`571-272-7822 Entered: September 11, 2015
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`
`
`GLOBAL TEL*LINK CORPORATION,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`SECURUS TECHNOLOGIES, INC.,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`Case IPR2014-00493
`Patent 7,899,167 B1
`____________
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Before KEVIN F. TURNER, BARBARA A. BENOIT, and
`GEORGIANNA W. BRADEN, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`
`BENOIT, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`
`
`
`FINAL WRITTEN DECISION
`35 U.S.C. § 318(a) and 37 C.F.R. § 42.73
`
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00493
`Patent 7,899,167 B1
`
`
`I. INTRODUCTION
`
`We have jurisdiction to hear this inter partes review under 35 U.S.C.
`
`§ 6(c). This Final Written Decision is issued pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 318(a)
`
`and 37 C.F.R. § 42.73. For the reasons that follow, we determine that
`
`Petitioner has shown by a preponderance of the evidence that claims 1–21 of
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,899,167 B1 (Ex. 1001; “the ’167 patent”) are
`
`unpatentable.
`
`A. Procedural History
`
`Global Tel*Link Corporation (“Petitioner”) filed a corrected Petition
`
`(Paper 4; “Pet.”) for an inter partes review of claims 1–21 (“the challenged
`
`claims”) of the ’167 patent. Patent Owner, Securus Technologies, Inc., filed
`
`a Preliminary Response opposing institution of a review. On September 17,
`
`2014, pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 314(a), we instituted an inter partes review
`
`for claims 1–21 of the ’167 patent as unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
`
`over the following references.
`
`2
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00493
`Patent 7,899,167 B1
`
`
`Reference(s)
`Spadaro1
`Spadaro and Hodge2
`Spadaro and Bellcore3
`
`Claims Challenged
`1–7, 12, 14–19, and 21
`8–11 and 20
`13
`
`Paper 8 (“Inst. Dec.”) 20.
`
`Subsequent to institution, Patent Owner filed a Patent Owner
`
`Response (Paper 14; “PO Resp.”), and Petitioner filed a Reply (Paper 19;
`
`“Reply”). Patent Owner filed observations on the cross-examination of
`
`Petitioner’s declarant (Paper 23), to which Petitioner filed a response (Paper
`
`24).
`
`An oral hearing was held on June 4, 2015.4
`
`B. Related Matters
`
`Petitioner represents that the ’167 patent is involved in Securus
`
`Technologies, Inc. v. Global Tel*Link Corp., No. 3:13-cv-03009 (N.D.
`
`Tex.). Pet. 2; see also Paper 5 (Patent Owner’s Mandatory Notice).
`
`Petitioner also has requested inter partes review of related patents—
`
`U.S. Patent No. 8,577,003 B2 (IPR2014-00749), U.S. Patent
`
`
`
`1 U.S. Patent No. 7,505,406 B1, issued Mar. 17, 2009, filed July 13, 2001
`(Ex. 1004) (“Spadaro”).
`2 U.S. Patent No. 7,333,798 B2, issued Feb. 19, 2008, filed Aug. 8, 2002
`(Ex. 1005) (“Hodge”).
`3 BELLCORE, Voice Over Packet in Next Generation Networks: An
`Architectural Framework, Special Report SR-4717, Issue 1 (Jan. 1999)
`(Ex. 1006) (“Bellcore”).
`4 At the joint request of the parties, the oral arguments for this proceeding
`and IPR2014-00749 were conducted at the same time. Paper 29, 2. A
`transcript of the oral hearing is included in the record as Paper 31.
`3
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00493
`Patent 7,899,167 B1
`
`No. 8,340,260 B1 (IPR2014-00824), and U.S. Patent No. 7,529,357 B1
`
`(IPR2014-00825).
`
`C. The ’167 Patent
`
`The ’167 patent, titled “Centralized Call Processing,” issued
`
`March 1, 2011 from an application filed August 15, 2003. The ’167 patent
`
`describes a centralized architecture for call processing that uses Voice over
`
`Internet Protocol (“VoIP”) to carry calls from a location at which calling
`
`services are provided to a centralized call processing platform. Ex. 1001,
`
`Abstract, 1:38–40, 3:15–17. The call processing platform serves multiple
`
`facilities and provides call processing functionality, such as providing call
`
`intelligence to determine whether to allow a particular call to be continued,
`
`as well as calling party identification, call validation, call routing, and
`
`connection to the public switched telephone network (PSTN) or a digital
`
`network. Id. at Abstract, 9:31–37.
