throbber
Trials@uspto.gov
`571.272.7822
`
`
`
`
`
`Paper No. 56
` Entered: December 27, 2017
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`_____________
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`_____________
`CISCO SYSTEMS, INC.,
`Petitioner,
`v.
`FOCAL IP, LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`_____________
`
`Cases IPR2016-01254 and IPR2016-01257
`Patent 8,457,113 B2
`_____________
`
`
`Before SALLY C. MEDLEY, JONI Y. CHANG, and
`BARBARA A. PARVIS, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`PARVIS, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`FINAL WRITTEN DECISION
`35 U.S.C. § 318(a) and 37 C.F.R. § 42.73
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`Background
`A.
`In IPR2016-01254, Cisco Systems, Inc. (“Petitioner”) filed a Petition
`(IPR2016-01254, Paper 2, “’1254 Pet.”) requesting that we institute inter
`partes review of claims 38 and 65 of U.S. Patent No. 8,457,113 B2
`
`

`

`IPR2016-01254 and IPR2016-01257
`Patent 8,457,113 B2
`
`(Ex. 1001, “the ’113 Patent”).1 In IPR2016-01257, Petitioner filed a second
`Petition (IPR2016-01257, Paper 2 (“’1257 Pet.”)) requesting that we
`institute inter partes review of claims 143–147, 149, 150, 163, and 176–1782
`of the ’113 Patent. In support of its Petitions, Petitioner proffers a
`Declaration of Mr. Dean Willis, who has been retained as an expert witness
`for the instant proceeding. Ex. 1002 ¶ 3; Ex. 1102 ¶ 3. In each proceeding,
`Focal IP, LLC (“Patent Owner”) filed a Preliminary Response (IPR2016-
`01254, Paper 8 (“’1254 Prelim. Resp.”); IPR2016-01257, Paper 8 (“’1257
`Prelim. Resp.”)) and a Declaration of Mr. Regis J. Bates, who has been
`retained as an expert witness for the instant proceeding. IPR2016-01254,
`Ex. 2001 ¶¶ 1, 2 (“’1254 Ex. 2001”); IPR2016-01257, Ex. 2001 ¶¶ 1, 2
`(“’1257 Ex. 2001”). Upon consideration of the parties’ contentions and
`supporting evidence, we instituted an inter partes review pursuant to 35
`U.S.C. § 314, as to the challenged claims of the ’113 Patent. IPR2016-
`01254, Paper 15 (“’1254 Dec. on Inst.”); IPR2016-01257, Paper 15 (“’1257
`Dec. on Inst.”).
`
`
`1 The ’113 Patent was submitted as Exhibit 1101 in IPR2016-01257. We
`use either exhibit number, i.e., 1001 or 1101, to refer to the ’113 Patent
`throughout. Petitioner uses different ranges of exhibit numbers so that each
`exhibit filed in the two proceedings has a unique exhibit number. More
`specifically, in IPR2016-01254, Petitioner’s exhibits are numbered 1001
`through 1060 and in IPR2016-01257, Petitioner’s exhibits are numbered
`1101 through 1163. For ease of reference, therefore, we use only the exhibit
`number and not the proceeding number to refer to Petitioner’s exhibits in
`these proceedings.
`2 Claims 38, 65, 143–147, 149, 150, 163, and 176–178 are referred to herein
`as the challenged claims.
`
`
`
`2
`
`

