, Intellectual Ventures shows that
`
`the patent claims recite neither a financial product nor a financial service. The
`
`Petitioner seems to recognize that the ’737 patent is not CBM eligible because it
`
`spends 60 pages engaging in an excessive effort to convert claims of general
`
`applicability that deal with customer access to services and data retained by a
`
`telecommunications provider, to claims for a financial product or service. With the
`
`CBM ineligibility issue as background, in Section II, Intellectual Ventures presents
`
`the context for the ’737 patent: the serious technical problem that existed for self-
`
`service customer care and account management and its elegant solution by
`
`introducing a customer-contact service node Internet gateway (CCSN/IG) that
`
`allows Internet users to get customer-specific information and information about
`
`available services, as well as to access and update customer-specific data.
`
`In Section III, Intellectual Ventures provides the appropriate construction for
`
`the term “CCSN/IG,” based on applying the long-recognized rules of claim
`
`construction. Section IV shows that the ’737 patent is not CBM eligible and
`
`
`
`- 1 -
`
`

`
`
`
`
`
`CBM2016-00083
`U.S. Pat. No. 6,115,737
`
`Section V shows that Petitioner failed to establish that the challenged claims are
`
`directed to patent ineligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
`
`Accordingly, the Board has no reasonable basis for granting the instant
`
`Petition.
`
`II. Technology overview of the ’737 patent.
`A. The problem: existing self-service customer care and account
`management services lacked flexibility.
`
`Before the ’737 Patent, telecommunications service providers faced severe
`
`technical hurdles with providing efficient and robust self-service customer care and
`
`account management services. In the absence of a satisfactory technical solution to
`
`the problem, companies addressed the issue as best they could with ad hoc
`
`arrangements. Many companies tried leveraging existing call center automation
`
`systems and services “such as automatic call distributors, interactive voice
`
`response (IVR) systems, coordinated voice and data delivery, and voice mail” to
`
`provide agentless customer contact services. (Ex. 1001, ’737 patent, 1:18–21.)
`
`However, the service providers know that “[w]hile these technologies provide
`
`successful solutions to certain customer demands, they do have some limitations.”
`
`(’737 patent, 1:23–24.) And those limitations had important technical
`
`consequences. For example, due to the voice interface, callers “can only be given a
`
`limited set of options at any point because of the tendency of people to become
`
`
`
`- 2 -
`
`

`
`
`
`
`
`CBM2016-00083
`U.S. Pat. No. 6,115,737
`
`frustrated by long lists of options.” (’737 patent, 1:25–28.) Callers could obtain
`
`only limited information because “effectively communicating large amounts of
`
`data over the telephone can be difficult.” (’737 patent, 1:28–29.)
`
`Other companies provided limited customer service through their world-
`
`wide web (WWW) home pages. (’737 patent, 2:25–32.) And, most of these web
`
`pages provided “only generic, non-customer specific information” or did “not
`
`permit customers to make queries, get customer-specific information or to make
`
`changes to their service.” (’737 patent, 2:27–32.) Customers could not directly
`
`access information or products and services because most home pages were not
`
`integrated with corporate systems. This absence of integration limited the self-
`
`service customer contact services that could be provided.
`
`B. The’737 patent provides an important solution.
`The ’737 patent claims solved the problems plaguing customer care
`
`offerings by reciting a technically implemented solution that did not exist in the
`
`prior art. The ’737 patent addressed the issues identified in the previous section as
`
`failings of the prior art systems by providing a “WWW-based ‘customer care‘
`
`channel” that had “a set of WWW customer contact services similar to today’s
`
`AIN customer contact services.” (’737 patent, 3:45–48.) Specifically, the ‘737
`
`patent introduced “a customer contact service node Internet gateway (CCSN/IG)”
`
`that allowed “Internet users to not only get customer-specific information and
`
`
`
`- 3 -
`
`

`
`
`
`
`
`CBM2016-00083
`U.S. Pat. No. 6,115,737
`
`information about available services, but to access and update customer-specific
`
`data.” (’737 patent, 3:51–56.) The CCSN/IG also provided a company with the
`
`capability to obtain information about its customers and the services and
`
`information desired by those customers. (’737 patent, 4:8–12.)
`
`Figure 1 of the ’737 patent (reproduced below) illustrates an exemplary
`
`customer contact services system that integrates a telephone customer care channel
`
`and a WWW-based customer care channel. Figure 1 shows how in the illustrated
`
`WWW-based customer care channel (on the bottom of the figure), a PC user 103
`
`connects to the Internet 100 which in turn “communicates with the CCSN/IG 104
`
`via the HTTP/TCP/IP protocol.” (’737 patent, 6:18–20.)
`
`(’737 patent, Figure 1.)
`
`The ’737 patent describes a customer contact services node (CCSN)
`
`application on an integrated service control point “ISCP.” An ISCP is a flexible
`
`
`
`
`
`- 4 -
`
`