`
`Figure 1 of the ’167 patent is set forth below:
`
`4
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00493
`Patent 7,899,167 B1
`
`
`
`Figure 1 illustrates call processing system 100.
`
`Call processing system 100 includes call processing platform 101,
`
`which communicates with facilities 150, 160, 170, 180 through network 130.
`
`Id. at 5:41–44. Call processing gateways 140, at or near each facility 150,
`
`160, 170, 180, convert analog signals associated with telephone
`
`terminals 141 (or visitation telephones 143) to digital data packets sent over
`
`network 130. Id. at 6:10–15.
`
`Call processing platform 101 includes, among other components, call
`
`application management system 110, which controls completing a call
`
`5
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00493
`Patent 7,899,167 B1
`
`between a party using one of telephone terminals 141 (or visitation
`
`telephones 143) and another party using telephone terminal (not shown),
`
`over PSTN 192 or digital network 191. Id. at 8:9–65. Call processing
`
`system 101 also includes unauthorized call activity detection system 114 to
`
`detect establishment of an unauthorized three-way call. Id. at 9:31–48.
`
`Billing system 112, another system of call processing system 101, collects
`
`billing information and deducts fees from prepaid accounts. Id. at 11:56–67.
`
`D. Illustrative Claims of the ’167 Patent
`
`Of the challenged claims in the ’167 patent, claims 1 and 17 are
`
`independent. Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed
`
`subject matter:
`
`1. A centralized call processing system for providing call
`processing services
`to a plurality of prison
`facilities,
`comprising:
`
`a networking device connected via digital data links to
`call processing gateways at the plurality of prison facilities to
`collect outgoing Voice over Internet Protocol (VoIP) data
`packets associated with calls from the plurality of prison
`facilities and
`to distribute
`incoming VoIP data packets
`associated with the calls to the plurality of prison facilities, the
`plurality of prison facilities located remotely from the call
`processing system, each of the plurality of prison facilities
`including at least one telephone terminal;
`
`an unauthorized call activity detection system co-located
`with the networking device and connected to the networking
`device for detecting three-way call activity associated with the
`calls placed from one or more of the plurality of telephone
`terminals, the three-way call activity detection not performed at
`the plurality of the prison facilities;
`
`6
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00493
`Patent 7,899,167 B1
`
`
`a call application management system co-located with the
`networking device and connected to the networking device and
`the unauthorized call activity detection system for at least
`processing the outgoing VoIP data packets from the plurality of
`prison facilities into outgoing call signals and transmitting the
`outgoing call signals to a first telephone carrier network, the
`call application management system receiving incoming call
`signals from the first telephone carrier network and processing
`the incoming call signals into the incoming VoIP data packets
`for distribution to the plurality of prison facilities by the
`networking device; and
`
`a billing system co-located with said call application
`management system and located remotely from the call
`processing gateways, the billing system connected to the call
`application management system for providing accounting of the
`calls.
`
`Ex. 1001, 18:58–19:27.
`
`II. ANALYSIS
`
`A. Claim Construction
`
`In an inter partes review, claim terms in an unexpired patent are
`
`interpreted 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); see
`
`Office Patent Trial Practice Guide, 77 Fed. Reg. 48,756, 48,766 (Aug. 14,
`
`2012); see also In re Cuozzo Speed Techs., LLC, 793 F.3d 1268, 1278, 1279
`
`(Fed. Cir. 2015) (“Congress implicitly approved the broadest reasonable
`
`interpretation standard in enacting the AIA,” and “the standard was properly
`
`adopted by PTO regulation.”), reh’g en banc denied, 793 F.3d 1297 (Fed.
`
`Cir. 2015). Under that standard, claim terms are presumed to be given their
`
`7
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00493
`Patent 7,899,167 B1
`
`ordinary and customary meaning as would be understood by one of ordinary
`
`skill in the art in the context of the entire disclosure. In re Translogic Tech.,
`
`Inc., 504 F.3d 1249, 1257 (Fed. Cir. 2007). An inventor may provide a
`
`meaning for a term that is different from its ordinary meaning by defining
`
`the term in the specification with reasonable clarity, deliberateness, and
`
`precision. In re Paulsen, 30 F.3d 1475, 1480 (Fed. Cir. 1994).