`

`IPR2016-01254 and IPR2016-01257
`Patent 8,457,113 B2
`
`
`After institution, in each of IPR2016-01254 and IPR2016-01257,
`Patent Owner filed a Patent Owner Response (IPR2016-01254, Paper 25
`(“’1254 PO Resp.”); IPR2016-01257, Paper 25 (“’1257 PO Resp.”) and an
`additional Declaration of Mr. Regis Bates in support of its Patent Owner
`Response (’1254 Ex. 2022; ’1257 Ex. 2022). In only IPR2016-01257,
`Patent Owner filed a Motion to Amend (Paper 26, “Mot. to Amend”) and
`additional Declarations of Mr. Regis Bates. ’1257 Ex. 2040 (supporting
`Motion to Amend); ’1257 Ex. 2070 (supporting Reply to Opposition to
`Motion to Amend).3 In each of IPR2016-01254 and IPR2016-01257,
`Petitioner filed a Reply. IPR2016-01254, Paper 34 (“’1254 Pet. Reply”);
`IPR2016-01257, Paper 35 (“’1257 Pet. Reply”).4 In IPR2016-01257,
`Petitioner filed an Opposition to Patent Owner’s Motion to Amend
`(IPR2016-01257, Paper 30 (“Oppn. MTA”) and a Declaration of Dr.
`Thomas F. La Porta (Ex. 1157) and Patent Owner filed a Reply to
`Petitioner’s Opposition to the Motion to Amend (IPR2016-01257, Paper 39,
`“PO MTA Reply”).5 In each of IPR2016-01254 and IPR2016-01257, each
`
`
`3 Patent Owner also submits declaration and deposition testimony from other
`proceedings, including that of declarants of other Petitioners from other inter
`partes review proceedings. See, e.g., ’1257 Exs. 2026–2030. Patent Owner,
`however, must include a detailed explanation of the significance of the
`evidence including, for example, why it should be considered in the instant
`proceeding. 37 C.F.R. §§ 42.22, 42.23, 42.120. To the extent appropriate,
`we address Patent Owner’s contentions herein.
`4 With authorization, Petitioner filed revised Replies in IPR2016-01254 and
`IPR2016-01257, which we refer to herein unless otherwise noted.
`5 Subsequent to the oral hearing, Petitioner was authorized to file a
`supplemental brief in light of the Federal Circuit’s en banc decision in Aqua
`Prods., Inc. v. Matal, 872 F.3d 1290 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (“Aqua Products”).
`
`
`
`3
`
`

`

`IPR2016-01254 and IPR2016-01257
`Patent 8,457,113 B2
`
`of Petitioner and Patent Owner filed a Motion to Exclude. IPR2016-01254,
`Paper 41 (“’1254 PO Mot. to Exclude”), Paper 43 (“’1254 Pet. Mot. to
`Exclude”); IPR2016-01257, Paper 44 (“’1257 PO Mot. to Exclude”), Paper
`46 (“’1257 Pet. Mot. to Exclude”). A transcript of the hearing held on
`September 19, 2017 has been entered into the record of each proceeding.
`See, e.g., IPR2016-01254, Paper 55 (“Tr.”).6
`This Final Written Decision is entered pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 318(a).
`Because the subject matter of the claims and the challenges significantly
`overlap, we enter this one Final Written Decision in both proceedings. For
`the reasons that follow, we determine that Petitioner has demonstrated by a
`preponderance of evidence that the challenged claims of the ’113 Patent are
`unpatentable. Additionally, in IPR2016-01257, we deny Patent Owner’s
`Motion to Amend.
`
`Related Proceedings
`B.
`The parties state that the ’113 Patent is the subject of pending lawsuits
`in the Middle District of Florida, and these lawsuits include assertions
`against Bright House Networks, LLC, WideOpenWest Finance, LLC, YMax
`Corporation, Birch Communications, Inc., and T3 Communications, Inc.
`See, e.g., ’1257 Pet. 2; IPR2016-01257, Paper 4 (’1257 Patent Owner’s
`Mandatory Notices), 2–3; IPR2016-01257, Paper 6 (’1257 Petitioner’s
`Updated Notice), 1. Additional petitions have been filed challenging claims
`of the ’113 Patent (i.e., IPR2016-01260 and IPR2016-01261), and two
`
`
`IPR2016-01257, Paper 57. Petitioner filed the supplemental brief on
`October 31, 2017. IPR2016-01257, Paper 59.
`6 The oral hearings were consolidated in Cases IPR2016-01254 and
`IPR2016-01257. IPR2016-01254, Paper 46.
`
`
`
`4
`
`