`
`
`
`
`
`CBM2016-00083
`U.S. Pat. No. 6,115,737
`
`network services database system, allowing new services and products to be
`
`designed and added into the network. (Ex. 2001, Notes on Network, 14–57.) The
`
`CCSN on the ISCP is represented as a triangle in Figure 2. The CCSN/IG
`
`“provides a gateway interface between the PC user 103 and provider’s customer
`
`contact services node (CCSN).” (’737 patent, 6:20–22.) The CCSN/IG 104
`
`illustrated in Figure 2 of the ’737 patent includes a Web server 201 and an ISCP
`
`gateway 202. (’737 patent, 7:20–22.)
`
`The CCSN application shown in Figure 1 integrates the customer care
`
`methods provided via the IVR system with new customer care methods for the
`
`WWW-based customer care channel, “provid[ing] a single platform for all
`
`customer care access methods.” (’737 patent, 4:47–51.) Thus, the exemplary
`
`integrated CCSN of the ’737 patent includes a set of customer care rules and logic
`
`specific to the IVR channel, a set of customer care rules and logic specific to the
`
`WWW-based channel, and a set of shared customer care rules and logic for both
`
`channels. The ’737 patent explains that the CCSN application on the ISCP
`
`processes CCSN-related requests from the CCSN/IG and provides information to
`
`the CCSN/IG about the requests. (’737 patent, 5:15–16.)
`
`The CCSN/IG further “allows a provider to leverage its existing operations
`
`support systems (OSS) rather than incurring these costs again.” (’737 patent, 4:59–
`
`62.) The system accomplishes the reuse by coupling the CCSN to existing service
`
`
`
`- 5 -
`
`

`
`
`
`
`
`CBM2016-00083
`U.S. Pat. No. 6,115,737
`
`provider databases and platforms, e.g., the line information database (LIDB) and
`
`the corporate database and operations system 110. (’737 patent, Figure 2; 6:53–
`
`54.)
`
`The corporate database and operations system 110 includes various
`
`operations systems including Loop Maintenance Operation System (LMOS), AP,
`
`PBP, and PREMISE. The LMOS is an operations system used to provide service
`
`assurance including “for example, trouble reporting, testing, and fault isolation.”
`
`(’737 patent, 7:67–8:3.) The AP “is an operations system used to activate and or
`
`modify services for a user 103.” (’737 patent, 7:63–65.) The PBP “provides
`
`customer verification and authentication services” such as PIN validation and
`
`PREMIS is “used to maintain the street addresses of customers.” (’737 patent,
`
`8:12–18.) Through these connections of the CCSN to operation support systems
`
`and databases, the CCSN/IG provides a wide variety of customer care services
`
`options such as the ability to modify parameters of existing services, the ability to
`
`order new services or cancel services, access to customer specific information, and
`
`the ability to request repair service.
`
`C. The extensive prosecution history attests to the novelty of the
`claimed inventions.
`
`The ’737 patent went through years of extensive prosecution, with the
`
`Examiner repeatedly raising rejections to the claims, which Applicant overcame.
`
`
`
`- 6 -
`
`

`
`
`
`
`
`CBM2016-00083
`U.S. Pat. No. 6,115,737
`
`Petitioner acknowledges that the Applicant successfully distinguished its claimed
`
`gateway from the generic gateways of the applied references. (Petition, p. 8.)
`
`Petitioner ignores its important acknowledgement when it incorrectly argues that
`
`“nowhere in the prosecution history of either the ’737 patent 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.” (Petition, p. 8.) That
`
`misstatement shows that Petitioner fundamentally misunderstands the specific
`
`ISCP gateway of the ’737 patent and, as a consequence, misunderstands the
`
`arguments made in the prosecution history. Below, Patent Owner provides the
`
`Board with an accurate accounting of the prosecution history.
`
`An ISCP is a flexible network services database system, allowing new
`
`applications to be designed and added into the network. (Notes on Network, 14–
`
`57.) The ’737 patent describes one such application—a customer contact service
`
`node (CCSN) —offered via the ISCP. Thus, the ISCP gateway of the ’737 patent is
`
`not a mere connection to an ISCP; it also performs CCSN-related functions.
`
`The statements during prosecution stress that the function of the gateway is
`
`specific to the ISCP application:
`
`A basic concept, according to the present invention, is to
`extend the telecommunications capabilities of the ISCP,
`customized
`telecommunications
`including particular
`
`
`
`- 7 -
`
`