`
`We construe “call application management system” and discuss the
`
`dispute over call processing in accordance with these principles. No other
`
`terms require express construction.
`
`Independent claim 1 is directed to a “centralized call processing
`
`system” that includes a networking device, an unauthorized call activity
`
`detection system, a call application management system, and a billing
`
`system. Claim 1 further requires a particular location and particular system
`
`connections for the call application management system—the call
`
`application management system must be (1) “co-located with the networking
`
`device” and (2) “connected to the networking device and the unauthorized
`
`call activity detection system.” Claim 1 also recites functions performed by
`
`the call application management system—(1) “processing the outgoing VoIP
`
`data packets from the plurality of prison facilities into outgoing call signals,”
`
`(2) “transmitting the outgoing call signals to a first telephone carrier
`
`network,” (3) “receiving incoming call signals from the first telephone
`
`carrier network,” and (4) “processing the incoming call signals into the
`
`incoming VoIP data packets for distribution to the plurality of prison
`
`facilities by the networking device.” Claim 15, which depends from claim 1,
`
`8
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00493
`Patent 7,899,167 B1
`
`additionally requires the call application management system be further
`
`configured “to process and transmit outgoing call signals from the plurality
`
`of telephone terminals to a second telephone carrier network, the call
`
`application management system selecting either the first telephone carrier
`
`network or the second telephone carrier network to transmit the call signals.”
`
`Claim 16, which depends from claim 15, further requires that the call
`
`application management system establishes connection for the calls over the
`
`first telephone carrier network and switches to connection over the second
`
`telephone carrier network responsive to detecting a predetermined event.
`
`A central dispute between the parties concerns the broadest reasonable
`
`construction, in view of the Specification, of the recited “call application
`
`management system.” Patent Owner contends, with support of its declarant
`
`Dr. James L. Olivier and extrinsic evidence, the proper construction of “call
`
`application management system” is “a system performing call processing for
`
`a plurality of prisons.” PO Resp. 15. According to Patent Owner, “call
`
`processing” is a term of art in telephony and is understood as “control a call
`
`from origination, maintenance of that call, and subsequent release of that call
`
`[and] does not include call authorization functionality.” PO Resp. 15.
`
`Patent Owner does not identify an express disclosure of a “call
`
`application management system” performing call processing in the way that
`
`“call processing” is defined by Patent Owner (i.e., controlling a call from
`
`origination, maintenance of that call, and subsequent release of that call, and
`
`not including call authorization). See generally PO Resp. 15–16. Rather,
`
`Patent Owner relies on the ’167 patent’s description of call application
`
`9
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00493
`Patent 7,899,167 B1
`
`management system 110 as “form[ing] the heart of call processing
`
`functionality provided by call processing platform 101,” which, according to
`
`Patent Owner’s declarant, would be understood by one of ordinary skill in
`
`the art as meaning “that call connection control and switching control is
`
`performed at a centralized location.” Id. (citing Ex. 1001, 8:9–13; Ex. 2001
`
`¶ 165).
`
`Petitioner opposes Patent Owner’s proposed construction. Reply 3.
`
`According to Petitioner’s declarant Dr. Leonard J. Forys, the location and
`
`functions performed by the recited call application management system are
`
`defined within the claim, and call application management system should be
`
`given its ordinary and customary meaning as would be understood by one of
`
`ordinary skill in the art in the context of the entire disclosure, using the
`
`understandable language of claim 1. Ex. 1018 ¶¶ 6, 8; see Reply 3
`
`(indicating “no need exists to go beyond the easily understandable language
`
`of Claim 1”). Further, Petitioner disagrees with Patent Owner’s proposed
`
`constructions as impermissibly narrowing claim 1 and being inconsistent
`
`with the Specification. Reply 3.
