trials@uspto.gov
`
`571-272-7822
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00493, Paper No. 31
`IPR2014-00749, Paper No. 27
`July 28, 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.
`____________
`
`IPR2014-00493 (Patent 7,899,167 B1)
`IPR2014-00749 (Patent 8,577,003 B2)
`____________
`
`Held: June 4, 2015
`____________
`
`
`
`
`
`BEFORE: KEVIN F. TURNER, BARBARA A. BENOIT, and
`GEORGIANNA W. BRADEN, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`
`
`The above-entitled matter came on for hearing on Thursday, June
`4, 2015, commencing at 1:00 p.m., at the U.S. Patent and
`Trademark Office, 600 Dulany Street, Alexandria, Virginia.
`
`
`
`
`
`571-272-7822
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00493, Paper No. 31
`IPR2014-00749, Paper No. 27
`July 28, 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.
`____________
`
`IPR2014-00493 (Patent 7,899,167 B1)
`IPR2014-00749 (Patent 8,577,003 B2)
`____________
`
`Held: June 4, 2015
`____________
`
`
`
`
`
`BEFORE: KEVIN F. TURNER, BARBARA A. BENOIT, and
`GEORGIANNA W. BRADEN, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`
`
`The above-entitled matter came on for hearing on Thursday, June
`4, 2015, commencing at 1:00 p.m., at the U.S. Patent and
`Trademark Office, 600 Dulany Street, Alexandria, Virginia.
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00493 (Patent 7,899,167 B1)
`IPR2014-00749 (Patent 8,577,003 B2)
`
`
`
`
`APPEARANCES:
`
`ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER:
`
`
`LORI A. GORDON, ESQ.
`
`
`RYAN RICHARDSON, ESQ.
`
`
`Sterne Kessler Goldstein Fox
`
`
`1100 New York Avenue, N.W.
`
`
`Washington, DC 20005
`
`
`
`ON BEHALF OF PATENT OWNER:
`
`
`DARREN E. DONNELLY, ESQ.
`
`
`RAJIV P. PATEL, ESQ.
`
`
`GREG HOPEWELL, ESQ.
`
`
`Fenwick & West
`
`
`Silicon Valley Center
`
`
`801 California Street
`
`
`Mountain View, California 94041
`
`
`
`
` 2
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00493 (Patent 7,899,167 B1)
`IPR2014-00749 (Patent 8,577,003 B2)
`
`
`
`
` P R O C E E D I N G S
`
`- - - - -
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`JUDGE BENOIT: Good afternoon, everyone. I'm
`
`Judge Benoit, and appearing on video are Judges Turner and
`
`Braden. We are convened this afternoon for oral argument in
`
`IPR2014-00493, which challenges U.S. Patent 7,899,167, and
`
`IPR2014-00749, which challenges U.S. Patent Number
`
`8,577,003.
`
`1
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`Each side will have 60 minutes to argue this afternoon.
`
`11
`
`Petitioner bears the ultimate burden of proving unpatentability,
`
`12
`
`and will go first. The Petitioner also may reserve rebuttal time.
`
`13
`
`14
`
`MS. GORDON: Thank you, Your Honor.
`
`JUDGE BENOIT: As you can see, Judge Braden and
`
`15
`
`Judge Turner do not have the benefit of visual cues in the room,
`
`16
`
`so please, when you refer to an exhibit or a demonstrative, do so
`
`17
`
`with particularity, particularly mentioning the page number or
`
`18
`
`slide number, preferably before you begin to speak about the
`
`19
`
`slide.
`
`20
`
`Also when you begin argument, please identify yourself
`
`21
`
`and the party whom you represent, but before we begin with your
`
`22
`
`arguments, the panel would like to first commend both parties for
`
`23
`
`working together in the past several days to resolve the many
`
`24
`
`issues that were raised about the demonstratives and the
`
` 3
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00493 (Patent 7,899,167 B1)
`IPR2014-00749 (Patent 8,577,003 B2)
`
`objections. As I understand it now, the only remaining objections
`
`are in IPR2014-00493, and Petitioner continues to object to three
`
`of Patent Owner's slides, and that was reflected in paper 30 filed
`
`last night. Is that correct?