`

`IPR2016-01254 and IPR2016-01257
`Patent 8,457,113 B2
`
`related patents: (1) U.S. Patent No. 7,764,777 B2 (“the ’777 Patent”), which
`issued from the parent of the ’113 Patent Application; and (2) U.S. Patent
`No. 8,155,298 B2 (“the ’298 Patent”), which issued from a continuation of a
`parent of the ’777 Patent Application.
`
`Instituted Grounds of Unpatentability
`C.
`We instituted on the following grounds of unpatentability (’1254 Dec.
`on Inst. 29; ’1257 Dec. on Inst. 28):
`
`Challenged Claims
`
`Basis
`
`Reference(s)
`
`38, 65, 143–147, 149,
`150, 163, and 176–178
`
`38, 65, 143–147, 149,
`150, 163, and 176–178
`38, 65, 143–147, 149,
`150, 163, and 176–178
`
`38 and 65
`
`
`
`§ 103 U.S. Patent No. 6,353,660 B1
`(“Burger,” Ex. 1103) and the
`knowledge of a person of ordinary
`skill in the art7
`§ 103 Burger and U.S. Patent No. 6,798,767
`B1 (“Alexander,” Ex. 1106)8
`§ 103 U.S. Patent No. 6,683,870 B1
`(“Archer,” Ex. 1104) and the
`knowledge of a person of ordinary
`skill in the art
`§ 103 Archer and Chang
`
`The ’113 Patent
`D.
`The ’113 Patent relates to telephone services. Ex. 1001, 1:23. In the
`background section, the ’113 Patent explains that the Public Switched
`
`
`7 In IPR2016-01257, with respect to claims 143–147, 149, 150, 163, and
`176–178, for grounds involving Burger, we specify that the knowledge of a
`person of ordinary skill in the art includes a reference, filed as Exhibit 1114.
`8 In IPR2016-01254, for claims 38 and 65, we further specify that this
`asserted ground includes Admitted Prior Art (Ex. 1001, 1:42–51).
`
`
`
`5
`
`

`

`IPR2016-01254 and IPR2016-01257
`Patent 8,457,113 B2
`
`Telephone Network (PSTN) consists of a plurality of edge switches
`connected to telephones on one side and to a network of tandem switches on
`the other. Id. at 1:45−47. The tandem switch network allows connectivity
`between all of the edge switches, and a signaling system is used by the
`PSTN to allow calling and to transmit both calling and called party identity.
`Id. at 1:48−51.
`According to the ’113 Patent, at the time of the invention, there were
`web-based companies managing third-party call control, via the toll-switch
`network, which allow users to enter call control information through a web
`portal. Id. at 1:34−36. Edge devices such as phones and PBXs that include
`voice mail, inter-active voice response, call forwarding, speed calling, etc.,
`have been used to provide additional call control. Id. at 2:41−44.
`The ’113 Patent discloses a system for allowing a subscriber to select
`telephone service features. Id. at 1:23–26. Figure 1 of the ’113 Patent is
`reproduced below (with annotations).
`
`
`
`6
`
`

`

`IPR2016-01254 and IPR2016-01257
`Patent 8,457,113 B2
`
`
`
`
`Figure 1 illustrates a tandem access controller connected to an
`existing PSTN tandem switch.
`Annotated Figure 1 illustrates tandem access controller 10 connected
`to conventional Public Switched Telephone Network (PSTN) tandem switch
`16. Id. at 4:43, 44. According to the ’113 Patent, “[d]etails of the operation
`of the existing phone network,” including directing of phone calls by
`“existing” PSTN tandem switch 16 to central offices 17, 18 are further
`described in a publication incorporated by reference, as well as “numerous
`books describing the PSTN.” Id. at 4:43–54.
`The call flow in the network illustrated in Figure 1 with tandem access
`controller 10 remains the same as that in a conventional network, “except
`that additional third-party features are applied to the call.” Id. at 4:43–47.
`More specifically, in the network illustrated in Figure 1, a call from calling
`
`
`
`7
`
`

`

`IPR2016-01254 and IPR2016-01257
`Patent 8,457,113 B2
`
`party 20 to subscriber’s phone 14 is directed to tandem access controller 10,
`which places a second call, subject to third-party control information, to
`subscriber 12. Id. at 4:55–58. The second call is placed “to the subscriber’s
`‘private’ phone number,” without terminating the first call. Id. at 4:58–60.
`When subscriber 12 answers the call, tandem access controller 10 connects
`the first call to the second call so as to connect calling party 20 to subscriber
`12. Id. at 4:62–65.
`Figure 1 also shows web server 23 within World Wide Web 22, which
`is connected to tandem access controller 10. Id. at Fig. 1. Subscriber 12
`specifies third-party call control features via web server 23 and these
`features are then relayed via World Wide Web 22 to tandem access
`controller 10. Id. at 5:17–25.
`
`Illustrative Claims
`E.
`Claims 38, 65, 143, and 163 are the independent claims challenged in
`these proceedings. Claims 144–47, 149, 150, and 176–78 depend directly
`from one of claims 143 or 163. Independent claims 38 and 143 are
`illustrative of the claimed subject matter and are reproduced below:
`38. A method performed by a web enabled processing system
`including one or more web servers coupled to a call processing
`system serving as an intelligent interconnection between at least
`one circuit-switched network and a packet network in a
`telecommunications network, the circuit-switched network
`comprising edge switches for routing calls from and to
`subscribers within a local geographic area and switching
`facilities for routing calls to other edge switches or other
`switching facilities local or in other geographic areas, the method
`for enabling voice communication from a calling party to a called
`party across both the circuit-switched network and a packet
`network, the method comprising the steps of:
`
`
`
`8
`
`