`
`The plain language of the challenged claims support the position taken
`
`by Petitioner, as explained by its declarant (Ex. 1018 ¶¶ 6, 8), that an express
`
`construction of call application management system is unnecessary. Claim 1
`
`recites the location and connections required by the call application
`
`management system—being co-located with the networking device and
`
`connected to the networking device and the unauthorized call activity
`
`detection system. Claim 1 further requires the networking device to be
`
`10
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00493
`Patent 7,899,167 B1
`
`connected to call processing gateways at the prison facilities. The plain
`
`language of claim 1 recites certain functions performed by the call
`
`application management system—processing and transmitting VoIP data
`
`packets in particular ways.
`
`In contrast, the plain language of claim 1 does not recite the functions
`
`of call processing that Patent Owner contends is required to be performed by
`
`the call application management system—controlling a call from origination,
`
`maintenance of that call, and subsequent release of that call, and not
`
`including call authorization. Further, we note that claim 1 recites a “call
`
`application management system”—not a call processing management
`
`system.
`
`Turning to Patent Owner’s proposed construction of call processing,
`
`we note that, although the challenged claims recite a “centralized call
`
`processing system,” “call processing services,” and “call processing
`
`gateways,” none of the challenged claims recite performing “call
`
`processing.” Moreover, Patent Owner’s proposed definition of call
`
`processing as “control a call from origination, maintenance of that call, and
`
`subsequent release of that call [and] does not include call authorization
`
`functionality” (PO Resp. 15) is inconsistent with the Specification and is not
`
`supported by the prosecution history of the application that issued as the
`
`’167 patent.
`
`The Specification is inconsistent with Patent Owner’s proposed
`
`definition of call processing, because Patent Owner’s proposed definition
`
`excludes call authorization functionality, which is expressly described by
`
`11
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00493
`Patent 7,899,167 B1
`
`the ’167 patent as an example of call processing functionality. See Ex. 1001,
`
`3:18–24 (“call processing functionality, such as . . . call validation”), 19:42–
`
`47 (claim 7 indicates call validation involves call authorization—“the
`
`validation system connected to said call application management system for
`
`authorizing connecting of said calls to said first telephone carrier network”)
`
`(emphasis added).
`
`The Specification descriptions of call processing functionality also
`
`indicate “call processing” is broader than defined by the Patent Owner. For
`
`example, the Specification includes additional providing call intelligence as
`
`a type of call processing functionality, which is not included in Patent
`
`Owner’s proposed definition. Ex. 1001, 9:31–46. The Specification also
`
`indicates that other elements recited in claim 1—a billing system and an
`
`unauthorized activity detection system—work with a call application
`
`management system to provide call processing. Id. at 7:49–59.
`
`The Specification indicates an earlier patent application,5 which the
`
`’167 patent incorporates by reference, as providing “[d]etail with respect to
`
`operation in processing providing call processing by a call application
`
`manager.”6 Ex. 1001, 8:28–32. The earlier patent application is inconsistent
`
`
`
`5 U.S. Patent Application No. 10/135,878, titled “Information Management
`and Movement System and Method.” Ex. 1001, 8:28–31; see also id. at
`1:6–9, 33–34 (indicating the patent application number corresponding to the
`patent application titled “Information Management and Movement System
`and Method” and incorporation of that disclosure by reference).
`6 The ’167 patent uses the term “call application management system 110”
`interchangeably with “call application manager 110.” Compare Ex. 1001,
`8:34–35, 37 (“call application management system 110”) with id. at 8:42–43
`12
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00493
`Patent 7,899,167 B1
`
`with Patent Owner’s proposed definition of “call processing.” Rather, the
`
`earlier application describes7 call application manager 221 as providing
`
`distance telephony, prepaid and postpaid toll calling services, telephonic
`
`commerce, account balance verification and refill, and credit worthiness
`
`determination. Ex. 3001, 47 (¶ 27), 52 (¶ 38). The earlier application also
`
`depicts call application manager 110 as having modules for detainee calling,
`
`word search, and visitation and administration phones. Id. at 52 (¶ 38). The
`
`earlier application further discloses that “calls placed through
`
`communication/transaction services 221” can be analyzed. Id. at 56 (¶ 47).
`
`Neither Patent Owner nor its declarant Dr. Olivier directly addresses the
`
`disclosure of the earlier application.
