UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`———————
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`
`———————
`
`
`
`Cisco Systems, Inc.,
`Petitioner
`
`vs.
`
`Uniloc Luxembourg, S.A.,
`Patent Owner
`
`
`———————
`
`
`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW
`
`OF
`
`U.S. PATENT NO. 7,804,948
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,804,948
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`PETITIONER’S EXHIBIT LIST ......................................................................... vi
`
`I.  Mandatory Notices ............................................................................................. 1 
`
`A.  Real Party-in-Interest ................................................................................. 1 
`
`B.  Related Matters .......................................................................................... 1 
`
`C.  Lead and Back-up Counsel and Service Information ............................... 2 
`
`II.  Grounds for Standing ......................................................................................... 2 
`
`III.  Requested Relief ................................................................................................ 2 
`
`IV.  Reasons for the Requested Relief ...................................................................... 3 
`
`A.  Summary of the ’948 Patent ...................................................................... 3 
`
`B.  Prosecution History ................................................................................... 5 
`
`C.  Challenged Claims ..................................................................................... 6 
`
`V.  Claim Construction ............................................................................................ 6 
`
`A. 
`
`B. 
`
`C. 
`
`D. 
`
`“network access device” (all claims) ......................................................... 7 
`
`“address” (claim 18) .................................................................................. 7 
`
`“automatic number identifier” (claim 19) ................................................. 8 
`
`“VoIP address” (claim 20) ........................................................................ 9 
`
`VI.  Statutory Grounds for Challenges ..................................................................... 9 
`
`VII.  Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art ................................................................... 10 
`
`VIII. Note Regarding Page Citations and Emphasis ................................................ 11 
`
`IX.  Identification of How the Claims are Unpatentable ........................................ 11 
`
`ii
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,804,948
`
`A.  Ground 1: 1, 2, 5, 6, 8, 12, 18, 19, 21-25, 29, 30, 49-51, 65, and 66,
`are obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Hamberg in view of
`Lamb ........................................................................................................ 11 
`
`1. 
`
`2. 
`
`Summary of Hamberg ..................................................................... 11 
`
`Summary of Lamb ........................................................................... 14 
`
`3.  Reasons to Combine Hamberg and Lamb ....................................... 17 
`
`4.  Claim 1 ............................................................................................ 19 
`
`5.  Claim 2 ............................................................................................ 41 
`
`6.  Claim 5 ............................................................................................ 42 
`
`7.  Claim 6 ............................................................................................ 43 
`
`8.  Claim 8 ............................................................................................ 43 
`
`9.  Claim 12 .......................................................................................... 44 
`
`10.  Claim 18 .......................................................................................... 45 
`
`11.  Claim 19 .......................................................................................... 47 
`
`12.  Claim 21 .......................................................................................... 47 
`
`13.  Claim 22 .......................................................................................... 48 
`
`14.  Claim 23 .......................................................................................... 49 
`
`15.  Claim 24 .......................................................................................... 55 
`
`16.  Claim 25 .......................................................................................... 55 
`
`17.  Claim 29 .......................................................................................... 56 
`
`18.  Claim 30 .......................................................................................... 56 
`
`19.  Claim 49 .......................................................................................... 56 
`
`iii
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,804,948
`
`20.  Claim 50 .......................................................................................... 56 
`
`21.  Claim 51 .......................................................................................... 57 
`
`22.  Claim 65 .......................................................................................... 59 
`
`23.  Claim 66 .......................................................................................... 60 
`
`B.  Ground 2: Claims 7, 9, 10, 26, 36, 37, 52, and 53 are unpatentable
`under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Hamberg in view of Lamb and further
`in view of Ludwig ................................................................................... 60 
`
`1. 
`
`Summary of Ludwig ....................................................................... 60 
`
`2.  Reasons to Combine Hamberg and Lamb with Ludwig ................. 61 
`
`3.  Claim 7 ............................................................................................ 62 
`
`4.  Claim 9 ............................................................................................ 63 
`
`5.  Claim 10 .......................................................................................... 65 
`
`6.  Claim 26 .......................................................................................... 66 
`
`7.  Claim 36 .......................................................................................... 67 
`
`8.  Claim 37 .......................................................................................... 67 
`
`9.  Claim 52 .......................................................................................... 67 
`
`10.  Claim 53 .......................................................................................... 67 
`
`C.  Ground 3: Claim 20 is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over
`Hamberg in view of Lamb and further in view of Vassilovski ............... 68 
`
`1. 
