`
`Filed on behalf of Global Tel*Link Corporation
`By:
`Lori A. Gordon
`
`Michael B. Ray
`
`Sterne, Kessler, Goldstein & Fox PLLC
`
`1100 New York Avenue, NW
`
`
`Washington, D.C.
`
`
`Tel: (202) 371-2600
`
`
`Fax: (202) 371-2540
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW
`OF U.S. PATENT NO. 7,916,845
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,916,845
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`
`I.
`
`II.
`
`Grounds for standing (37 C.F.R. § 42.104(a)). ............................................... 1
`
`Identification of challenge (37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)). ....................................... 1
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`Citation of prior art. ............................................................................... 1
`
`Statutory grounds for the challenge. ..................................................... 2
`
`III. The ’845 patent. ............................................................................................... 3
`
`A.
`
`Techniques for detecting three-way calls existed for at least a decade
`prior to the filing date of the ’845 patent. ............................................. 4
`
`B. Voice Activation Detection was a known technique for conserving
`bandwidth prior to the ’845 patent. ....................................................... 5
`
`C.
`
`D.
`
`E.
`
`The ’845 patent incorporates these known techniques into a controlled
`environment. .......................................................................................... 7
`
`Level of ordinary skill in the art. .........................................................10
`
`Claim construction. .............................................................................11
`
`IV. Ground 1: Apple renders independent claims 1 and 13 and their
`corresponding dependent claims 3, 6-12, 15, and 18-29 obvious. ................11
`
`A. Apple discloses a system for detecting three-way call activity by
`monitoring VoIP signals. .....................................................................11
`
`B.
`
`Independent claims 1 and 13. ..............................................................16
`
`1.
`
`Apple renders claim 1 obvious. ................................................16
`
`a)
`
`b)
`
`c)
`
`Apple discloses “a method for providing call processing
`in a controlled-environment facility” 1[P]. ....................16
`
`Apple discloses the “receiving” limitation 1[A]. ...........16
`
`Apple discloses the “connecting” limitation 1[B]. .........17
`
`- i -
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,916,845
`
`d)
`
`Apple teaches or suggests the “detecting” limitation 1[C].
` ........................................................................................19
`
`2.
`
`Apple renders independent claim 13 obvious. ..........................20
`
`a)
`
`b)
`
`Apple discloses “[a] system for providing call processing
`in a controlled-environment facility” 13[P]. ..................20
`
`Apple teaches or suggests the “Voice over Internet
`Protocol (VoIP) gateway” limitation 13[A]. ..................20
`
`c)
`
`Apple teaches or suggests the “agent” limitation 13[B].22
`
`C. Apple renders dependent claims 3 and 15 obvious. ............................24
`
`D. Apple renders dependent claims 6 and 23 obvious. ............................25
`
`E.
`
`F.
`
`Apple renders claims 7 and 24 obvious. .............................................26
`
`The “likelihood” claims. .....................................................................27
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`4.
`
`Apple renders claims 8 and 25 obvious. ...................................31
`
`Apple renders claims 9 and 26 obvious. ...................................33
`
`Apple renders claims 10 and 27 obvious. .................................34
`
`Apple renders claims 11 and 28 obvious. .................................35
`
`G. Apple renders claims 12 and 29 obvious. ...........................................37
`
`H. Apple renders claim 18 obvious. .........................................................37
`
`I.
`
`Additional monitoring claims. .............................................................39
`
`1.
`
`Sound of interest. ........................................................................39
`
`2. Voice analysis. ...........................................................................40
`
`V. Ground 2: Claims 2, 4, 14, and 17 are obvious over Apple and RFC 3389. .42
`
`A.
`
`The combination of Apple and RFC3389 renders claims 2 and 14
`obvious. ...............................................................................................45
`
`
`
`- ii -
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,916,845
`
`B.
`
`The combination of Apple and RFC3389 renders claims 4 and 17
`obvious. ...............................................................................................48
`
`VI. Ground 3: The combination of Apple and Black renders claims 5 and 16
`obvious. ..........................................................................................................48
`
`VII. Ground 4: Claims 30-41 are obvious over Apple, Farris, and Russell. ........51
`
`A.