`
`
`
`
`
`CBM2016-00083
`U.S. Pat. No. 6,115,737
`
`service options,
`to provide access
`specifically the worldwide Web.
`
`to Internet, and
`
`(Ex. 1002, Sept. 30, 1997 Response to Office Action, p. 6 (emphasis added).)
`
`… the ISCP gateway 202 implements the application
`function of the gateway and responds to user queries
`forwarded by the Web server.
`
`(Ex. 1004, June 8, 1998 Response to Office Action, p. 7 (emphasis added).) Thus,
`
`the prosecution history confirms that the claimed CCSN/IG of the ’737 patent
`
`provides both customized CCSN-related application functionality and the ability to
`
`access the CCSN application service via the Internet.
`
`
`
`Petitioner then turns to U.S. Patent No. 5,751,961 to Smyk and its
`
`prosecution history to support its arguments that the ISCP gateway of the
`
`CCSN/IG is a generic gateway. But Smyk actually supports Patent Owner. Smyk
`
`defines a new ISCP service implemented by a multi-services application platform
`
`(“MSAP”) that translates logical addresses of internet documents to physical
`
`addresses. (Ex. 1009, Smyk, “Title.”) Smyk uses an “ISCP gateway” to
`
`communicate with the ISCP.1 Smyk’s ISCP gateway includes an Internet server
`
`
`1 ISCP gateway of Smyk differs significantly from the ISCP gateway
`
`described in the ’737 patent. Smyk’s ISCP gateway includes a server and an ISCP
`
`
`
`- 8 -
`
`

`
`
`
`
`
`CBM2016-00083
`U.S. Pat. No. 6,115,737
`
`124 and an ISCP interface to provide these protocol interfaces. Smyk’s ISCP
`
`interface implements functionality specific to its MSAP feature (logical address
`
`translation) and with this functionality Smyk’s ISCP interface can translate
`
`received messages into application-specific messages for its corresponding MSAP.
`
`
`
`Therefore, the ISCP interface of Smyk that implements logical address
`
`translation functions differs from the CCSN/IG of the ’737 patent that implements
`
`CCSN-related functions, as described by Patent Owner in Section II.B.
`
`
`
`Applicant explained these distinctions and the Examiner recognized how the
`
`CCSN/IG of the ’737 patent and the ISCP Gateway of Smyk differ from a generic
`
`gateway. Smyk implements an application function—logical address function—
`
`and provides the necessary functionality to communicate with the supporting ISCP
`
`MSAP software. And, the CCSN/IG of the ’737 implements different functions—
`
`CCSN-related functions—and provides the necessary functionality to
`
`communication with the CCSN application on the ISCP.
`
`D. State of the art.
`Petitioner did not make any prior art challenges in this proceeding. Despite
`
`not directly addressing the patentability of the claims under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 and
`
`
`interface. In contrast, the ISCP gateway of the ’737 patent does not include an
`
`Internet server.
`
`
`
`- 9 -
`
`

`
`
`
`
`
`CBM2016-00083
`U.S. Pat. No. 6,115,737
`
`103, the Petition, nevertheless, contains a “state of the art” section that attempts to
`
`parse the claim language to show that individual components of the ’737
`
`architecture were known. Patent Owner addresses Petitioner’s alleged “state of the
`
`art” section below.
`
`Petitioner consumes two pages of this section arguing that web servers were
`
`known prior to the ’737 patent. Of course, generic web servers were known, and,
`
`indeed, the ’737 patent states that “Web server 201 corresponds to a conventional
`
`Internet server, such as Webstar from Quarterdeck Corp. or Netscape
`
`Communications Server from Netscape Communications Corp.” (’737 patent,
`
`7:22–25.)
`
`Petitioner also identifies three websites––Amazon.com, eBay, and Sprint
`
`Stop––that it states were available prior to the priority date of the ’737 patent.
`
`Petitioner then concludes that “[i]nteracting with these websites followed a
`
`common pattern of transactions: the customer would access the service provider’s
`
`website, would interact with the website via requests for information, goods, or
`
`services, and the website (utilizing various back-end servers, gateways, databases,
`
`and/or processors) would respond to these requests, either by providing
`
`information or allowing customers to purchase goods or services.” (Petition, p. 12.)
`
`The Board should ignore Petitioner’s statement as unsupported conjecture because
`
`Petitioner provides no evidence how these systems operated or that these systems
`
`
`
`- 10 -
`
`