`

`IPR2016-01254 and IPR2016-01257
`Patent 8,457,113 B2
`
`
`receiving call data which is associated with a call originated by
`the calling party via the circuit-switched network, at the
`call processing system,
`the calling party using a
`communications device to originate the call for the
`purpose of initiating voice communication, the call
`processing system coupled to at least one switching
`facility of the circuit-switched network, the call processing
`system processing the call across the circuit-switched
`network and the packet network to complete the call to the
`called party; and
`establishing the voice communication between the calling party
`and the called party after the call is completed, across both
`the circuit-switched network and the packet network.
`Ex. 1001, 15:30–56.
`143. A method of providing an intelligent interconnection
`between a first communication network and a second
`communication network, comprising:
`receiving at a controller call data which is associated with a first
`call via a first communication network;
`accessing control criteria by the controller based upon the call
`data;
`initiating a second call via a second communication network by
`the controller using the call data and the control criteria,
`wherein at least one of the first and the second
`communication networks is a voice over IP (VOIP)
`network; and
`enabling communication between the first call and the second
`call by the controller.
`Ex. 1101, 22:50–63.
`
`Patent Owner’s Request to Repanel the Case
`F.
`In only IPR2016-01257, Patent Owner “requests assignment of a new
`panel to preside over this trial and to render the Board’s final decision in this
`case” because the “IPR statutes . . . establish a ‘bifurcated’ IPR process.”
`
`
`
`9
`
`

`

`IPR2016-01254 and IPR2016-01257
`Patent 8,457,113 B2
`
`PO Resp. 14−15, n.2. Paneling of cases rests with the Chief Judge on behalf
`of the Director. See, e.g., AOL Inc. v. Coho Licensing LLC, Case IPR2014-
`00771, slip. op. at 2 (PTAB Mar. 24, 2015)(Paper 12)(informative); see also
`PTAB SOP 1, rev. 14 (May 8, 2015) at 2. Patent Owner’s suggestion was
`considered by the Chief Administrative Patent Judge, who declined to assign
`a new panel for this case.
`
`CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
`II.
`Legal Standard
`A.
`In an inter partes review, we construe claim terms in an unexpired
`patent according to their broadest reasonable construction in light of the
`specification of the patent in which they appear. 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b).
`Under this standard, claim terms are presumed to have their ordinary and
`customary meaning, as understood by a person of ordinary skill in the art in
`the context of the entire disclosure. See In re Translogic Tech., Inc.,
`504 F.3d 1249, 1257 (Fed. Cir. 2007).
`
`B. Decisions on Institution
`In the Decisions on Institution, we made determinations regarding the
`broadest reasonable interpretations of “call data,” “switching facility,” “call
`processing system,” “control criteria,” and “controller.” ’1254 Dec. on Inst.
`7–14; ’1257 Dec. on Inst. 7–12. These determinations are summarized in
`the table below.
`Claim Term
`
`Broadest Reasonable Interpretation Determination in
`Decision on Institution
`“Petitioner contends that ‘the plain and ordinary meaning
`of ‘call data’ at least includes telephone numbers, IPR
`addresses and/or call requests.’” “[W]e determine that
`the broadest reasonable interpretation, in light of the
`’113 Patent Specification, of the term ‘call data’
`
`“call data”
`
`
`
`10
`
`