`
`The combination of Apple, Farris, and Russell renders independent
`claims 30 and 36 obvious. ...................................................................59
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`The combination of Apple, Farris, and Russell teaches or
`suggests a method and system “for providing call processing in
`a controlled-environment facility.” ...........................................59
`
`Structural limitations of independent claim 36. ........................59
`
`The functional elements of independent claims 30 and 36.......61
`
`a)
`
`b)
`
`c)
`
`d)
`
`Apple teaches or suggests the “receiving” limitation. ....62
`
`Apple teaches or suggests the “connecting” limitation. .62
`
`Apple teaches or suggests “receiving an out-of-band
`signal.” ............................................................................63
`
`Apple in combination with Farris and Russell teaches or
`suggests the “detecting” limitation. ................................64
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`D.
`
`The combination of Apple, Farris, and Russell renders claims 31, 34,
`37, 39 and 40 obvious. ........................................................................65
`
`The combination of Apple, Farris, and Russell renders claims 32 and
`38 obvious. ..........................................................................................66
`
`The combination of Apple, Farris, and Russell renders claims 35 and
`41 obvious. ..........................................................................................67
`
`VIII. Mandatory notices. ........................................................................................68
`
`IX. Conclusion. ....................................................................................................69
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`- iii -
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,916,845
`
`
`
`
`
`EXHIBIT LIST
`
`Ex. No.
`
`Description
`
`1001 U.S. Patent 7,916,845 to Rae, et al.
`
`1002
`
`Provisional Application 60/607,447
`
`1003 Declaration of Dr. Leonard J. Forys in Support of Petition for Inter Partes
`Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,916,845
`
`1004 Curriculum Vitae of Dr. Leonard J. Forys
`
`1005 U.S. Patent 8,031,849 to Apple, et al. (“Apple”)
`
`1006 U.S. Patent 5,082,145 to Farris, et al. (“Farris”)
`
`1007 Ulysses Black, Voice over IP, Second Edition, 2002 (“Black”)
`
`1008 Travis Russell, Signaling System #7, Fourth Edition, 2002 (“Russell”)
`
`1009
`
`IETF RFC3389, Real-time Transport Protocol (RTP) Payload for
`Comfort Noise (CN). Available at https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc3389,
`September 2002 (“RFC3389”)
`
`1010 U.S. Patent 4,028,496 to Lamarche, et al. (“Lamarche”)
`
`1011 U.S. Patent 3,801,747 to Queffeulou (“Queffeulou”)
`
`1012 U.S. Patent 5,822,726 to Taylor, et al. (“Taylor”)
`
`1013 Engineering and Operations in the Bell System, Second Edition, 1977
`(Second Printing 1984)
`
`1014 G. W. Knox, “The problem of gangs and security threat groups (STG’s)
`in American prisons today: Recent research findings from the 2004 prison
`gang survey,” National Gang Crime Research Center, 2005. Available at
`http://www.ngcrc.com/corr2006.html
`
`1015 Bureau of Prisons, “Criminal Calls: A Review of the Bureau of Prisons’
`Management of Inmate Telephone Privileges, Jan. 10, 2000 (“Bureau of
`
`- iv -
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,916,845
`
`Ex. No.
`
`Prisons”)
`
`Description
`
`1016 U.S. Patent 5,796,811 to McFarlen (“McFarlen”)
`
`1017 U.S. Patent 5,319,702 to Kitchin, et al. (“Kitchin”)
`
`1018
`
`1019
`
`1020
`
`1021
`
`1022
`
`IETF RFC3261, SIP: Session Initiation Protocol, June 2002. Available at
`https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc3261
`
`J.M. Fraser, et al., “Over-All Characteristics of a TASI System,” TR-
`TSY-000577-19890701, Sept. 19, 1961 (“TASI”)
`
`IETF RFC768, User Datagram Protocol, August 1980. Available at
`https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc768
`
`IETF RFC3550, RTP: A Transport Protocol for Real-Time Applications.