`
`
`
`
`
`CBM2016-00083
`U.S. Pat. No. 6,115,737
`
`were even integrated with corporate systems. In the absence of any credible
`
`evidence to the contrary, the only reasonable conclusion is that these systems
`
`suffered from the same problems that plagued the systems discussed in the
`
`background of the ’737 patent.
`
`Finally, Petitioner presents U.S. Patent No. 5,247,571 to Kay as evidence of
`
`the “state of the art,” contending that Kay discloses the claimed CCSN/IG.
`
`Petitioner mischaracterizes Kay. Although Kay describes an application that can be
`
`implemented using ISCP functionality (Ex. 1028, Kay, 10:27–28), Kay does not
`
`mention or disclose an ISCP Gateway, as Petitioner mistakenly contends: “the
`
`methodology used by Kay to access customer-specific facilities is an ISCP
`
`Gateway.” (Petition, p. 14.)
`
`Kay describes its ISCP as “includ[ing] a Service Management System
`
`(SMS) 41, a Data and Reporting System (DRS) and the actual data base or Service
`
`Control Point (SCP) 43. The ISCP also typically includes a terminal subsystem
`
`referred to as a Service Creation Environment or SCE for programming the data
`
`base in the SCP 43 for the services subscribed to by each individual business
`
`customer.” (Kay, 12:34–41.)
`
`Kay’s Figure 1 (reproduced below with annotations) illustrates that the SCE
`
`includes a terminal coupled to the SCP 43. Petitioner uses this figure to speculate
`
`that “[i]t is obvious from [Figure 1] that, in an Internet environment, the
`
`
`
`- 11 -
`
`

`
`
`
`
`
`CBM2016-00083
`U.S. Pat. No. 6,115,737
`
`connection between terminal 42 and databases 43 could be mediated by a web
`
`server to which terminal 42 could send service requests.” (Petition, p. 15.)
`
`Petitioner provides no evidence to support its speculation. And a basic
`
`understanding of the technology requires rejecting Petitioner’s speculation. SCE 42
`
`is part of the ISCP of Kay and therefore cannot be an ISCP gateway. There is no
`
`suggestion or reason why the ISCP would include or need a web server to mediate
`
`between its own terminal and the SCP. Further, the SCE does not send “service
`
`requests” to an ISCP application. The SCE programs the functionality of the
`
`services offered on the ISCP. (Kay, 12:37–41.)
`
`
`
`(Kay, Figure 2.)
`
`But based on this false premise, Petitioner compounds its errors, stating that
`
`“[s]uch a combination of a web server and an ISCP is akin to what the ’737 Patent
`
`refers to as a CCSN/IG.” (Petition, p. 15.) But, again, Petitioner is wrong. Even if a
`
`
`
`- 12 -
`
`

`
`
`
`
`
`CBM2016-00083
`U.S. Pat. No. 6,115,737
`
`web server were introduced between the SCE terminal and the SCP of the ISCP,
`
`such a web server would not be a CCSN/IG. The CCSN/IG of the ’737 patent
`
`“provides a gateway interface between the PC user 103 and provider’s customer
`
`contact services node (CCSN).” (’737 patent, 6:20–22.) The Petitioner’s
`
`hypothetical web server between the SCE terminal and the SCP would not be
`
`specific to any particular use, let alone for interfacing with a customer contact
`
`services node.
`
`III. Claim construction.
`Patent Owner’s definition of “CCSN/IG” follows the accepted
`A.
`rules of claim construction.
`Claim 7 recites the term customer contact services node Internet gateway
`
`(CCSN/IG): “accepting the request via a customer contact services node Internet
`
`gateway (CCSN/IG).” The following table summarizes the claim construction
`
`positions of the parties for the term CCSN/IG:
`
`Petitioner/
`District Court
`
`“a web server and a gateway that is specifically designed to
`interface with at least an integrated service control point that
`is part of a telephone network switch”
`
`Patent Owner
`
`“a web server and a gateway that performs customer contact
`services functions and interfaces with a customer contact
`services application of an integrated service control point”
`
`
`
`
`
`- 13 -
`
`