`
`The prosecution history of the application that issued as the ’167
`
`patent also is inconsistent with Patent Owner’s proposed definition of “call
`
`processing.” During examination, the applicant represented that “call
`
`processing” included detection of unauthorized calls. Ex. 1002, 299
`
`(Applicant response to November 7, 2008 action, p. 8) (indicating “various
`
`call processing activities including detection of unauthorized call[s] may be
`
`performed at the call processing platform”). See Microsoft v. Proxyconn,
`
`789 F.3d 1292, 1298 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (“The PTO should also consult the
`
`
`
`(“call application manager 110”).
`7 To be precise, the earlier application describes call application
`manager 221 as operating substantially as communication/transaction
`services 221, which, in turn, is described as “provide distance telephony,
`prepaid and postpaid toll calling services, telephonic commerce, account
`balance verification and refill, and credit worthiness determination.”
`Ex. 3001, 47 (¶ 27), 52 (¶ 38).
`
`13
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00493
`Patent 7,899,167 B1
`
`patent’s prosecution history in proceedings in which the patent has been
`
`brought back to the agency for a second review.”). Applicant’s
`
`representation does not support Patent Owner’s position that “call
`
`processing” would have been understood by one of ordinary skill in the art
`
`as “control a call from origination, maintenance of that call, and subsequent
`
`release of that call [and] does not include call authorization functionality”
`
`(PO Resp. 15).
`
`Next, we examine extrinsic evidence and testimony proffered by
`
`Patent Owner of how one ordinarily skilled in the art would have understood
`
`“call processing.” Specifically, Patent Owner indicates one would have
`
`turned to U.S. Patent No. 6,052,454 (Ex. 2004, “Kek”) to understand the
`
`meaning of “call processing” as used in the ’167 patent and, based on the
`
`disclosure of Kek, would have understood “call processing” as defined by
`
`Patent Owner. See, e.g., PO Resp. 13–15. Kek is referenced in the
`
`“Background of the Invention” section of the ’167 patent discussing
`
`automated systems for providing call processing functions and is
`
`incorporated by reference. Ex. 1001, 1:42–45. According to the ’167 patent,
`
`Kek, which is titled “Telephone Apparatus With Recording of Phone
`
`Conversations on Massive Storage,” teaches call authorization functionality
`
`being remote to a prison facility and teaches call processing being provided
`
`at the prison facility itself. Ex. 1001, 1:60–67, 2:7–11. Patent Owner’s
`
`extrinsic evidence provides little probative value because it does not
`
`comport with the detailed description of the invention in the ’167 patent—
`
`either the ’167 patent description of call processing functionality or the
`
`14
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00493
`Patent 7,899,167 B1
`
`earlier patent application’s description of a call application manager for the
`
`reasons discussed earlier.
`
`Weighing Dr. Oliver’s testimony supporting Patent Owner’s
`
`contentions that call application management system performs call
`
`processing—meaning controlling a call from origination, maintenance of
`
`that call, and subsequent release of that call, but which does not include call
`
`authorization functionality (PO Resp. 16 (citing Ex. 2001 ¶ 165)) against
`
`evidence of the written description of the term in the Specification and
`
`language of claim 1, we do not agree that call application management
`
`system necessarily must control a call from origination, maintenance of that
`
`call, and subsequent release of that call. It is within our discretion to assign
`
`the appropriate weight to the testimony offered by Dr. Oliver. See, e.g.,
`
`Yorkey v. Diab, 601 F.3d 1279, 1284 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (holding the Board
`
`has discretion to give more weight to one item of evidence over another
`
`“unless no reasonable trier of fact could have done so”); In re Am. Acad. of
`
`Sci. Tech Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359, 1368 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (“[T]he Board is
`
`entitled to weigh the declarations and conclude that the lack of factual
`
`corroboration warrants discounting the opinions expressed in the
`
`declarations.”).