`Available at https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc3550 (“RFC3550”)
`
`IETF RFC2805, Media Gateway Control Protocol Architecture and
`Requirements, July 2003. Available at https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc2805
`
`1023 U.S. Patent 7,079,636 to McNitt, et al.
`
`1024 U.S. Patent 5,926,533 to Gainsboro (“Gainsboro”)
`
`1025 U.S. Patent 6,327,352 to Betts, et al. (“Betts”)
`
`1026 U.S. Patent 6,873,617 to Karras (“Karras”)
`
`1027 U.S. Publication No. 2005/0014491 to Johnson (“Johnson”)
`
`1028 Bellcore, SR-4717 “Voice Over Packet in Next Generation Networks: An
`Architectural Framework,” Issue 1, Jan. 1999
`
`1029 U.S. Patent No. 5,883,945 to Richardson (“Richardson”)
`
`1030 U.S. Patent No. 5,768,355 to Salibrici (“Salibrici”)
`
`1031 U.S. Patent Publication No. 2003/0063578 to Weaver (“Weaver”)
`
`
`
`- v -
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,916,845
`
`Ex. No.
`
`Description
`
`1032 Colin Perkins, “RTP: Audio and Video for the Internet,” Pearson
`Education, 2003 (“Perkins”)
`
`1033 Webster’s Dictionary of Computer Terms, Eighth Ed., 2000
`
`1034 U.S. Patent No. 6,157,707 to Baulier (“Baulier”)
`
`1035 Overview of the IETF, www.ietf.org/overview.html, August 2, 2002
`retrieved from
`http://web.archive.org/web/20020802043453/www.ietf.org/overview.html
`on May 13, 2017
`
`1036
`
`IETF Public Website, http://www.ietf.org:80/html.charters/avt-
`charter.html, October 16, 2002, retrieved from
`http://web.archive.org/web/20021016171815/http://www.ietf.org:80/html.
`charters/avt-charter.html on May 13, 2017
`
`1037
`
`IETF Mail Archive, https://mailarchive.ietf.org/archlsearchl?qRFC3389
`retrieved on May 13, 2017
`
`1038 U.S. Patent No. 7,765,302 to Whynot (“Whynot”)
`
`1039
`
`1040
`
`1041
`
`1042
`
`“Criminal Calls: A Review of the Bureau of Prisons’ Management of
`Inmate Telephone Privileges” U.S. Department of Justice, Office of the
`Inspector General, August 1999
`
`Securus Technologies, Inc. v. Global Tel*Link Corporation, No. 3-16-cv-
`01338, Complaint (N.D. Tex. May 13, 2016)
`
`Securus Technologies, Inc. v. Global Tel*Link Corporation, No. 3-16-cv-
`01338, Proof of Service (N.D. Tex. June 7, 2016)
`
`IETF RFC791, Internet Protocol DARPA Internet Program Protocol
`Specification, September 1981. Available at
`https://tools.ietf.org/pdf/rfc791
`
`
`
`- vi -
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,916,845
`
`Petitioner Global Tel*Link Corporation will demonstrate that a reasonable
`
`likelihood exists that all 41 claims of U.S. Patent No. 7,916,845 (“the ’845 patent”)
`
`are unpatentable. The ’845 patent merely performs three-way call detection on
`
`Voice over Internet Protocol (VoIP) calls. However, both VoIP and three-way call
`
`detection were well-known before the April 2006 filing date of the ’845 patent as
`
`detailed by Petitioner’s expert, Dr. Leonard Forys, who has over 50 years of
`
`telecommunications experience. Moreover, the application of three-way call
`
`detection to VoIP calls was not new. U.S. Patent No. 8,031,849 to Apple, et al.,
`
`(Apple) describes three-way call detection techniques adapted for VoIP
`
`communication.
`
`I.
`
`Grounds for standing (37 C.F.R. § 42.104(a)).