`
`Summary of Vassilovski ................................................................. 68 
`
`2.  Reasons to Combine Hamberg, Lamb, and Vassilovski ................. 69 
`
`3.  Claim 20 .......................................................................................... 70 
`
`X.  Conclusion ....................................................................................................... 72 
`
`iv
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,804,948
`
`XI.  Certificate of Word Count ............................................................................... 73 
`
`
`
`
`
`v
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,804,948
`
`PETITIONER’S EXHIBIT LIST
`
`October 11, 2016
`
`1001 U.S. Patent No. 7,804,948 to Turner
`
`1002 Prosecution File History of U.S. Patent No. 7,804,948
`
`1003 Declaration of Dr. Henry Houh under 37 C.F.R. § 1.68
`
`1004 Curriculum Vitae of Dr. Henry Houh
`
`1005 WIPO Patent Publication No. WO/02/21816 to Hamberg
`
`1006 U.S. Patent No. 6,747,970 to Lamb et al.
`
`1007 U.S. Patent No. 6,237,025 to Ludwig et al.
`
`1008 U.S. Patent Publication No. 2003/0086411 to Vassilovski.
`
`1009
`
`Ian Grobel, “SIP is a key part in multimedia sessions,” Network World
`(Aug. 12, 2002).
`
`1010 Margaret Levine Young, Internet: The Complete Reference (2d ed. 2002)
`(selected pages).
`
`1011 C. Anthony DellaFera, “The Zephyr notification service,” USENIX
`Association Winter Conference 1988 Proceedings, pp. 213-220 (Feb.,
`1988).
`
`1012 C. Anthony DellaFera, Project Athena Technical Plan: Section E.4.1:
`Zephyr Notification Service, M.I.T. Project Athena, Cambridge,
`Massachusetts, (June 5, 1989).
`
`1013 R. French and J. Kolh, “The Zephyr Programmer’s Manual” draft, (May
`5, 1989).
`
`1014 Declaration of David Bader
`
`
`
`
`vi
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,804,948
`
`I. MANDATORY NOTICES
`
`A. Real Party-in-Interest
`
`The Petitioner and real party in interest is Cisco Systems, Inc.
`
`B. Related Matters
`
`To the best knowledge of the Petitioner, U.S. Patent No. 7,804,948 (“the
`
`’948 Patent”) is or has been involved in the following litigations:
`
`Name
`
`Number
`
`Court Filed
`
`Uniloc USA, Inc. et al v. Google, Inc.
`
`2:16-cv-00566 TXED Mar. 28, 2016
`
`Uniloc USA, Inc. et al v. Huawei
`Enterprise USA, Inc.
`
`Uniloc USA Inc. et al v. Cisco
`Systems, Inc.
`
`6:16-cv-00099 TXED Mar. 4, 2016
`
`6:15-cv-1175 TXED Dec. 30, 2015
`
`Uniloc USA, Inc. et al v. Avaya Inc.
`
`6:15-cv-01168 TXED Dec. 28, 2015
`
`Uniloc USA, Inc. et al v. ShoreTel, Inc. 6:15-cv-01169 TXED Dec. 28, 2015
`
`Uniloc USA, Inc. et al v. GENBAND
`US LLC
`
`Uniloc USA, Inc. et al v. Microsoft
`Corporation
`
`
`6:15-cv-01169 TXED April 30, 2015
`
`2:14-cv-01040 TXED Nov. 13, 2014
`
`1
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,804,948
`
`C. Lead and Back-up Counsel and Service Information
`
`Lead Counsel
`David L. McCombs
`HAYNES AND BOONE, LLP
`2323 Victory Ave. Suite 700
`Dallas, TX 75219
`
`Back-up Counsel
`Theodore M. Foster
`HAYNES AND BOONE, LLP
`2323 Victory Ave. Suite 700
`Dallas, TX 75219
`
`Dina Blikshteyn
`HAYNES AND BOONE, LLP
`2323 Victory Ave. Suite 700
`Dallas, TX 75219
`
`
`214-651-5533
`Phone:
`214-200-0853
`Fax:
`
`david.mccombs.ipr@haynesboone.com
`USPTO Reg. No. 32,271
`
`
`972-739-8649
`Phone:
`214-200-0853
`Fax:
`
`ipr.theo.foster@haynesboone.com
`USPTO Reg. No. 57,456
`
`212-835-4809
`Phone:
`214-200-0853
`Fax:
`
`dina.blikshteyn.ipr@haynesboone.com
`USPTO Reg. No. 63,962
`
`II. GROUNDS FOR STANDING
`
`Petitioner certifies that the ’948 Patent is available for inter partes review
`
`and that Petitioner is not barred or estopped from requesting inter partes review
`
`challenging the patent claims on the grounds identified in this Petition.
`
`III. REQUESTED RELIEF
`
`Petitioner asks that the Board review the accompanying prior art and
`
`analysis, institute a trial for an inter partes review of claims 1, 2, 5-10, 12, 18-26,
`
`29, 30, 36, 37, 49-53, 65 and 66 of the ’948 Patent (“the challenged claims”), and
`
`cancel them as unpatentable.
`
`2
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,804,948
`
`IV. REASONS FOR THE REQUESTED RELIEF
`
`The challenged claims of the ’948 Patent would have been obvious to a
`
`person of ordinary skill in the art and are therefore unpatentable. The’948 Patent
`
`generally describes techniques for transitioning a group of users using an instant
`
`messaging service into a conference call. In the challenged claims, a conference
`
`call requester issues a single request from an instant messaging service. The single
`
`request initiates a conference call, which is then automatically established. But as
`
`this Petition shows, the prior art renders obvious the ʼ948 Patent’s methods for
`
`initiating and automatically establishing a conference call from an instant
`
`messaging service. As explained below and in the declaration of Cisco Systems’
`
`expert, Dr. Henry Houh, the challenged claims of the ’948 Patent are unpatentable.
`
`A.
`
`Summary of the ’948 Patent
`
`The ’948 Patent relates to “a system and method for initiating conference
`
`calls via an instant messaging system.” CSCO-1001, Abstract. To initiate a
`
`conference call, the ’948 Patent describes “a communications channel established
`
`through an instant messaging service.” CSCO-1001, 3:51-55. The communication
`
`channel transmits “a request to initiate a conference call from a network access
`
`device associated with a conference call requester to a conference call server.”
`
`CSCO-1001, 3:51-55. The ’948 Patent also describes how “the central server may
`
`directly or indirectly establish a conference bridge, initiate a series of outbound
`
`3
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,804,948
`
`calls to each of the selected users from the instant messaging session, and
`
`seamlessly join those users in a conference call using a conference bridge.” CSCO-
`
`1001, 4:23-28.
`
`Fig. 4 illustrates an example conference call system.
`
`
`
`CSCO-1001, Fig. 4.
`
`As an example of the claimed subject matter, independent claim 1 is
`
`reproduced below:
`
`1. A method for initiating a conference call, comprising the
`steps of:
`providing a conference call requester with a network access
`device, said network access device communicating via an instant
`
`4
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,804,948
`
`messaging service, said instant messaging service being adapted to
`communicate conference call request information with a conference
`call server;
`establishing a communications connection from said network
`access device to the conference call server;
`presenting said conference call requester with a display
`showing a plurality of potential targets then being connected to said
`instant messaging service and participating in a given instant
`messaging session with the conference call requester and with whom a
`conference call may be initiated;
`generating a conference call request responsively to a single
`request by the conference call requester, said conference call request
`identifying each of the potential targets for said conference call
`request;
`transmitting said conference call request from said network
`access device to said conference call server; and
`automatically establishing a conference call connection to said
`conference call requester, said conference call connection initiated by
`said conference call server, said conference call connection further
`being connected to each of the potential targets.
`
`CSCO-1001 at 11:62-12:17.
`
`B.
`
`Prosecution History
`
`The ’948 Patent issued from the U.S. Patent Application No. 11/019,655
`
`(“the ’655 application”) filed on December 22, 2004. The ’655 application claims
`
`the benefit of the U.S. Provisional Application No. 60/531,722 (“the ’722
`
`5
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,804,948
`
`application”), filed on December 22, 2003. Thus, the earliest claimed priority date
`
`is December 22, 2003.
`
`During prosecution, the examiner rejected the claims as being anticipated by
`
`U.S. Publication No. 2003/0105820 to Haims et al. CSCO-1002 at 98. In response,
`
`Applicant made extensive amendments to the “presenting” and “generating” steps
`
`and argued that Haims lacked a “call now” button or other technique
`
`corresponding to the claimed step of “generating a conference call request
`
`responsively to a single request.” Id. at 68 & 80. The Applicant pointedly
`
`distinguished Haims’ technique where “a user determine[s] whether attendees are
`
`available and select[s] ones for invitation.” Id. at 80.
`
`On December 16, 2009, the Examiner issued a Notice of Allowability. Id. at
`
`55. The patent subsequently issued.
`
`C. Challenged Claims
`
`Claims 1, 2, 5-10, 12, 18-26, 29, 30, 36, 37, 49-53, 65 and 66 of the ’948
`
`Patent (“the challenged claims”) are challenged in this Petition.
`
`V. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
`
`This Petition analyzes the claims consistent with the broadest reasonable
`
`interpretation in light of the specification. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b). All claim
`
`terms not discussed below are to be given their broadest reasonable interpretation,
`
`6
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,804,948
`
`as understood by one of ordinary skill in the art consistent with the disclosure.
`
`Cuozzo Speed Techs., LLC v. Lee, 579 U.S. ___, slip op. at 17 (2016).
`
`A.
`
`“network access device” (all claims)
`
`The ’948 specification expressly defines a network access device:
`
`A Network Access Device (hereafter “NAD”) is any device
`capable of communicating over a network to one or more other
`Network Access Devices using a common protocol. Such NADs
`can
`include but are not
`limited
`to computers, servers,
`workstations, Internet appliances, terminals, hosts, personal digital
`assistants (hereafter “PDAs”), and digital cellular telephones.
`
`CSCO-1001, 5:39-45.
`
`Accordingly, as stated in the ʼ948 specification and for the purposes of this
`
`proceeding, a broadest reasonable interpretation of a network access device would
`
`include “any device capable of communicating over a network” with another such
`
`device “using a common protocol.” Id. Non-limiting examples of a network access
`
`device include the devices recited in the ’948 specification, such as “computers,
`
`servers, workstations, Internet appliances, terminals, hosts, personal digital
`
`assistants (hereafter ‘PDAs’), and digital cellular telephones.” Id.
`
`B.
`
`“address” (claim 18)
`
`The ’948 specification expressly defines the term address:
`
`Address—This is the identifier for where a participant to a
`
`7
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,804,948
`
`conference call may be contacted, and may be, but is not limited
`to, a PSTN or cellular phone number, such as an ANI, or a unique
`identifier associated with a voice over Internet protocol
`communications path.
`
`CSCO-1001, 5:53-56.
`
`Accordingly, as stated in the ʼ948 specification and for the purposes of this
`
`proceeding, a broadest reasonable interpretation of an address would include “the
`
`identifier for where a participant to a conference call may be contacted.” Non-
`
`limiting examples of an address would include “a PSTN or cellular phone number,
`
`such as an ANI, or a unique identifier associated with a voice over Internet
`
`protocol communications path.” Id.
`
`C.
`
`“automatic number identifier” (claim 19)
`
`The ’948 specification expressly defines the term automatic number
`
`identifier:
`
`ANI—Automatic Number Identifier—This is the direct phone
`number of a call participant, and is typically the number at which
`a person may be directly dialed.
`
`CSCO-1001, 5:58-60.
`
`Accordingly, as stated in the ʼ948 specification and for the purposes of this
`
`proceeding, a broadest reasonable interpretation of an automatic number identifier
`
`would include a “direct phone number of a call participant.” Id. A non-limiting
`
`8
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,804,948
`
`example of an automatic number identifier is a “phone number.” Id.
`
`D.
`
` “VoIP address” (claim 20)
`
`The ’948 specification does not define the term VoIP address. However, the
`
`’948 specification expressly defines “VoIP” to mean “Voice over Internet
`
`Protocol.” CSCO-1001, 6:6. As noted in the above discussion of the term address,
`
`the ’948 specification references a “unique identifier associated with a voice over
`
`Internet protocol communications path.” CSCO-1001, 5:56-57. The ’948
`
`specification references using a VoIP address to create “VOIP conference calls
`
`between users.” CSCO-1001, 4:7-16.
`
`Accordingly, consistent with the ʼ948 specification and for the purposes of
`
`this proceeding, a POSITA would have understood the broadest reasonable
`
`interpretation of VoIP address to include “a unique identifier used to initiate a
`
`VoIP communication.” In 2003, examples of a VoIP address included a session
`
`initiation protocol (“SIP”) address. CSCO-1003 at ¶¶ 56-59.
`
`VI. STATUTORY GROUNDS FOR CHALLENGES
`
`Challenge #1: Claims 1, 2, 5, 6, 8, 12, 18, 19, 21-25, 29, 30, 49-51, and 65-
`
`66 are obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over WIPO Application Publication No.
`
`WO/02/21816 to Hamberg (“Hamberg”) (CSCO-1005) in view of U.S. Patent No.
`
`6,747,970 to Lamb, et al. (“Lamb”) (CSCO-1006).
`
`9
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,804,948
`
`Hamberg was filed on September 7, 2001 and claims priority to September
`
`8, 2000. Hamberg was published in English on March 14, 2002. Hamberg is prior
`
`art under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102(b) and 102(e).
`
`Lamb was filed on March 21, 2000 and claims priority to April 29, 1999.
`
`Lamb was published on June 8, 2004. Lamb is prior art under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e).
`
`Challenge #2: Claims 7, 9, 10, 26, 36, 37, 52, and 53 are obvious under 35
`
`U.S.C. § 103(a) over Hamberg, Lamb, and U.S. Patent No. 6,237,025 to Ludwig,
`
`et al. (“Ludwig”) (CSCO-1007). Ludwig published on May 22, 2001 and is prior
`
`art under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b).
`
`Challenge #3: Claim 20 is obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over Hamberg,
`
`Lamb, and U.S. Publication No. 2003/0086411 to Vassilovski (“Vassilovski”)
`
`(CSCO-1008). Vassilovski was filed on November 2, 2001, was published on May
`
`8, 2003, and is prior art under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102(a) and 102(e).
`
`VII. LEVEL OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART
`
`A person of ordinary skill in the art (“POSITA”) in the field of the ’948
`
`Patent as of December 22, 2003 would have been someone knowledgeable in
`
`collaboration applications and telecommunications services. That person would
`
`have (i) a Bachelor’s degree in Computer or Electrical Engineering, Computer
`
`Science or equivalent training, and (ii) approximately five years of experience
`
`working in computer-based collaboration or telecommunications services. CSCO-
`
`10
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,804,948
`
`1003, ¶ 46.
`
`VIII. NOTE REGARDING PAGE CITATIONS AND EMPHASIS
`
`Petitioner’s citations to CSCO-1002 and CSCO-1009 through CSCO-1013
`
`use the page numbers added for compliance with 37 C.F.R. § 42.63(d)(2)(ii).
`
`Petitioner’s citations to the remaining exhibits use the page, paragraph, or column
`
`numbers in their original publication.
`
`Throughout this Petition, any bold underlining in quoted material has been
`
`added for emphasis unless otherwise indicated.
`
`IX.
`
`IDENTIFICATION OF HOW THE CLAIMS ARE UNPATENTABLE
`
`A. Ground 1: 1, 2, 5, 6, 8, 12, 18, 19, 21-25, 29, 30, 49-51, 65, and 66,
`are obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Hamberg in view of
`Lamb
`
`Claims 1, 2, 5, 6, 8, 12, 18, 19, 21-25, 29, 30, 49-51, 65, and 66 of the ’948
`
`Patent are obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Hamberg in view of Lamb.
`
`CSCO-1003 at ¶¶ 60-78.
`
`1.
`
`Summary of Hamberg
`
`Hamberg discloses a communication system that allows subscribers to
`
`collaborate using short messages and conference calls. The subscribers are
`
`organized into chat groups. CSCO-1005, Abstract. The members of the chat groups
`
`can send messages to the other chat group members. Id. The communication
`
`11
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,804,948
`
`system can also convert “message chatting to conference calling” when “one of the
`
`subscribers in the subscriber group send[s] a pre-defined message to the server.”
`
`Id. In response to the pre-defined message, “the server sets up a conference call
`
`between the subscribers registered as active in the subscriber group.” Id.
`
`As illustrated in Fig. 1 (below), Hamberg’s system includes mobile stations
`
`(“MS1-MS5”) that communicate with a quick message server via a Global System
`
`for Mobile (“GSM”) network. CSCO-1005, 2:19-22. Hamberg also contemplates
`
`other kinds of network communication. Id. at 2:24-3:17. For example, the system
`
`includes a workstation (“WS”) that communicates with the server via the Internet.
`
`Id. at 3:8-12, 3:30-32. The workstation allows a subscriber to use an IP Telephone
`
`via Internet Protocol or Voice over IP (“VoIP”) to participate in a conference call.
`
`Id. at 3:7-12.
`
`workstation
`
`quick message
`server
`
`
`
`mobile
`stations
`
`12
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,804,948
`
`CSCO-1003, ¶ 62; CSCO-1005, Fig. 1 (annotated).
`
`Each mobile station (“MS”) is provided to a subscriber, shown as Ann,
`
`Henry, Lisa, John, or Max. The mobile stations can communicate via a messaging
`
`service, such as GSM’s short messaging service. CSCO-1005, 2:19-22. Hamberg
`
`also contemplates other forms of messaging, stating that the mobile stations can
`
`also be equipped with an instant messaging service. Id. at 2:18-33.
`
`Hamberg illustrates two example chat groups in Fig. 2. Group G1 includes
`
`Henry, Lisa, and John. Group G2 includes Henry, Lisa, John, Max, and Ann. Id. at
`
`4:20-24. The group members can communicate with each other via group
`
`messages and conference calls. Id. at 4:24-27.
`
`Group 1
`
`Group 2
`
`
`
`CSCO-1003 at ¶ 64; CSCO-1005, Fig. 2 (annotated).
`
`Hamberg describes all of the group communications being coordinated
`
`through a quick message server, shown as the “Server” in Fig. 1. CSCO-1005,
`
`2:35. The server acts as a “switching centre” for messages received from the
`
`mobile stations. Id. at 3:1-4. When a server receives a message from one subscriber
`
`13
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,804,948
`
`of the group, the server sends the message to other subscribers. Id. at 5:17-21. The
`
`server can also set up a conference call among the subscribers in the group. Id. at
`
`5:34-6:1. To set up a conference call, one subscriber issues a single CALL message
`
`to the server. Id. at 6:1-2. Upon receiving the CALL message, the server
`
`determines whether each subscriber in the group is active and wishes to participate
`
`in the call. Id. at 6:7-21. The server sets up a speech connection between the server
`
`and each such available subscriber either directly or using a service control point
`
`(“SCP”). Id. at 6:13-20. Then, the server and SCP connect the speech connections
`
`into one conference call. Id. 6:21-30.
`
`2.
`
`Summary of Lamb
`
`Lamb describes a telecommunications system that, like Hamberg, allows
`
`users to collaborate with multiple communications technologies, including instant
`
`messaging and conference calling. Id. at 59:31-33 & 60:37-43. Lamb’s
`
`communication services are facilitated through the interaction of a user agent
`
`interface on a client computer with a corresponding user agent on a server. CSCO-
`
`1006, 27:32-40. Lamb illustrates this arrangement in Fig. 3, below.
`
`14
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,804,948
`
`User Agent
`
`User Agent
`Interfaces
`
`
`
`CSCO-1003, ¶67; CSCO-1006, Fig. 3 (annotated).
`
`Lamb’s telecommunications hosting server 203 provides a variety of calling
`
`services over an Internet network and a public switched telephone network
`
`(“PSTN”). Id., 27:61-28:5. The user can control the operation of Lamb’s
`
`telecommunication hosting server via a displayed interface, such as an interface
`
`illustrated in Fig. 12:
`
`15
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,804,948
`
`Status
`information
`
`CONF.
`NOW
`button
`
`
`
`CSCO-1003, ¶ 68; CSCO-1006, Fig. 12 (annotated).
`
`The displayed interface shows status information, including a list of
`
`participants and participants’ call identifier (phone number, e-mail, etc.,) and status
`
`(logged in, in conference, etc.). The display also includes a conference window
`
`679-1 listing participants engaged in a conference call and includes a “CONF.
`
`NOW” button 679-2. The displayed interface allows a user to create a conference
`
`call, enter an instant message and view existing messages. Id. at 59:22-35.
`
`In another example user interface, Lamb illustrates an instant messaging
`
`session that includes a “Call” button that may be used to initiate a call to a
`
`recipient of the instant messages. Id. at 83-84.
`
`16
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,804,948
`
`Call Button
`
`
`
`CSCO-1003, ¶ 70; CSCO-1006, cols. 85-86 (annotated).
`
`3.
`
`Reasons to Combine Hamberg and Lamb
`
`Hamberg and Lamb are analogous art to the ’948 Patent. Hamberg and
`
`Lamb are in the same field of endeavor as the ’948 Patent, and they both
`
`specifically describe facilitating real-time communications between multiple users
`
`via instant messaging services and conference calling. A POSITA would have
`
`found it obvious to combine their teachings for the reasons below. CSCO-1003, ¶¶
`
`71-72. Additional detailed reasons for the combination are included in the detailed
`
`analysis of the claim limitations that follows.
`
`Reason 1: Improved User Interface with Display of Presence Information
`
`A POSITA would have been motivated to modify Hamberg’s workstation
`
`and mobile stations to include Lamb’s display of presence information for other
`
`users. CSCO-1003, ¶¶ 73-74. A POSITA would have recognized that Hamberg’s
`
`17
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,804,948
`
`mobile stations and workstations would be easier to use if users could see, on their
`
`mobile station or workstation, which other users were participating in each of
`
`Hamberg’s groups. Id. This benefit would be particularly apparent to a POSITA
`
`for groups like those shown in Hamberg, where there is an overlap between the
`
`memberships of the two groups. Id. If Hamberg’s mobile stations were to display
`
`the members of Groups 1 and 2, then a user would be less likely to mistakenly send
`
`a message (or initiate a conference call) to the wrong group. Id. Furthermore, by
`
`including presence information, such as indicating whether another user was
`
`already on a phone call, asleep, or otherwise unavailable, Hamberg’s system could
`
`help users avoid wasting time with fruitless attempts to communicate with other
`
`users that are busy or asleep. Id. Notably, Hamberg already contemplated gathering
`
`and storing such information in a database maintained by the quick message server.
`
`CSCO-1005, 3:18-22 & Fig. 2. A POSITA would have been motivated to improve
`
`Hamberg by making the status information stored in the database more readily
`
`accessible to users. Id. Thus, it would have been obvious for POSITA to
`
`incorporate the information display techniques of Lamb into the mobile stations
`
`and workstations of Hamberg so that the subscriber in Hamberg could be presented
`
`with a display of the status information already stored in Hamberg’s database. Id.
`
`Reason 2: Improved User Interface with Click-to-Call Button
`
`Additionally, both Hamberg and Lamb describe related techniques that a
`
`18
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,804,948
`
`POSITA would have considered when looking for ways to minimize user effort
`
`when initiating a conference call from an instant messaging session. CSCO-1003,
`
`¶¶ 75-77. For example, both Hamberg and Lamb describe initiating a conference
`
`call from a short messaging or instant messaging communication. CSCO-1005,
`
`4:27-29; CSCO-1006, 60:37-40.
`
`Hamberg describes initiating a conference call when a user sends a “CALL”
`
`message. CSCO-1005, 6:1-2. Lamb describes a technique that further minimizes
`
`the user’s burden and improves ease of use by providing a simple “Call” or
`
`“CONF. NOW” button to initiate a conference calling process. CSCO-1006, Fig.
`
`12, 60:37-40 & cols. 85-86 (“Figure 9”). Lamb’s “Call” button provides a simple
`
`mechanism for a user to create and send the “CALL” message described in
`
`Hamberg. CSCO-1003, ¶ 76. A POSITA would have found it desirable to make it
`
`easier for a user to access the conference calling features provided by Hamberg’s
`
`mobile stations and workstations. Id. Thus, a POSITA would have found it obvious
`
`to combine the conference-call-initiation techniques of Hamberg and Lamb in
`
`order to provide a simple and easy-to-understand and easy-to-use user interface. Id.
`
`4.
`
`Claim 1
`
`[1.0] A method for initiating a conference call, comprising the steps of:
`
`Hamberg discloses this limitation.
`
`Hamberg discloses “a method for setting up conference calling.” CSCO-
`
`19
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,804,948
`
`1005, Abstract. The method allows users “to move from message chatting to
`
`conference calling by one of the subscribers in the subscriber group sending a pre-
`
`defined message to the server.” Id. Hamberg’s method is a method for initiating a
`
`conference call. CSCO-1003, pp. 35-36.
`
` [1.1.0] providing a conference call requester with a network access device
`
`Hamberg discloses this limitation.
`
`Hamberg discloses users who are provided with mobile stations MS1-MS5
`
`and workstation WS, as shown in FIG. 1:
`
`Network Access
`Devices
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`CSCO-1003, p. 36; CSCO-1005, Fig. 1 (annotated).
`
`The mobile stations have access to a network and therefore are network
`
`access devic