`

`IPR2016-01254 and IPR2016-01257
`Patent 8,457,113 B2
`
`
`encompasses the examples set forth by Petitioner.” See,
`e.g., ’1254 Dec. on Inst. 7 (citing ’1254 Pet. 15).
`“[W]e determine that the broadest reasonable
`interpretation of the term is any switch in the circuit-
`switched network.” ’1254 Dec. on Inst. 10.
`“[W]e determine that the broadest reasonable
`interpretation of the term ‘call processing system’ is any
`call processing system in the communications network.”
`Id. at 14.
`“Petitioner also contends that ‘the plain and ordinary
`meaning of “control criteria” at least includes selection
`of a telephone number or feature.’” “[W]e determine
`that the broadest reasonable interpretation, in light of the
`’113 Patent Specification, of . . . ‘control criteria’
`encompasses the examples set forth by Petitioner.”
`’1257 Dec. on Inst. 7 (citing ’1257 Pet. 15).
`“[W]e determine that the broadest reasonable
`interpretation of the term ‘controller’ is any controller in
`the communications network.” ’1257 Dec. on Inst. 12.
`
`“switching
`facility”
`
`“call
`processing
`system”
`
`“control
`criteria”
`
`“controller”
`
`
`
`The Parties’ Contentions
`C.
`Patent Owner provides contentions regarding the broadest reasonable
`interpretation of “switching facility,” “call processing system,” and
`“controller.” ’1254 PO Resp. 10–34; ’1257 PO Resp. 10–38. We address
`the parties’ disputes regarding these terms below.
`Patent Owner does not dispute our determinations regarding “call
`data” or “control criteria” in the Decisions to Institute. Id. We, therefore,
`make no further determinations regarding these terms for these proceedings.
`Only terms which are in controversy need to be construed, and only to the
`extent necessary to resolve the controversy. Wellman, Inc. v. Eastman
`Chem. Co., 642 F.3d 1355, 1361 (Fed. Cir. 2011); Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am.
`Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999).
`
`
`
`11
`
`

`

`IPR2016-01254 and IPR2016-01257
`Patent 8,457,113 B2
`
`
`“switching facility”
`D.
`Each of challenged independent claims 38 and 65 recites “switching
`facility.” No other challenged claim recites “switching facility,” and none of
`the challenged claims in these proceedings recites “tandem switch.” Apart
`from the claims, the term “switching facility” does not appear in the
`Specification. The term was introduced into the claims by amendment
`during prosecution of the ’777 Patent Application. Ex. 1008, 67−79.
`At institution, we adopted Petitioner’s proposed construction for
`“switching facility,” as it is consistent with the intrinsic evidence and the
`term’s plain and ordinary meaning, construing “switching facility” as “any
`switch in the circuit-switched network.” ’1254 Dec. on Inst. 10; ’1254 Pet.
`16–17; Ex. 1008, 87, 87 n.1 (Applicants defined a “switching facility” as
`“[a]ny point in the switching fabric of converging networks”);
`TELECOMMUNICATIONS: GLOSSARY OF TELECOMMUNICATION TERMS, THE
`FEDERAL STANDARD 1012C, S-35 (1996) (’1254 Ex. 3001, 391) (defining
`“switching center” and “switching facility” as synonyms that mean “a
`facility in which switches are used to interconnect communications circuits
`on a circuit-, message-, or packet-switching basis”); THE NEWTON’S
`TELECOM DICTIONARY, (15th ed. 1999) (’1254 Ex. 3002) (defining
`“switching centers” to refer to all five classes of switches in the PSTN)).
`We rejected Patent Owner’s proposed construction because it would
`improperly import limitations into the claim. ’1254 Dec. on Inst. 7−10.
`In its Response, Patent Owner maintains that “switching facility” is
`not an edge switch or edge device. ’1254 PO Resp. 1−34. Patent Owner
`argues that the claim expressly distinguishes that a “switching facility” is not
`an “edge switch,” and that construing “switching facility” to include “edge
`
`
`
`12
`
`