`The undersigned and GTL certify that the ʼ845 patent is available for inter
`
`partes review. GTL certifies that it is not barred or estopped from requesting this
`
`inter partes review on the grounds identified herein. The assignee of the ’845
`
`patent, Securus Technologies, filed a complaint against GTL alleging infringement
`
`of the ’845 patent on May 13, 2016. (GTL 1040.) The present petition is being
`
`filed within one year of the May 31, 2016 service of Petition. (GTL 1041.)
`
`Identification of challenge (37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)).
`II.
`A. Citation of prior art.
`In support of the grounds of unpatentability cited above, GTL cites the
`
`following prior art references:
`
`
`
`- 1 -
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,916,845
`
`U.S. Patent No. 8,031,849 to Apple, titled “Telephony System and Method
`
`with Enhanced Fraud Control,” provided as GTL 1005, is prior art under at least 35
`
`U.S.C. § 102(e) because it was filed on September 2, 2005.
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,802,145 to Farris, provided as GTL 1006, is prior art
`
`under at least 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) because it issued on September 1, 1998.
`
`IETF RFC 3389, “Real-time Transport Protocol (RTP) Payload for Comfort
`
`Noise (CN),” provided as GTL 1009, is prior art under at least 35 U.S.C. § 102(b)
`
`because it was published in September 2002. (Forys Decl., ¶¶201-204; citing
`
`exhibits 1035-1038.)
`
`Voice over IP, Second Edition to Black, provided as GTL 1007, is prior art
`
`under at least 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) because it published as early as November 23,
`
`2001. (See GTL 1007, Copyright page with Library of Congress date stamp.)
`
`Signaling System #7, Fourth Edition to Russell, provided as GTL 1008, is
`
`prior art under at least 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) because it was published at least as early
`
`as November 13, 2002. (See GTL 1008, Copyright page with Library of Congress
`
`date stamp.)
`
`B.
`
`Statutory grounds for the challenge.
`
`GTL requests review of claims 1-41 on four grounds:
`
`GROUND 1: Claims 1, 3, 6-13, 15 and 18-29 are unpatentable under 35
`
`U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over Apple.
`
`
`
`- 2 -
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,916,845
`
`GROUND 2: Claims 2, 4, 14, and 17 are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. §103
`
`as obvious over Apple in view of RFC 3389.
`
`GROUND 3: Claims 5 and 16 are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. §103 as
`
`obvious over Apple in view of Black.
`
`GROUND 4: Claims 30-41 are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
`
`obvious over Apple in view of Farris and Russell.
`
`III. The ’845 patent.
`The ’845 patent describes “systems and methods for detecting and/or
`
`preventing the unauthorized use of call features in a Voice over Internet Protocol
`
`(VoIP) environment.” (GTL 1001, ’845 patent, 1:29-32; GTL 1003, Forys Decl.,
`
`¶31.) Specifically, the ’845 patent addresses the detection of unauthorized three-
`
`way call activity. A three-way call may be initiated by either the calling or called
`
`party during a call. (Forys Decl., ¶32.) In a three-way call initiated by the called
`
`party, the called party “depresses the hook switch on the telephone, generating a
`
`hook flash signal.” (’845 patent, 2:1-4; Forys Decl., ¶33.) This action signals the
`
`switch serving of the called party “to put the resident on hold and provide a dial
`
`tone to the originally called party.” (Id., 2:4-6; Id.) The originally called party then
`
`“dials the number of an unauthorized third party.” (Id., 2:6-8; Id.) When the
`
`connection to the unauthorized third party is completed, the “resident and the
`
`unauthorized third party can communicate.” (Id., 2:9-11; Id.)
`
`
`
`- 3 -
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,916,845
`
`The ’845 patent acknowledges that existing inmate communication systems
`
`prevent a resident (e.g., calling party) “from initiating a three-way call, taking part
`
`in a conference call, or the like.” (Id., 1:49-51; Id., ¶43.) However, detection and
`
`prevention of three-way call attempts initiated by the authorized called party
`
`proved problematic because the connection between the authorized called party
`
`and the unauthorized third party is outside the controlled network environment.