`
`MS. GORDON: That is correct, Your Honor.
`
`JUDGE BENOIT: So, the panel does recognize that
`
`these objections remain, but we don't want to spend this afternoon
`
`talking about these objections or ruling on any of the objections.
`
`Demonstratives, as we know, are not evidence, but they're aids to
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`the oral argument this afternoon. The panel is capable of
`
`11
`
`determining what information is improper, and will not rely on
`
`12
`
`improper information in our final written decision.
`
`13
`
`14
`
`With that, Petitioner, please begin when ready.
`
`MS. GORDON: Thank you. I'm trying to get in a
`
`15
`
`position so I can see the judges. Good afternoon, Your Honors.
`
`16
`
`My name is Lori Gordon and I'm from the law firm of Sterne,
`
`17
`
`Kessler, Goldstein & Fox and I'm going to be arguing today on
`
`18
`
`behalf of the Petitioner, Global Tel*Link, and with me at counsel
`
`19
`
`table is back-up counsel, Ryan Richardson.
`
`20
`
`And at this time, we would like to reserve 30 minutes of
`
`21
`
`our time for rebuttal.
`
`22
`
`JUDGE TURNER: I'm having trouble hearing counsel,
`
`23
`
`are you speaking into the microphone?
`
`24
`
`MS. GORDON: Yes. Is the microphone on? Can you
`
`25
`
`hear me now, Judge Turner? Now we can't hear Judge Turner.
`
` 4
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00493 (Patent 7,899,167 B1)
`IPR2014-00749 (Patent 8,577,003 B2)
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`JUDGE TURNER: Well, I was muted because I create
`
`feedback when I keep my microphone on, so I turn it off
`
`periodically. So, if you see my lips moving, just wave at me or
`
`something. No, I hear you a little bit better now, thank you.
`
`MS. GORDON: Thank you. Okay. So, at its core, the
`
`'167 patent and its continuation, the '003 patent, are about taking
`
`functionality that previously existed at a prison facility and
`
`placing it at a centralized location. Now, the idea of centralizing
`
`telecommunications functionality to save money, to ease
`
`10
`
`administration, has been a standard practice in
`
`11
`
`telecommunications networks for at least 40 years, if not longer.
`
`12
`
`And the '167 patent just applies this well-known
`
`13
`
`concept of centralization to a prison environment. However, even
`
`14
`
`that wasn't new at the time the '167 patent was filed. That is
`
`15
`
`exactly what the Spadaro reference does. Spadaro centralizes the
`
`16
`
`exact same functions as the '167 patent. Three-way call
`
`17
`
`detection, billing, routing, call validation, those are all centralized
`
`18
`
`with Spadaro.
`
`19
`
`And for some of the few prison-specific functions that
`
`20
`
`aren't mentioned explicitly in Spadaro, like investigation
`
`21
`
`information and commissary functions, these are disclosed by
`
`22
`
`Hodge as functions that you would centralize.
`
`23
`
`So, the '167 patent and the '003 patent claims just cover
`
`24
`
`what has been in play for almost a half century in the
`
`25
`
`telecommunications industry, and that's why these claims should
`
` 5
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00493 (Patent 7,899,167 B1)
`IPR2014-00749 (Patent 8,577,003 B2)
`
`be found unpatentable. And the Board clearly understood this
`
`when it instituted trial, finding all claims in both patents obvious
`
`over either Spadaro alone, or in combination with Hodge or
`
`Bellcore. And today --
`
`JUDGE BENOIT: Excuse me, counselor, we did not
`
`find them obvious, we found it more likely than not the
`
`information in your petition would show that they were obvious.
`
`MS. GORDON: Thank you, Your Honor. So, let me
`
`correct, yes, the Board found it more likely than not, or a
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`reasonable likelihood.
`
`11
`
`12
`
`JUDGE BENOIT: Yes, thank you.
`
`MS. GORDON: That we will prevail showing
`
`13
`
`obviousness over Spadaro or Spadaro in view of Hodge and
`
`14
`
`Bellcore. Thank you. And we're going to explain why, in fact,
`
`15
`
`these claims are obvious over the references on which trial was
`
`16
`
`instituted.
`
`17
`
`So, turning to our slide number 6, the '167 patent states
`
`18
`
`unequivocally that it's directed to centralizing call processing
`
`19
`
`functionality. And the '167 patent also explains that it's merely
`
`20
`
`centralizing functionality that was known, and we see that in the
`
`21
`
`background section of the '167 patent that we have reproduced
`
`22
`
`here on our slide 6. So, what the '167 patent tells us is that
`
`23
`
`automated systems for providing call processing functions are not
`
`24
`
`new. In other words, automated call processing was known.
`
` 6
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00493 (Patent 7,899,167 B1)
`IPR2014-00749 (Patent 8,577,003 B2)
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`Then the '167 patent tells us what else was known.
`
`Voice messaging, that was known. IVR systems, those were
`
`known. Billing was known. Collect call functions, that was
`
`known. Call recording, another known function. And three-way
`
`call detection, known.
`
`So, what the '167 patent makes very clear is it's merely
`
`moving these known functions to a central point in the network.
`
`And for our argument today, we would like to address six of the
`
`primary disputes between the parties. First, the construction of
`
`10
`
`the term "call application management system." Second, the
`
`11
`
`networking device of Spadaro. Third, centralization and
`
`12
`
`co-location as it's disclosed in Spadaro. Fourth, three-way call
`
`13
`
`detection. Fifth, the PIN validation function of Spadaro. And
`
`14
`
`finally, Spadaro's disclosure of mixed modes in edge routing.
`
`15
`
`So, I would like to turn to our first argument, the
`
`16
`
`construction of the term "call application management." So,
`
`17
`
`Petitioner's position is that the term "call application management
`
`18
`
`system" doesn't need a construction, because the scope of this
`
`19
`
`limitation is abundantly clear from the language of the claims.
`
`20
`
`21
`
`JUDGE BRADEN: Counselor, which slide are you on?
`
`MS. GORDON: I'm turning now to slide 11. I haven't
`
`22
`
`put one up yet.
`
`23
`
`24
`
`JUDGE BRADEN: Eleven? Okay, thank you.
`
`MS. GORDON: So, I'm putting up slide 11, and slide
`
`25
`
`11 reproduces a portion of claim 1 of the '167 patent, and
`
` 7
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00493 (Patent 7,899,167 B1)
`IPR2014-00749 (Patent 8,577,003 B2)
`
`specifically, the call application management system limitation.
`
`And what is clear when you look at the claim, is that the claim
`
`describes the scope very clearly, it tells us the location, it's
`
`co-located with a networking device, and connected to the
`
`networking device and the unauthorized call activity detection
`
`system. Then it describes this component functionally. And
`
`what's the function it provides? Processing the outgoing
`
`voiceover IP data packets into call signals, transmitting those call
`
`signals to the network, receiving incoming call signals from the
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`network, and are processing those incoming call signals into
`
`11
`
`incoming voiceover IP data packets. Claim 1, again, the scope of
`
`12
`
`this component is very clear.
`
`13
`
`And if we turn to our slide 12, we see the '003 patent
`
`14
`
`claims it in a similar way, just as clearly. The location, as
`
`15
`
`claimed here, is it's connected via a LAN to the networking
`
`16
`
`device, and it performs similar functions, processing outgoing
`
`17
`
`voiceover IP data packets, and then processing signals from the
`
`18
`
`network into voiceover IP data packets.
`
`19
`
`Now, in our petition, Petitioner has described how the
`
`20
`
`voiceover IP gateway of Spadaro meets this claim, and I'm going
`
`21
`
`to put up our slide number 15. And our slide 15 shows this in
`
`22
`
`figure A from the Forys declaration, which in the petition we
`
`23
`
`described was the combination of Spadaro's figure 5, which
`
`24
`
`shows centralization, and Spadaro's figure 3, which is the
`
`25
`
`multi-site environment. And the call application management
`
` 8
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00493 (Patent 7,899,167 B1)
`IPR2014-00749 (Patent 8,577,003 B2)
`
`system, the voiceover IP gateway, we see here on the upper
`
`portion of the claim, right next to the three-way call detect
`
`component.