`

`IPR2016-01254 and IPR2016-01257
`Patent 8,457,113 B2
`
`switch” would render the claim terms superfluous. Id. at 29−34. In Patent
`Owner’s view, Applicants of the ’113 Patent “unequivocally disclaimed
`controllers that applied call control features through an edge switch, or
`controllers that were themselves an edge device, from the scope of their
`inventions.” Id. at 1−34. We disagree and address below each of Patent
`Owner’s arguments in turn.
`First, based on the evidence before us, we decline to adopt Patent
`Owner’s proposed claim construction, as it would import limitations—
`“connecting the Tandem Access Controller (‘TAC’) to a PSTN tandem
`switch, rather than edge switches and edge devices”—from a preferred
`embodiment into the claim. Id. at 1–2, 9−10, 14−20; Ex. 1001, 2:1–3, 3:29–
`30, 3:66–4:3. Significantly, neither “Tandem Access Controller” nor
`“tandem switch” appears in any of the challenged claims. In fact, Patent
`Owner admits that Applicants used “switching facility” in the claim instead
`of “tandem switch” to indicate that “switching facility” has broader scope
`than “tandem switch.” ’1254 Prelim. Resp. 36–37; ’1254 PO Resp. 33–34.
`A person of ordinary skill in the art would have understood that these
`two terms have different meanings. In the context of telecommunication and
`network communication, the plain and ordinary meanings of these terms are
`clear—“tandem switch” refers to class 4 switches in the PSTN (’1254 Ex.
`2022 ¶ 36), whereas “switching facility” refers to all five classes of switches
`in the PSTN (Ex. 3002) or “a facility in which switches are used to
`interconnect communications circuits on a circuit-, message-, or
`packet-switching basis” (Ex. 3001, 391).9 This is consistent with
`
`
`9 A “hybrid” switch has combined class 4 and class 5 switching features.
`Ex. 1037, 113, Fig. 4-5; Ex. 2002, 159 (cited in ’1254 Ex. 2022 ¶ 38). As
`
`
`
`13
`
`

`

`IPR2016-01254 and IPR2016-01257
`Patent 8,457,113 B2
`
`Applicants’ definition of “switching facility”—“[a]ny point in the switching
`fabric of converging networks”—that was submitted with the Amendment
`that introduced the term. Ex. 2005, 82, 82 n.1. Moreover, “the general
`assumption is that different terms have different meanings.” Symantec
`Corp. v. Comput. Assocs. Int’l, Inc., 522 F.3d 1279, 1289 (Fed. Cir. 2008).
`Importantly, even if we were to interpret “switching facility” as a
`“tandem switch,” it would not affect our analysis below because the
`language of claims 38 and 65 does not require a direct connection between
`the processing system and the switching facility. Indeed, claim 38 recites
`“the call processing system coupled to at least one switching facility.”
`Ex. 1001, 15:47–49 (emphases added).10
`In the instant proceedings, Patent Owner does not present contentions
`regarding the broadest reasonable interpretation of the term “coupled to.”
`’1254 PO Resp. 1–34; ’1257 PO Resp. 1–38.11 It is settled that “coupled to”
`generally means that direct connection is not required. See, e.g., Bradford
`
`
`noted in our claim construction discussion in our Decision on Institution, a
`reference relied upon by Patent Owner (Prelim. Resp. 5 (Ex. 2003, 474))
`indicates “[i]n a contemporary PSTN, a tandem switch commonly is a
`hybrid Class 4/5, functioning as both a tandem and a CO (Class 5)” (Ex.
`2003, 474–75). This reference is extrinsic evidence offered by Patent
`Owner. Nonetheless, this evidence is not necessary for us to arrive at our
`determinations herein, but adds contextual background that further supports
`our analyses.
`10 Similarly, claim 65 recites “the web-enabled processing system designed
`to be coupled to at least one switching facility.” Id. at 17:51–53.
`11 As set forth in our Order of December 28, 2016, issued with our Decision
`on Institution, Patent Owner has been cautioned “that any arguments for
`patentability not raised in the response will be deemed waived.”
`
`
`
`14
`
`

`

`IPR2016-01254 and IPR2016-01257
`Patent 8,457,113 B2
`
`Co. v. Conteyor N. Am., Inc., 603 F.3d 1262, 1270−71 (Fed. Cir. 2010). We
`use that plan and ordinary meaning for our analysis.12
`Additionally, we decline to construe “switching facility” as not an
`edge switch or edge device, as urged by Patent Owner. As our reviewing
`court has explained, “each claim does not necessarily cover every feature
`disclosed in the specification,” and “it is improper to limit the claim to other,
`unclaimed features.” Ventana Med. Sys., Inc. v. BioGenex Labs., Inc., 473
`F.3d 1173, 1181 (Fed. Cir. 2006). Furthermore, the court “has repeatedly
`cautioned against limiting the claimed invention to preferred embodiments
`or specific examples in the specification.” Williamson v. Citrix Online, LLC,
`792 F.3d 1339, 1346–47 (Fed. Cir. 2015); SuperGuide Corp. v. DirecTV
`Enterprises, Inc., 358 F.3d 870, 875 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (noting that “it is
`important not to import into a claim limitations that are not a part of the
`claim”). “[I]t is the claims, not the written description, which define the
`scope of the patent right.” Williamson, 792 F.3d at 1346–47; see also
`Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1312 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc)
`(noting that “[i]t is a bedrock principle of patent law that the claims of a
`patent define the invention to which the patentee is entitled the right to
`exclude”).
`Second, we are not persuaded by Patent Owner’s arguments that the
`claims expressly distinguish that a “switching facility” is not an “edge
`switch,” and that construing “switching facility” to include “edge switch”
`
`
`12 During oral argument in a related proceeding also involving challenges to
`the ’113 Patent, Patent Owner agreed that the controller need not be
`connected directly to the tandem access switch. IPR2016-01261, Paper 68,
`56:18–20.
`
`
`
`15
`
`