`
`First, as discussed above, the Specification and earlier application
`
`provide examples of call processing functionality that contradict Dr. Oliver’s
`
`position and which are not addressed directly by Dr. Olivier. Second, the
`
`inconsistency of Dr. Olivier’s own testimony regarding the definition of call
`
`processing undercuts his position. In his declaration, Dr. Olivier identified
`
`15
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00493
`Patent 7,899,167 B1
`
`additional functions as part of call processing—including call authorization
`
`which Dr. Olivier testifies is not included in call processing. See Ex. 2001
`
`¶¶ 67 (showing Dr. Olivier’s annotation of Figure 2 of the ’167 patent to
`
`identify call processing), 69, 70, 73. Third, we are unpersuaded by
`
`Dr. Olivier’s reliance on a vague statement of the Specification that the call
`
`application management system “forms the heart of call processing
`
`functionality provided by call processing platform 101” (PO Resp. 16 (citing
`
`Ex. 2001 ¶ 165)). Dr. Olivier testifies that the context of “forms the heart”
`
`would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art as meaning “that call
`
`connection control and switching control is performed at a centralized
`
`location,” because the Specification describes the call application
`
`management system as controlling completing a call between parties
`
`(Ex. 2001 ¶ 165).
`
`We are mindful that, according to the Specification, the call
`
`application management system “control[s] completing a call between” two
`
`parties. Ex. 1001, 8:13–19 (emphasis added). Even so, “controlling
`
`completing a call” on its face seems more limited than Patent Owner’s
`
`position that call application management system is a system performing call
`
`processing—“control a call from origination, maintenance of that call, and
`
`subsequent release of that call.” We also are mindful that Petitioner’s
`
`declarant Dr. Forys does not agree with Dr. Olivier’s position regarding call
`
`processing. Ex. 1018 ¶¶ 7–12.
`
`We also address the preamble of claim 1—“[a] centralized call
`
`processing system for providing call processing services to a plurality of
`
`16
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00493
`Patent 7,899,167 B1
`
`prison facilities”—because it recites a centralized call processing system and
`
`call processing services, which may be relevant to our analysis of whether
`
`claim 1 requires call processing as defined by the Patent Owner. We view
`
`the preamble as a statement of intended use, rather than as providing
`
`additional limitations. “In general, a preamble limits the invention if it
`
`recites essential structure or steps, or if it is ‘necessary to give life, meaning,
`
`and vitality’ to the claim.” Catalina Mktg. Int’l, Inc. v. Coolsavings.com,
`
`Inc., 289 F.3d 801, 808 (Fed. Cir. 2002). A preamble, however, “generally
`
`is not limiting when the claim body describes a structurally complete
`
`invention such that deletion of the preamble phrase does not affect the
`
`structure or steps of the claimed invention.” Id. at 809. One guidepost for
`
`determining the effect of a preamble on claim scope is whether the preamble
`
`language provides antecedent basis for any limitation in the body of the
`
`claim. Id. at 808.
`
`The elements of the centralized call processing system recited in the
`
`body of claim 1 include a networking device connected via digital data links
`
`to call processing gateways at the plurality of prison facilities; an
`
`unauthorized call activity detection system co-located with, and connected
`
`to, the networking device; a call application management system co-located
`
`with, and connected to, the networking device and the unauthorized call
`
`activity detection system; and a billing system co-located with the call
`
`application management system and located remotely from the call
`
`processing gateways. These elements describe a structurally complete
`
`invention because the deletion of the preamble does not affect the structure
`
`17
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00493
`Patent 7,899,167 B1
`
`of the claimed invention. The body of claim 1 recites “the plurality of prison
`
`facilities located remotely from the call processing system,” which depends
`
`on “[a] centralized call processing system” for the antecedent basis of “the
`
`call processing system” (emphasis added).
`
`Moreover, a preamble describing the purpose or intended use of an
`
`invention generally does not limit the claim. Catalina Mktg., 289 F.3d at
`
`809. In reciting “for providing call processing services to a plurality of
`
`prison facilities,” claim 1 recites an intended use for the centralized call
`
`processing system and so is not limited for this additional reason.
`
`Even if we were to find the preamble limiting, the claim itself does
`
`not require call processing as Patent Owner defines call processing—
`
`“control a call from origination, maintenance of that call, and subsequent
`
`release of that call [and] does not include call authorization functionality,”
`
`for the reasons previously discussed. Further, claim 1 expressly requires
`
`“processing the outgoing VoIP data packets from the plurality of prison
`
`facilities into outgoing call signals,” and so, even if the preamble requires a
`
`call processing system, the claim itself recites call processing of VoIP data
`
`packets from prison facilities and so recites “providing call processing
`
`services to a plurality of prison facilities.”
`
`Therefore, in light of the plain language of the claim, the Specification
`
`of the’167 patent, and according Patent Owner’s evidence and the testimony
`
`of Patent Owner’s declarant appropriate weight, we construe “call
`
`application management system” to mean a system that is located as
`
`required by claim 1—“with the networking device and connected to the
`
`18
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00493
`Patent 7,899,167 B1
`
`networking device and the unauthorized call activity detection system”—and
`
`performs at least the functions recited by claim 1—“processing the outgoing
`
`VoIP data packets from the plurality of prison facilities into outgoing call
`
`signals and transmitting the outgoing call signals to a first telephone carrier
`
`network, the call application management system receiving incoming call
`
`signals from the first telephone carrier network and processing the incoming
`
`call signals into the incoming VoIP data packets for distribution to the
`
`plurality of prison facilities by the networking device.” A “call application
`
`management system” is not required to perform call processing as defined
`
`by the Patent Owner—“control a call from origination, maintenance of that
`
`call, and subsequent release of that call [and] does not include call
`
`authorization functionality” (PO Resp. 15).
`
`B. Principles of Law
`
`To prevail in challenging claims 1–21 of the ’167 patent, Petitioner
`
`must demonstrate by a preponderance of the evidence that the claims are
`
`unpatentable. 35 U.S.C. § 316(e); 37 C.F.R. § 42.1(d). A claim is
`
`unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) if the differences between the
`
`claimed subject matter and the prior art are such that the subject matter, as a
`
`whole, would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a
`
`person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains.
`
`KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 406 (2007). The question of
`
`obviousness is resolved on the basis of underlying factual determinations
`
`including the following: (1) the scope and content of the prior art; (2) any
`
`differences between the claimed subject matter and the prior art; (3) the level
`
`19
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00493
`Patent 7,899,167 B1
`
`of ordinary skill in the art; and (4) objective evidence of nonobviousness.
`
`Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 17–18 (1966).
`
`C. Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art
`
`In determining whether an invention would have been obvious at the
`
`time it was made, 35 U.S.C. § 103 requires us to determine the level of
`
`ordinary skill in the pertinent art at the time of the invention. Graham v.
`
`John Deere, 383 U.S. at 17. “The importance of resolving the level of
`
`ordinary skill in the art lies in the necessity of maintaining objectivity in the
`
`obviousness inquiry.” Ryko Mfg. Co. v. Nu-Star, Inc., 950 F.2d 714, 718
`
`(Fed. Cir. 1991). The person of ordinary skill in the art is a hypothetical
`
`person who is presumed to have known the relevant art at the time of the
`
`invention. In re GPAC, Inc., 57 F.3d 1573, 1579 (Fed. Cir. 1995). Factors
`
`that may be considered in determining the level of ordinary skill in the art
`
`include, but are not limited to, the types of problems encountered in the art,
`
`the sophistication of the technology, and educational level of active workers
`
`in the field. Id. In a given case, one or more factors may predominate. Id.
`
`Generally, it is easier to establish obviousness under a higher level of
`
`ordinary skill in the art. Innovention Toys, LLC v. MGA Entm’t, Inc.,
`
`637 F.3d 1314, 1323 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (“A less sophisticated level of skill
`
`generally favors a determination of nonobviousness . . . while a higher level
`
`of skill favors the reverse.”).
`
`With support of their respective declarants, both Petitioner and Patent
`
`Owner agree that, based on the disclosure of the ’167 patent, one of ordinary
`
`skill in the art would have a Bachelor of Science degree in electrical
`
`20
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00493
`Patent 7,899,167 B1
`
`engineering, computer science, or an equivalent field, as well as three to five
`
`years of academic or industry experience. Pet. 7–8 (citing Ex, 1017 ¶ 30);
`
`PO Resp. 7 (citing Ex. 2001 ¶ 156). Petitioner indicates communications
`
`system (or comparable industry experience) is the relevant academic or
`
`industry experience (Pet. 8), whereas Patent Owner indicates telephony
`
`systems (PO Resp. 7).
`
`The parties propose similar levels of ordinary skill in the art and do
`
`not directly challenge the other’s proposal. We consider the level of
`
`ordinary skill in the art to be reflected by the prior art of record. See
`
`Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001). The prior art
`
`references, like the ’167 patent, relate to telephone commun