`
`Now, it's important to note that there's no dispute
`
`between the parties that the voiceover IP gateway of Spadaro
`
`performs the recited functions. It processes outgoing voiceover
`
`IP data packets, it transmits the outgoing call signals to the PSTN,
`
`it receives incoming call signals from the PSTN, and it processes
`
`those signals into incoming voiceover IP data packets. Patent
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`Owner's expert confirmed this at deposition, our expert agrees,
`
`11
`
`there's simply no dispute between the parties that the voiceover IP
`
`12
`
`gateway performs the same functions as the claimed call
`
`13
`
`application management system, and as we can see from this
`
`14
`
`figure, it's in the same location as in both the claims of the '167
`
`15
`
`and the '003 patent.
`
`16
`
`So, we would like to turn to slide 12 and we can see that
`
`17
`
`in order to avoid Spadaro, Patent Owner developed this multi-tier
`
`18
`
`convoluted claim construction, and if we see Patent Owner's
`
`19
`
`construction, if you look at it at first blush, it seems rather
`
`20
`
`innocuous, they're just saying, a call application management
`
`21
`
`system is a system performing call processing for a plurality of
`
`22
`
`prisons. But what Patent Owner then does, is it bootstraps a
`
`23
`
`construction of call processing into this construction to
`
`24
`
`improperly narrow. And we see their construction of call
`
`25
`
`processing in the box on the lower portion of the slide.
`
` 9
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00493 (Patent 7,899,167 B1)
`IPR2014-00749 (Patent 8,577,003 B2)
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`And let's look at it in further detail, and we can see what
`
`Patent Owner is doing. First, the Patent Owner says, it controls a
`
`call from origination, maintenance of the call to subsequent
`
`release of the call. So, why are they doing that? Well, Patent
`
`Owner believes that Spadaro retains some call control locally, so
`
`they put this in their construction to avoid Spadaro.
`
`Now, we see the second sentence, PO carves out, or
`
`Patent Owner carves out one single function, call authorization,
`
`and says, well, that function doesn't belong in call processing.
`
`10
`
`And why are they doing this? Because Spadaro centralizes call
`
`11
`
`authorization. So, in sum, if you look at Patent Owner's
`
`12
`
`construction, it's not based on its own patent, as required by claim
`
`13
`
`construction canons, instead, what it clearly is is the anti-Spadaro
`
`14
`
`construction of this term.
`
`15
`
`So, let's turn now to what their patent actually says
`
`16
`
`about call processing. And I would like to direct the judges'
`
`17
`
`attention to our slide 13. So, what we haven't seen the Patent
`
`18
`
`Owner produce in the record to date is an explicit construction or
`
`19
`
`definition from the '167 patent of the term "call processing," and
`
`20
`
`that's because it doesn't define the term. And we see here, in fact,
`
`21
`
`it uses it very broadly. And if you look at the abstract, what it
`
`22
`
`says is, "embodiments utilize voiceover IP protocols to carry calls
`
`23
`
`from a location at which calling services are provided to a
`
`24
`
`centralized call processing platform providing call processing
`
`25
`
`functionality," and now it's going to give you examples of what it
`
` 10
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00493 (Patent 7,899,167 B1)
`IPR2014-00749 (Patent 8,577,003 B2)
`
`considers call processing. Calling party identification, call
`
`validation, which is the function we just saw Patent Owner say
`
`don't include in-call processing, and its own patent says this is
`
`one example. Call routing, and connection to the PSTN. So,
`
`that's how broadly the '167 patent considers call processing.
`
`And let's not lose sight of the fact that the '167 patent
`
`says that each prison facility has a component that they call a call
`
`processing gateway. So, each prison facility has something that
`
`does call processing in its call processing gateway.
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`So, the bottom line here is that the Board does not even
`
`11
`
`need to construe the term "call processing," because it's not used
`
`12
`
`by itself in any of the claims at issue in this case. And as we've
`
`13
`
`already explained to the Board, the construction of "call
`
`14
`
`application management system" is clear, and in itself doesn't
`
`15
`
`require construction.
`
`16
`
`So, we would now like to turn to our networking device
`
`17
`
`argument. So, Patent Owner contends that server 48 of Spadaro
`
`18
`
`cannot be the claimed networking device, and Patent Owner's
`
`19
`
`position is based on a misunderstanding of the Spadaro reference.
`
`20
`
`And before we get into what Spadaro actually discloses, I would
`
`21
`
`like to direct the judges' attention to the language of the claims.
`
`22
`
`And I'm putting up our slide 19 right now.
`
`23
`
`So, slide 19 is claim 1 of the '167 patent, just the
`
`24
`
`networking device limitation. And again, Patent Owner chose to
`
`25
`
`claim this using functional language. So, it's a networking
`
` 11
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00493 (Patent 7,899,167 B1)
`IPR2014-00749 (Patent 8,577,003 B2)
`
`device, it's a component, performing the functions of collecting
`
`outgoing voiceover IP data packets from the plurality of prison
`
`facilities. So, it's collecting the packets, and it also is receiving
`
`incoming voiceover IP data packets and distributing them to the
`
`plurality of prison facilities. So, it performs the function of
`
`collecting and distributing.
`
`Turning to our slide 20, we see that the '003 patent uses
`
`similar language for networking device in its claim 1 and 8.
`
`Again, it's a component, in this case, receiving voiceover IP data
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`packets from prison facilities, and sending those incoming
`
`11
`
`voiceover IP data packets to the prison facilities.
`
`12
`
`JUDGE BENOIT: Counselor, is there a difference
`
`13
`
`between distributing and sending?
`
`14
`
`MS. GORDON: I think they're very similar. I think
`
`15
`
`distributing has more of a routing connotation, and sending is just
`
`16
`
`the action of sending, but I think sending you could consider a
`
`17
`
`part of distributing. But Spadaro, as we'll explain, does both.
`
`18
`
`So, if we direct Your Honors' attention to our slide 21.
`
`19
`
`And this slide shows Spadaro figure 3, and we've circled server
`
`20
`
`48, which is the claimed networking device. And Spadaro
`
`21
`
`explains that figure 3 is a multi-site voiceover IP environment.
`
`22
`
`And, so, Spadaro figure 3 has four different prison facilities that
`
`23
`
`we see here. And what Spadaro explains is that the voiceover IP
`
`24
`
`traffic from each of these facilities is reverted to server 48, which
`
`25
`
`collects the traffic.
`
` 12
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00493 (Patent 7,899,167 B1)
`IPR2014-00749 (Patent 8,577,003 B2)
`
`
`So, it collects the voiceover IP data traffic, and it hands
`
`it off to the PSTN. So, it's like a centralized point that everybody
`
`can send their traffic to, and it knows how to communicate with
`
`the PSTN so that the sites don't have to figure out how to
`
`communicate with the PSTN. And similarly, the server receives
`
`the calls from the PSTN. And what does it do? Well, it has to
`
`look at the destination for those calls, because it doesn't know
`
`where to send it. It has four prison sites, and it needs to know
`
`how to distribute.
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`So, what's that server do? It has to look at the
`
`11
`
`destination and determine what facility to route the calls. That's
`
`12
`
`what server 48 does. It distributes the packets that it receives
`
`13
`
`from the PSTN. And this is not on our slide, but it's figure 5 of
`
`14
`
`Spadaro, which is actually reproduced on a number of our slides
`
`15
`
`later on, but figure 5 of Spadaro depicts an embodiment in which
`
`16
`
`Spadaro is centralizing call functionality at a location remote
`
`17
`
`from the prison facility. And when you implement this
`
`18
`
`centralization of figure 5 of Spadaro, in the multi-site
`
`19
`
`embodiment of figure 3, you have server 48 playing its role,
`
`20
`
`because it has to play that role when you have multiple sites. It
`
`21
`
`plays the role of collecting that traffic and then distributing it to
`
`22
`
`the multiple prison facilities. That's what server 48 does. It's
`
`23
`
`needed in any multi-site environment, including the centralized
`
`24
`
`embodiment of figure 5.
`
` 13
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00493 (Patent 7,899,167 B1)
`IPR2014-00749 (Patent 8,577,003 B2)
`
`
`And turning to our slide 22, this is exactly what our
`
`expert, Dr. Forys recognized, when he presented figure A, which
`
`was applying the multi-site environment in the centralized
`
`environment of Spadaro.
`
`So, in summary, server 48 collects outgoing voiceover
`
`IP data packets from the prisons, it distributes incoming
`
`voiceover IP data packets to the proper facility, and similarly it's
`
`receiving voiceover IP data packets and sending them to the
`
`prison.
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`JUDGE BENOIT: Ms. Gordon, would you put figure 5
`
`11
`
`back up of Spadaro?
`
`12
`
`13
`
`MS. GORDON: Yes. Okay.
`
`JUDGE BENOIT: And as I understand your figure A,
`
`14
`
`server 48 is on the side of the WAN that's closest to the
`
`15
`
`centralized functions?
`
`16
`
`17
`
`MS. GORDON: Correct.
`
`JUDGE BENOIT: Why is it not on the other side of the
`
`18
`
`WAN right before where the telephones are in the far side and is
`
`19
`
`that not where the distribution is going to the prisons?
`
`20
`
`MS. GORDON: Yes, so let me put up our figure A and
`
`21
`
`I think it will help resolve this issue. So, we have to remember
`
`22
`
`we're dealing with a multi-site prison environment, and this figure
`
`23
`
`3 is actually a simplification where it looks like those sites are
`
`24
`
`kind of right next to each other, right? But in reality, they could
`
`25
`
`be distributed all across the country, right? So, you could have a
`
` 14
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00493 (Patent 7,899,167 B1)
`IPR2014-00749 (Patent 8,577,003 B2)
`
`site in New Jersey, you could have a site in Colorado, a site in
`
`Seattle, right?
`
`So, you wouldn't put your single server at each of those
`
`sites. Where would you put it? You would put it where all the
`
`action was happening. And where is all the action happening?
`
`It's happening where all their centralized functions are. So, that
`
`server needs to be where the centralized functions are because it's
`
`going to be interacting with those functions, because when it
`
`receives those voiceover IP packets, it's going to be, you know,
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`calling the routing function. It's going to be invoking the billing
`
`11
`
`function. It's going to be telling voiceover IP gateway, translate
`
`12
`
`this. It's going to say, do three-way calling. So, that server needs
`
`13
`
`to be where all those centralized functions are, because it interacts
`
`14
`
`with those functions. And, in fact, it probably -- they're probably
`
`15
`
`all part of the same platform when you would implement it.
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`Thank you.
`
`JUDGE BENOIT: Thank you.
`
`MS. GORDON: So, we would like to turn to our next
`
`19
`
`argument, which addresses the various centralization and
`
`20
`
`co-location arguments. Now, in its papers, Patent Owner
`
`21
`
`presented a number of arguments about Spadaro and Hodge not
`
`22
`
`centralizing in co-location coding functions, and we summarized
`
`23
`
`those arguments on our slides 24 through 26. And we're going to
`
`24
`
`explain now to the Board why the Patent Owner's positions are
`
` 15
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00493 (Patent 7,899,167 B1)
`IPR2014-00749 (Patent 8,577,003 B2)
`
`incorrect. And to do that, we only need to look at what Spadaro
`
`tells us.
`
`And we're putting up our slide 27. And Spadaro in
`
`column 4 explains that certain functions are distributed to a
`
`remote location, and what he means by that is they're taken from
`
`the prison facility and they're placed at a remote location. And he
`
`explains very clearly why he's doing that. So they can be
`
`centralized, and performed at a central administration location. In
`
`other words, he's taking advantage of the cost and the ease of
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`administration that we've already talked about that carriers for
`
`11
`
`decades have been doing.
`
`12
`
`And Spadaro then explains the functions that are
`
`13
`
`examples of what he would centralize. He says, billing is a
`
`14
`
`function that it would centralize. PIN checking or validation is a
`
`15
`
`function I would centralize. Three-way calling detection, that's
`
`16
`
`something I would centralize. Call recording, he provides a list
`
`17
`
`of function after function that he would move from the prison and
`
`18
`
`put at the centralized location.
`
`19
`
`Now, turning to our slide 28 again, we see the
`
`20
`
`centralized embodiment of figure 5, which Spadaro depicts this
`
`21
`
`movement and centralization of these functions. And because
`
`22
`
`they're remote from the facilities, these centralized functions are
`
`23
`
`connected to the local prison over a wide area network. So, the
`
`24
`
`centralized functions are separated from the prison facilities over
`
`25
`
`a WAN. But as we know from Spadaro in the section we already
`
` 16
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00493 (Patent 7,899,167 B1)
`IPR2014-00749 (Patent 8,577,003 B2)
`
`looked at, these functions are in the same location and they're
`
`centralized. So, they're in the same location, so they're all
`
`together, but they're separated over this wide area network from
`
`the local prison facility.
`
`And what we also see in figure 5 is we have the
`
`voiceover IP gateway, and it's with the three-way call detection
`
`function, and why is that? Because, again, these are two systems
`
`in the telephone network that are working in concert. And we
`
`know from Spadaro that three-way call detection is centralized
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`with the other functions, so we have the centralization of all these
`
`11
`
`functions with the voiceover IP gateway. That's what Spadaro
`
`12
`
`describes to a person of ordinary skill in the art.
`
`13
`
`JUDGE BENOIT: Ms. Gordon, doesn't the WAN 18
`
`14
`
`undercut the argument that they're in the same location?
`
`15
`
`MS. GORDON: No, Your Honor, it doesn't. I think
`
`16
`
`Patent Owner had raised that argument, and I think it's based on a
`
`17
`
`misunderstanding of networking capabilities. So, Spadaro makes
`
`18
`
`it very clear that these functions are centralized. So, they're
`
`19
`
`together. So, they could be all connected to that WAN. So,
`
`20
`
`they're all connected to the WAN, but they could still be in the
`
`21
`
`same location.
`
`22
`
`So, if you think about if I had my computer, I could be
`
`23
`
`connected to the Internet and you could be connected to the
`
`24
`
`Internet. So, we're both connected to the WAN, and we're remote
`
`25
`
`from Judges Turner and Braden, but we're all connected to the
`
` 17
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00493 (Patent 7,899,167 B1)
`IPR2014-00749 (Patent 8,577,003 B2)
`
`WAN, and you and I are still co-located, but we're separated from
`
`them by a geographic distance. If that kind of makes sense.
`
`So, the -- I guess that it's depicted like this creates the
`
`impression that there's some geographic separation, but in
`
`networking, that's just not the case. Co-located elements can be
`
`in the same location and separated by a WAN from a remote
`
`location.
`
`JUDGE BENOIT: I understand your position, thank
`
`you.
`
`MS. GORDON: Okay, thank you.
`
`So, Patent Owner, I guess along the same lines, Patent
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`Owner argued that Spadaro's functions, these centralized
`
`13
`
`functions wouldn't be connected to the same LAN, and that's
`
`14
`
`along the same lines of what we just discussed. And, in fact, you
`
`15
`
`know, they're misunderstanding networking technology. As our
`
`16
`
`expert explained, when you have centralized co-located functions
`
`17
`
`that need to be communicate with each other, a person of skill in
`
`18
`
`the art would understand that you want to put them on the same
`
`19
`
`LAN. That's an obvious design choice, and, in fact, it's just a
`
`20
`
`matter of common sense.
`
`21
`
`Now, Patent Owner also argues that the commissary
`
`22
`
`function of Hodge would not be centralized with the function of
`
`23
`
`Spadaro. And again, as our expert highlighted, Hodge clearly
`
`24
`
`says this is something that he would centralize. And if you're
`
`25
`
`going to centralize it, you would naturally put it with all the other
`
` 18
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00493 (Patent 7,899,167 B1)
`IPR2014-00749 (Patent 8,577,003 B2)
`
`functions that you're centralizing. And, in fact, the commerce
`
`function and investigation function, they all rely on data that's
`
`being gathered by the systems of Spadaro. So, again, it only
`
`makes common sense to put them at the same location.
`
`And Patent Owner also argued, and we see on our slide
`
`31, that the system of Hodge and Spadaro combined wouldn't
`
`have a centralized IVR. And as we see here, Hodge discloses an
`
`IVR system, and Patent Owner during prosecution admitted that
`
`an IVR could be anywhere in the network. So, and why did they
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`do this? Well, the examiner took official notice that IVRs were
`
`11
`
`known and could be located anywhere in the network. They
`
`12
`
`didn't dispute that during prosecution, so that became admitted
`
`13
`
`prior art. And the Patent Owner cannot now dispute that fact in
`
`14
`
`another proceeding in front of the Board where they represented
`
`15
`
`to the public that this was something so well-known that the
`
`16
`
`office could take official notice of it.
`
`17
`
`I would like to turn next to our three-way call detection
`
`18
`
`argument. So, we saw that Spadaro discloses centralized
`
`19
`
`three-way call detection, but now Patent Owner in their papers
`
`20
`
`are saying this is not the right kind of three-way call detection.
`
`21
`
`So, if we can turn to our slide 34, what we're going to explain to
`
`22
`
`the Board is that Spadaro discloses exactly the same kind of
`
`23
`
`three-way call detection as the '167 patent.
`
`24
`
`So, here we have on slide 34, Spadaro explaining
`
`25
`
`three-way call detection is performed at 30a, which is their
`
` 19
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00493 (Patent 7,899,167 B1)
`IPR2014-00749 (Patent 8,577,003 B2)
`
`three-way call detection function, after the signals have been
`
`decompressed and depacketized. In other words, Spadaro is
`
`performing three-way call detection in the analog domain. And
`
`this is exactly how the '167 patent does it. Now, the '167 patent
`
`provides very, very little detail about three-way call detection. In
`
`fact, all it says is it may employ silence detection, which is
`
`commonly known to be an analog type of three-way call
`
`detection. It then points the reader to two of its co-pending
`
`applications for more detail about three-way call detection.
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`So, we looked at these applications, and there is a
`
`11
`
`gentleman named Mr. McNitt, and on our slide 35, we show that
`
`12
`
`at deposition, I asked their expert about Mr. McNitt's three-way
`
`13
`
`call detection. I said, so, Mr. McNitt operates on analog call
`
`14
`
`signals, correct? He confirmed, correct. And I said, and McNitt
`
`15
`
`doesn't describe anywhere operating on voiceover IP packets,
`
`16
`
`correct? He said, I don't see any mention of voiceover IP packets
`
`17
`
`in McNitt. In other words, their expert confirmed, the '167
`
`18
`
`three-way call detection operates in exactly the same way as ours.
`
`19
`
`Now, turning to the PIN validation function. Now,
`
`20
`
`Spadaro, as we saw, discloses a PIN check or PIN validation
`
`21
`
`function. And I'm turning to our slide number 37. And in this
`
`22
`
`portion of Spadaro, he explains exactly how his PIN check
`
`23
`
`function works. He explains that it's in the context of a local
`
`24
`
`prison facility. He says, when an inmate picks up the phone to
`
`25
`
`make a call, he enters a PIN number during that call. And that
`
` 20
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00493 (Patent 7,899,167 B1)
`IPR2014-00749 (Patent 8,577,003 B2)
`
`PIN number can be associated with restrictions, it makes sense,
`
`you don't want a prisoner being able to call anyone, right? So,
`
`you know, in this case, the inmate maybe can call his lawyer on
`
`Monday, or his mother on Tuesday, but they're not going to allow
`
`calls to any other numbers from that inmate.
`
`So, Spadaro is very clear that his PIN check function
`
`involves checking the PIN, sorting restrictions, and allowing or
`
`disallowing the call. That's what his function is. And we've seen,
`
`turning to our slide number 38, that that PIN check function, the
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`whole function, is centralized at Spadaro's central administration
`
`11
`
`system.
`
`12
`
`But let's take a step back and think about how PIN
`
`13
`
`checking happens when you have a distributed system where your
`
`14
`
`PIN check function is remote. So, again, we have our inmate
`
`15
`
`picking up the phone, and at the moment he picks up that phone
`
`16
`
`and starts communication, he's connected in a
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
Still Working On It
This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.
Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.
A few More Minutes ... Still Working
It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.
Thank you for your continued patience.
This document could not be displayed.
We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
Set your membership
status to view this document.
With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll
get a whole lot more, including:
- Up-to-date information for this case.
- Email alerts whenever there is an update.
- Full text search for other cases.
- Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.
One Moment Please
The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.
Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.
Your document is on its way!
If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.
Sealed Document
We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.
If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.
Access Government Site