`

`IPR2016-01254 and IPR2016-01257
`Patent 8,457,113 B2
`
`would render the claim terms superfluous. ’1254 PO Resp. 29−34; ’1254
`Ex. 2022 ¶¶ 61−65. Patent Owner’s arguments fail to appreciate that each of
`claims 38 and 65 sets forth two separate functional requirements: (1) “edge
`switches for routing calls from and to subscribers within a local geographic
`area”; and (2) “switching facilities for routing calls to other edge switches or
`other switching facilities local or in other geographic areas.” Ex. 1001,
`15:35–38, 17:37–40 (emphases added). The evidence before us shows that
`edge switches can perform the function recited in the first claim element, as
`well as “routing calls to other edge switches or other switching facilities
`local or in other geographic areas,” as recited in the second claim element.
`Ex. 1002 ¶ 77. The two terms, “edge switches” and “switching facilities,”
`are not mutually exclusive, but rather “switching facilities” encompasses all
`five classes of switches in the PSTN, including an edge switch. ’1254 Ex.
`3001, 391; ’1254 Ex. 3002; ’1254 Ex. 2005, 82, 82 n.1.
`Notably, an ordinarily skilled artisan would have recognized that an
`edge switch can route calls to other edge switches directly via a direct trunk
`group or indirectly through a tandem switch, and to other switching facilities
`(e.g., a tandem switch). Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 38–39, 77, 119, 121; Ex. 1012, Figs. 4-
`3, 4-4. Mr. Willis’ testimony regarding background information on the
`PSTN (id.) cites to the Bell reference, which includes Figure 4-4 reproduced
`below (with highlighting added).
`
`
`
`16
`
`

`

`IPR2016-01254 and IPR2016-01257
`Patent 8,457,113 B2
`
`
`
`
`Annotated Figure 4-4 Illustrating the PSTN Switch
`Hierarchy
`As shown in highlighted Figure 4-4 above, an edge switch (a class 5
`switch) can route calls from and to users within local geographic area
`(highlighted in red). An edge switch also can route calls to a tandem switch
`and other edge switches directly using a direct trunk or indirectly through a
`tandem switch (highlighted in blue). Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 38−39, 77, 119, 121;
`Ex. 1012, 110−117, 131–136, 150–152, Figs. 4-3, 4-4.
`The aforementioned functional claim elements map to the switches in
`the PSTN. The first claim element takes into account routing calls from and
`to users within a local geographic area. For the second claim element, the
`
`
`
`17
`
`

`

`IPR2016-01254 and IPR2016-01257
`Patent 8,457,113 B2
`
`claim language “switching facilities for routing calls to other edge switches”
`takes into account routing calls from an edge switch to other edge switches.
`The claim language “switching facility for routing calls . . . to other
`switching facilities” takes into account routing calls from an edge switch to a
`tandem switch, as well as from a tandem switch to other switches, including
`edge switches, in the network. Therefore, construing “switching facility” to
`include “edge switch” would not render the claim terms superfluous.
`Patent Owner also attempts to show that an edge switch is not capable
`of performing the recited functions in the second claim element, arguing that
`“an edge switch cannot ‘interconnect end office switches to other geographic
`areas that are not local to an end office switch.’” ’1254 PO Resp. 31; ’1254
`Ex. 2022 ¶¶ 61−65 (emphasis added). However, that argument is not
`commensurate with the scope of the claims. For instance, claims 38 and 65
`do not require every switching facility to perform that function. In fact, each
`of claims 38 and 65 uses the term “or” rather than “and”—“switching
`facilities for routing calls to other edge switches or other switching facilities
`local or in other geographic areas.” Ex. 1001, 15:35–38, 17:37–40
`(emphasis added). Patent Owner does not identify, nor can we discern, a
`reason to read “or” as “and.” As discussed above, an edge switch is capable
`of routing calls to other edge switches and other switching facilities within
`local geographic areas. Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 38−39, 77, 119, 121; Ex. 1012,
`106−113, Figs. 4-3, 4-4.
`In light of the foregoing, Patent Owner’s arguments (’1254 PO Resp.
`29−34) and Mr. Bates’ testimony (’1254 Ex. 2022 ¶¶ 61−65) that each of
`claims 38 and 65 expressly distinguishes that a “switching facility” is not an
`
`
`
`18
`
`