`
`(Id., 1:51-53.) Therefore, techniques were developed to detect unauthorized three-
`
`way calls at the inmate communication system.
`
`A. Techniques for detecting three-way calls existed for at least a
`decade prior to the filing date of the ’845 patent.
`
`The background of the ’845 patent describes two existing techniques used
`
`for three-way call detection—signal detection and silence detection. Signal
`
`detection techniques “monitor the local telephone connection for the hook flash
`
`‘click’ signal or associated central office signals that fall in a frequency band
`
`outside the range of frequencies produced by the human voice.” (’845 patent, 2:15-
`
`18.) Silence detection techniques, in contrast, monitor for periods where the signal
`
`noise level drops below a certain threshold. (Forys Decl., ¶50.) These “silence”
`
`periods are indicative of a three-way call attempt by a party to the call.
`
`The background of the ’845 patent describes these prior art silence detection
`
`techniques. As explained in the ’845 patent, the prior art techniques establish “a
`
`baseline ambient, or background, noise level and detect[] when the signal noise
`
`
`
`- 4 -
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,916,845
`
`level drops below the ambient noise level.” (’845 patent, 2:45-48.) “When the
`
`current signal noise level drops below the ambient noise level, the system assumes
`
`that a three-way conference call has been attempted by the called party.” (Id., 2:47-
`
`50.)
`
`The ’845 patent distinguishes its three-way call detection techniques from
`
`the existing prior art techniques. Specifically, the ’845 patent operates directly on
`
`the VoIP signals (out-of-band and/or in-band signaling, either of which may be
`
`part of VoIP data packets or may be separate VoIP-related instructions). (See, e.g.,
`
`’845 patent, 3:25-28.) However, as Petitioner demonstrates below, three-way call
`
`detection by monitoring VoIP data packets was well-known before the filing date
`
`of the ’845 patent.
`
`B. Voice Activation Detection was a known technique for conserving
`bandwidth prior to the ’845 patent.
`
`The ’845 patent also takes advantage of a well-known technique referred to
`
`as Voice Activation or Activity Detection (VAD). Prior to the ’845 patent, it was
`
`an understood fact that voice conversations include at least 50% or more silence or
`
`inactivity. (’845 patent, 5:46; Forys Decl., ¶¶64-71.) Transmitting the VoIP data
`
`packets that contain audio having only silence or inactivity consumes significant
`
`bandwidth. Therefore, techniques were developed to detect silence or inactivity
`
`and minimize the data transmitted. (Forys Decl., ¶¶64-82.) VAD was one of those
`
`techniques. (Id.) “VAD allows a data network carrying voice traffic over the
`
`
`
`- 5 -
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,916,845
`
`Internet to detect the absence of audio and conserve bandwidth by preventing the
`
`transmission of ‘silent packets’ over the network.” (’845 patent, 5:42-46
`
`(emphasis added).)
`
`In a system with VAD enabled, audio signals are monitored “for voice
`
`activity so that when silence is detected for a specified amount of time, the
`
`application informs the Packet Voice Protocol and prevents the encoder output
`
`from being transported across the network.” (Id., 5:46-51.) Typically, a system
`
`with VAD-enabled communications transmits characteristics of the noise (referred
`
`to in the ’845 patent as idle, ambient, or comfort noise) to a remote IP telephone or
`
`gateway. (Id., 5:51-53.) The actual coded speech packet including silence is not
`
`transmitted. (Forys Decl., ¶¶68-73.) The ’845 patent does not provide any details
`
`or discussion of techniques for transmitting idle noise characteristics to a receiving
`
`system. (Id.) However, these techniques were well known prior to the earliest
`
`possible priority date of the ’845 patent.
`
`For example, in a VAD system, during periods of inactivity, a silence
`
`insertion description (SID) packet can be sent by the transmitter (e.g., at the start of
`
`a silent interval) instead of a coded speech packet. (Id., ¶73.) The Internet
`
`Engineering Task Force (IETF) defined a silence packet (referred to as a comfort
`
`noise (CN) packet) for use with RTP VoIP communications in RFC 3389, “Real-
`
`time Transport Protocol (RTP) Payload for Comfort Noise (CN).” The RFC 3389
`
`
`
`- 6 -
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,916,845
`
`comfort noise packet includes characteristics of the noise (noise level and spectral
`
`information). (See GTL1009, RFC3389, pp. 2-3.) Because the comfort noise
`
`(silence) packet requires fewer bits than voice packets and can optionally be sent
`
`only at the start of a silence interval, the use of a CN packet results in significant
`
`bandwidth savings. (Forys Decl., ¶92.) The receiver uses the information in a
`
`received CN packet to fill in the silent portions of a transmission with artificial
`
`comfort noise using the characteristics provided in the CN packet. (Forys Decl.,
`
`¶92.) “Without idle noise giving the illusion of a constant transmission stream
`
`during silence suppression, the listener would be likely to think the line had gone
`
`dead.” (’845 patent, 5:56-59.)
`
`C. The ’845 patent incorporates these known techniques into a
`controlled environment.
`
`Figure 1 of the ’845 patent (reproduced below) depicts a telephone
`
`communication system 100 incorporating “methods for detecting and/or preventing
`
`unauthorized call activity in a VoIP environment.” (’845 patent, 3:10-11.)
`
`According to the ’845 patent, the systems and methods “have particularly
`
`advantageous applicability within controlled-environment facilities” such as
`
`correctional facilities. (Id., 4:5-14.)
`
`
`
`- 7 -
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,916,845
`
`
`
`Telephone communication system 100 includes “a plurality of telephone
`
`terminals 110-113” disposed at a prison. (Id., 6:20-26.) Telephone terminals 110-
`
`113 are connected to call processing system 120 via communications links 140.
`
`(Id., 6:43-46.) Line interface 123 “interfac[es] between the signals native to
`
`terminals 110-113 and a processor or processors of call processing system 120.”
`
`(Id., 6:63-65.)
`
`Call processing system 120 “selectively connects appropriate ones of
`
`terminals 110-113 with the VoIP gateway 126 for completion of desired calls.”
`
`(Id., 7:35-38.) VoIP gateway 126 “utilizes internet protocols to establish a packet-
`
`switched network connection (in contrast to a circuit-switched network connection
`
`of the PSTN) between a calling and called party to thereby connect a desired call.”
`
`(Id., 7:38-42.) VoIP gateway 126 includes a compressor and packetizer 125 that
`
`produces compressed data packets from the telephony signals and may also
`
`
`
`- 8 -
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,916,845
`
`“decompress and depacketize incoming VoIP data packets to provide telephony
`
`signals to terminals 110-113.” (’845 patent, 7:22-32.)
`
`Call processing system 120 also includes a set of functional components:
`
`switching control block 121, routing control block 122, billing control block 124,
`
`validation control block 128, and unauthorized call VAD control block 129. (Id.,
`
`7:58-61.) Unauthorized call VAD control block 129 “provides real-time
`
`intelligence with respect to fraudulent or otherwise unauthorized activity being
`
`attempted during a call, such as unauthorized three-way call detection.” (Id., 8:30-
`
`34.)
`
`The ’845 patent describes two different techniques for detecting three-way
`
`call activity: in-band signaling monitoring and out-of-band signaling monitoring.
`
`The ’845 patent provides a single example of in-band signaling monitoring—VAD
`
`idle noise monitoring. As discussed above, VAD “forward[s] idle noise
`
`characteristics (sometimes called ambient or comfort noise) to a remote IP
`
`telephone or gateway.” (Id., 5:51-53.) The unauthorized call activity detection of
`
`the ’845 patent “monitor[s] return of VAD idle noise [ ] as the equivalent of
`
`silence.” (Id., 9:55-56.) The ’845 patent treats received indications of periods of
`
`VAD idle noise “as a time frame of silence period for detection of an attempt to
`
`initiate a three-way call.” (Id., 9:58-60; 9:66-10:3.)
`
`The ’845 patent provides one example of out-of-band signaling
`
`
`
`- 9 -
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,916,845
`
`monitoring—monitoring of PSTN signaling for a message or messages indicative
`
`of three-way call activity. (Id., 10:14-16.) SS7 signaling is the predominant
`
`signaling protocol used for PSTN out-of-band signaling. (Forys Decl., ¶83.) In the
`
`PSTN, “initiating a three-way or answering a call waiting call, such as by use of a
`
`flash hook, may generate an SS7 suspend event within the network.” (’845 patent,
`
`10:14-16.) When the “hook flash happens a second time to either come back on the
`
`call with another party or to resume this call from a call waiting event, there will be
`
`a resume event that is sent.” (Id., 10:21-24.)
`
`The ’845 patent describes an additional type of monitoring—monitoring
`
`voice or other sounds of interest in a call. In this technique, the system monitors
`
`the call “for cadence, frequency, and/or other attributes that occur in speech” and
`
`captures associated data. (Id., 10:60-64.) The captured data is then analyzed “to
`
`determine the number of voices taking part in a call.” (Id., 10:64-65.) The voice
`
`characteristics data is used to determine “that a third party, who’s voice
`
`characteristics data does not match the resident or called party has joined the call.”
`
`(Id., 11:8-11.)
`
`D. Level of ordinary skill in the art.
`Based on the technologies disclosed in the ’845 patent, a person of ordinary
`
`skill in the art (POSITA) would have a B.S. degree in Electrical Engineering,
`
`Computer Science, or an equivalent field as well as at least 3-5 years of academic
`
`
`
`- 10 -
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,916,845
`
`or industry experience in communications systems, or comparable industry
`
`experience. (Forys Decl., ¶30.)
`
`E. Claim construction.
`In accordance with 37 C.F.R. §42.100(b), the challenged claims must be
`
`given their broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification of the
`
`’845 patent. Cuozzo Speed Technologies, LLC v. Lee, 136 S.Ct. 2131 (2016). The
`
`terms of the ’845 patent should be construed to have their plain and ordinary
`
`meaning.
`
`IV. Ground 1: Apple renders independent claims 1 and 13 and their
`corresponding dependent claims 3, 6-12, 15, and 18-29 obvious.
`
`Independent claims 1 and 13 are directed to a method and system for
`
`monitoring VoIP signals to detect unauthorized three-way call activity. Petitioner
`
`demonstrates below that Apple renders obvious independent claims 1 and 13 and
`
`their corresponding dependent claims 3, 6-12, 15, and 18-29.
`
`A. Apple discloses a system for detecting three-way call activity by
`monitoring VoIP signals.
`
`Apple, like the ’845 patent, describes inmate communication systems (ICS)
`
`using VoIP architectures. Apple recognizes that “the application of VOIP
`
`principles to the implementation of ICS offer[s] flexibility, added feature
`
`functionality and reduction in operating costs needed to support significant
`
`upgrading of existing ICS systems and services.” (GTL 1005, Apple, 6:27-31.)
`
`Figure 2 of Apple (reproduced below) depicts an illustrative call processing
`
`
`
`- 11 -
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,916,845
`
`system handling calls originating from a prison telephone facility. (Apple, 11:59-
`
`60.) Facility 200 includes “a plurality of telephone stations 201-i, i=1, 2,…, N,
`
`represented by their respective telephone sets, and an interface 210 for interfacing
`
`the telephone stations 201-i to a data network 220.” (Apple, 11:59-63.)
`
`
`
`Figure 2 illustrates data network 220 separately from VoIP processing
`
`
`
`functionality 225. However, the ’845 patent explains this separation is “for
`
`emphasis only” and a POSITA would understand that “no such separate grouping
`
`of facilities is necessary, or even appropriate in many cases.” (Apple, 14:1-6.) “To
`
`the contrary, it proves advantageous in many applications and configurations to
`
`have processing for performing VOIP and other network-based functions
`
`distributed in network 220 in a manner best suited to the geographical, functional
`
`
`
`- 12 -
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,916,845
`
`and economic constraints and requirements, goals and tasks at hand.” (Apple, 14:6-
`
`11.)
`
`
`
`Apple Figure 3A (reproduced below) illustrates an example of VoIP
`
`processing functionality including a gateway 321 “for interfacing with telephone-
`
`data-network interface 210.” (Apple, 15:56-57.) In embodiments, gateway 321
`
`performs conversion to a VoIP format. (Apple, 16:31-32.) The VoIP processing
`
`functionality also includes an IP packet telephony switch (IPTS) 320 “for routing
`
`IP packets to gateways in data network 220.” (Apple, 15:56-16:2.) Gateway 322 is
`
`a “destination gateway” that converts VoIP data packets to “an appropriate format
`
`for delivery to the PSTN.” (Apple, 16:25-28.)
`
`
`
`Apple Figure 3C (annotated below) advantageously “expand[s] upon
`
`functions” of Figure 3A. (Apple, 18:60-66.) In Figure 3C, “the two gateway
`
`interfaces 341 and 342, and packet interface 363…switching and database
`
`
`
`- 13 -
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,916,845
`
`elements 320 and 323, [and] admin terminal 365” provide the same functionality as
`
`corresponding elements of Figure 3A. (Apple, 18:66-19:6.) Specifically, gateways
`
`341 and 342, which are analogous to gateway 321 and 322 of Figure 3A, provide
`
`“network-based interfaces to telephone-data-network interface 210 and to PSTN
`
`120, respectively.” (Apple, 18:58-59.)
`
`
`
`Figure 3C adds a silence detector 324 to the VoIP processing functionality
`
`of Figure 34. Silence detector 324 provides “enhanced detection and treatment for
`
`suspected unauthorized 3-way calling attempts in ongoing calls that employ VoIP.”
`
`(Apple, 35:27-29; 36:19-24.) One three-way call detection technique employed by
`
`Apple “monitor[s] for speech silence, where speech silence refers to the absence of
`
`speech signal content on the communications connection or link (whether PSTN,
`
`VoIP or both) corresponding to speech by an inmate calling party and a called
`
`party.” (Apple, 36:13-19.)
`
`
`
`- 14 -
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,916,845
`
`Apple does not explicitly describe an embodiment incorporating the
`
`functionality of Figure 3C into the data network 220 and VoIP processing 225 of
`
`the system depicted in Figure 2. However, modifying Figure 2 to incorporate the
`
`elements of Figure 3C would have been obvious to a POSITA. (Forys Decl., ¶117.)
`
`Apple suggests such a combination of embodiments, indicating the functions of
`
`Figure 3C would be “useful in providing ICS.” (Apple, 18:60-66.) Therefore, a
`
`POSITA would have modified the inmate calling system of Figure 2 to incorporate
`
`the functionality depicted in Figure 3C. (Forys Decl., ¶117.) Forys Declaration
`
`Figure A (reproduced below) illustrates the modification of Figure 2 to incorporate
`
`functionality of Figure 3C.
`
`
`
`Forys – Figure A
`
`
`
`- 15 -
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,916,845
`
`B. Independent claims 1 and 13.
`1. Apple renders claim 1 obvious.
`a) Apple discloses “a method for providing call processing in
`a controlled-environment facility” 1[P].
`Apple discloses “a method for providing call processing in a controlled-
`
`environment facility” [1P]: “[E]mbodiments of the present invention relates to such
`
`telecommunications systems and methods as applied to inmate telephone calling
`
`systems and methods for providing telephone calling services to inmates in
`
`correctional and other confinement facilities.” (Apple, 1:56-61; 11:53-63; see also,
`
`Forys Decl., ¶¶120-121.) A correctional facility is an example of a controlled-
`
`environment facility listed in the ’845 patent. (’845 patent, 4:7-14.) Apple further
`
`explains that its ICS performs call processing. (Apple, 9:47-50 (“FIG. 4 is a
`
`flowchart representation of network-based call processing funct