`
`
`
`
`
`CBM2016-00083
`U.S. Pat. No. 6,115,737
`
`The District Court constructed the term as “a web server and a gateway that
`
`is specifically designed to interface with at least an integrated service control point
`
`that is part of a telephone network switch” and Petitioner asks the Board to adopt
`
`that construction. The Board should not adopt the Petitioner’s construction because
`
`it ignores the basic principles of claim construction, principles that govern Patent
`
`Owner’s construction. First, Petitioner’s proposed construction is overly broad,
`
`reading out CCSN from the element. Second, it is impermissibly narrow, limiting
`
`an ISCP to part of a telecommunications switch. The Board should adopt Patent
`
`Owner’s construction because it is consistent with the language of the claims, the
`
`specification, and the statements made during prosecution.
`
`1.
`
`Patent Owner’s construction is based on the claim language,
`the specification, and the file history.
`a)
`
`The parties agree that the CCSN/IG includes a web
`server and a gateway.
`
`The parties do not dispute that the claimed CCSN/IG includes both a web
`
`server and a gateway. The specification supports this position, explaining that the
`
`“CCSN/IG 104 comprises a Web server 201 and an integrated service control point
`
`(ISCP) gateway 202.” (’737 patent, 7:20–22.)
`
`b)
`
`The gateway of the CCSN/IG performs specific
`functions.
`
`By construing the term CCSN/IG as merely a generic gateway, Petitioner
`
`reads out the term CCSN from the claim which is legally impermissible.
`
`
`
`- 14 -
`
`

`
`
`
`
`
`CBM2016-00083
`U.S. Pat. No. 6,115,737
`
`Petitioner’s argument is also technically incorrect. The claimed CCSN/IG is not a
`
`generic gateway—it is a specialized gateway that performs CCSN-related
`
`functions, as Petitioner readily acknowledges the CCSN/IG provides a “specialized
`
`gateway.” (Petition, p. 19.) The specification describes that the CCSN/IG is a
`
`gateway “provid[ing] a gateway interface between the PC user 103 and a
`
`provider’s customer contact services node (CCSN) 108.” (’737 patent, 6:19–21.)
`
`As such, the CCSN/IG has two functional components: (1) an Internet component,
`
`the web server; and (2) a gateway component to interface with the CCSN.
`
`The web server performs the “Internet” function of the CCSN/IG based on
`
`the specification, which details that the web server of the CCSN/IG is connected to
`
`a network, such as the Internet, and receives requests from a customer. (‘737
`
`patent, 5:5–18, 7:21–15, Figure 2.) The gateway component of the CCSN/IG, as
`
`discussed below, provides the customer contact services node (CCSN) capabilities
`
`of: (1) performing customer contact service functions; and (2) interfacing with the
`
`CCSN application of the ISCP.
`
`(1) The gateway of the CCSN/IG performs customer
`contact service functions.
`The specification and prosecution history confirm that the gateway
`
`component of the CCSN/IG “performs customer contact services node functions.”
`
`The specification specifically states that the gateway “implements the application
`
`
`
`- 15 -
`
`

`
`
`
`
`
`CBM2016-00083
`U.S. Pat. No. 6,115,737
`
`function of the gateway.” (’737 patent, 7:34–35.) The ’737 patent identifies the
`
`claimed application function as a CCSN.
`
`The prosecution history also confirms Patent Owner’s construction.
`
`Throughout prosecution, the Applicant stressed that the CCSN/IG provides
`
`specific, customized, functions:
`
`A basic concept, according to the present invention, is to
`extend the telecommunications capabilities of the ISCP,
`customized
`telecommunications
`including particular
`service options,
`to provide access
`to Internet, and
`specifically the worldwide Web.
`
`(Ex. 1002, Sept. 30, 1997 Response to Office Action, p. 6 (emphasis added).)
`
`… the ISCP gateway 202 implements the application
`function of the gateway and responds to user queries
`forwarded by the Web server.
`
`(Ex. 1004, June 8, 1998 Response to Office Action, p. 7 (emphasis added).) Based
`
`on the claim language in conjunction with the specification and the prosecution
`
`history, the CCSN/IG implements the application function of the ’737 patent––a
`
`customer contact service.
`
`
`
`- 16 -
`
`

`
`
`
`
`
`CBM2016-00083
`U.S. Pat. No. 6,115,737
`(2) The gateway of the CCSN/IG interfaces with a
`CCSN application of an integra