`

`IPR2016-01254 and IPR2016-01257
`Patent 8,457,113 B2
`
`“edge switch,” and that construing “switching facility” to include “edge
`switch” would render the claim terms superfluous, are unavailing.
`Third, we are not persuaded by Patent Owner’s argument or its
`expert’s testimony that the Specification sets forth an unmistakable
`disclaimer that “switching facility” is not an edge switch or edge device.
`’1254 PO Resp. 1−2, 8−19, 28−34. There is a presumption that a claim term
`carries its ordinary and customary meaning. CCS Fitness, Inc. v. Brunswick
`Corp., 288 F.3d 1359, 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2002). To overcome this
`presumption, the patentee must “clearly set forth” and “clearly redefine” a
`claim term away from its ordinary meaning. Bell Atlantic Network Servs.,
`Inc. v. Covad Commc’ns Grp., Inc., 262 F.3d 1258, 1268 (Fed. Cir. 2001).
`The disavowal must be “unmistakable” and “unambiguous.” Dealertrack,
`Inc. v. Huber, 674 F.3d 1315, 1322 (Fed. Cir. 2012).
`Claims 38 and 65 do not recite “tandem switch,” but rather “switching
`facility.”13 Our construction for “switching facility” is consistent with its
`plain and ordinary meaning, encompassing all five classes of switches in the
`PSTN, including edge switches. ’1254 Ex. 3001, 391; ’1254 Ex. 3002; Ex.
`1002 ¶¶ 53–55.14
`Turning to the Specification, the term “switching facility” is not found
`anywhere in the Specification. Accordingly, there is not much, if anything,
`intrinsically in the Specification that explicitly defines or informs a person of
`ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention the meaning of
`“switching facility.” As discussed above, Patent Owner, in fact, admits that
`
`
`13 Claims 143–147, 149, 150, 163, and 176–178 do not recite either “tandem
`switch” or “switching facility.”
`14 None of the challenged claims recites “tandem access controller.”
`
`
`
`19
`
`

`

`IPR2016-01254 and IPR2016-01257
`Patent 8,457,113 B2
`
`Applicants introduced the term “switching facility” into the claims by
`Amendment to indicate that “switching facility” has broader scope than
`“tandem switch.” ’1254 Prelim. Resp. 36–37; ’1254 PO Resp. 33–34; ’1254
`Ex. 2005, 82, 82 n.1.
`We note that Patent Owner’s arguments and Mr. Bates’ testimony rely
`on the discussions in the Specification regarding both edge switches and
`edge devices (Ex. 1001, 1:37–40, 1:59−67, 2:40−54), to support their
`assertion that Applicants disparage the application of call control features at
`an edge switch. ’1254 PO Resp. 13−15; ’1254 Ex. 2022 ¶¶ 46–48. In any
`event, the Specification clearly states that connecting a controller at a
`tandem switch, rather than an edge switch—to eliminate the problems
`regarding the provision of call features through the local serv

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


Or .

Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.

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

Accept $ Charge
throbber

Still Working On It

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

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

throbber

A few More Minutes ... Still Working

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

Thank you for your continued patience.

This document could not be displayed.

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

Your account does not support viewing this document.

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

Your account does not support viewing this document.

Set your membership status to view this document.

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

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

Become a Member

One Moment Please

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

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

Your document is on its way!

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

Sealed Document

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

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


Access Government Site

We are redirecting you
to a mobile optimized page.





Document Unreadable or Corrupt

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket

We are unable to display this document.

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket