Case IPR2017-01977
`Patent No. 8,755,376
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`TELESIGN CORPORATION
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`TWILIO INC.
`Patent Owner
`
`Case No. IPR2017-01977
`Patent: 8,755,376
`
`PATENT OWNER RESPONSE
`PURSUANT TO 37 C.F.R. § 42.120
`
`

`

`Case IPR2017-01977
`Patent No. 8,755,376
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`I.
`II.
`
`Page
`RELATED PROCEEDINGS....................................................................... 2
`TECHNICAL BACKGROUND .................................................................. 3
`A.
`The ‘376 Patent .................................................................................... 3
`B.
`SOAP .................................................................................................... 4
`C.
`REST APIs ........................................................................................... 5
`D.
`Prior Art Relied on by Petitioner.......................................................... 6
`1.
`Maes ........................................................................................... 6
`2.
`Ransom ....................................................................................... 7
`3.
`Jiang ........................................................................................... 9
`4.
`ETSI Standard 202 391-4 v.1.2.1 (“ETSI-4”) / ETSI
`Standard 202 391-7 v.1.2.1 (“ETSI-7”) / ETSI Standard
`202 391-2 v.1.2.1 (“ETSI-2”) (together, “ETSI Standards”) .... 9
`III. LEVEL OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART ..................................... 10
`IV. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION ....................................................................... 10
`A.
`Claims 1, 14: “REST API” ................................................................. 10
`B.
`Claims 1, 2, 14, 16: “API resource” ................................................... 12
`C.
`Claims 1, 14, 16: “API resource URI” ............................................... 13
`D.
`Claims 1, 2, 14, 16: “URI” ................................................................. 13
`GROUND 1: THE PETITION FAILS TO DEMONSTRATE
`THAT THE CHALLENGED CLAIMS WOULD HAVE BEEN
`OBVIOUS OVER MAES IN VIEW OF RANSOM................................ 14
`A.
`Petitioner Fails to Show That Maes Discloses “a plurality of API
`resources” of Claim 1[a] .................................................................... 15
`Petitioner Fails to Show that Maes and Ransom, Individually or
`in Combination, Disclose “exposing the plurality of API
`resources through a representation state transfer (REST) API” of
`Claim 1[b] ........................................................................................... 16
`
`V.
`
`B.
`
`i
`
`

`

`Case IPR2017-01977
`Patent No. 8,755,376
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`C.
`
`Petitioner Fails to Show that Maes Discloses “the plurality
`of API resources” of Claim 1[b] .............................................. 16
`Petitioner Fails to Show that Maes and Ransom,
`Individually or in Combination, Disclose “exposing the
`plurality of API resources through a Representational State
`Transfer (REST) API” of Claim 1[b] ...................................... 17
`A POSA Would Not Have Been Motivated to Combine
`Maes and Ransom to Arrive at Claim 1[b] .............................. 19
`Petitioner Fails to Show, Individually or in Combination, that
`Maes and Ransom Disclose “receiving a REST API request that
`specifies an API resource URI” of Claim 1[b][i] ............................... 29
`1.
`Petitioner Fails to Show that Maes and Ransom, Alone or
`in Combination, Disclose “…specifies an API resource
`URI” of Claim 1[b][i] .............................................................. 29
`Petitioner Fails to Show that Maes and Ransom, Alone or
`in Combination, Disclose “receiving a REST API request”
`of Claim 1[b][i] ........................................................................ 31
`A POSA Would Not Have Been Motivated to Combine
`Maes and Ransom to Arrive at Claim 1[b][i] .......................... 31
`Petitioner Fails to Show that Maes Discloses “responding to the
`API request according to the request and the specified resource
`URI” of Claim 1[b][ii] ........................................................................ 33
`Petitioner Fails to Show Maes and Ransom, Individually or in
`Combination, Disclose the Challenged Dependent Claims ............... 34
`1.
`Petitioner Fails to Show Maes and Ransom, Individually or
`in Combination, Disclose Claim 2 ........................................... 35
`Petitioner Fails to Show Maes and Ransom, Individually or
`in Combination, Disclose Claim 14 ......................................... 36
`Petitioner Fails to Show Maes and Ransom, Individually or
`in Combination, Disclose Claim 16 ......................................... 37
`Petitioner Fails to Show Maes and Ransom, Individually or
`in Combination, Disclose Claim 19 ......................................... 38
`VI. GROUND 2: THE PETITION FAILS TO DEMONSTRATE
`CLAIMS 5 AND 17 WOULD HAVE BEEN OBVIOUS OVER
`
`D.
`
`E.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`4.
`
`ii
`
`

`

`Case IPR2017-01977
`Patent No. 8,755,376
`
`MAES IN VIEW OF RANSOM AND FURTHER IN VIEW OF
`JIANG .......................................................................................................... 39
`VII. GROUND 3: THE PETITION FAILS TO DEMONSTRATE
`THAT THE CHALLENGED CLAIMS WOULD HAVE BEEN
`OBVIOUS OVER ETSI-202-391-4 IN VIEW OF RANSOM ................ 40
`A.
`Petitioner Fails to Show That ETSI-4 Discloses “a plurality of
`API resources” of Claim 1[a] ............................................................. 40
`Petitioner Fails to Show, Individually or in Combination, that
`ETSI-4 and Ransom Disclose “exposing the plurality of API
`resources through a representation state transfer (REST) API” of
`Claim 1[b] ........................................................................................... 41
`1.
`Petitioner Fails to Show that ETSI-4 Discloses “the
`plurality of API resources” of Claim 1[b] ............................... 41
`Petitioner Fails to Show that ETSI-4 and Ransom,
`Individually or in Combination, Disclose “exposing the
`plurality of API resources through a Representational State
`Transfer (REST) API” of Claim 1[b] ...................................... 42
`A POSA Would Not Have Been Motivated to Combine
`ETSI-4 and Ransom to Arrive at Claim 1[b] ........................... 44
`Petitioner Fails to Show, Individually or in Combination, that
`ETSI-4 and Ransom Disclose “receiving a REST API request
`that specifies an API resource URI” of Claim 1[b][i] ........................ 48
`1.
`Neither ETSI-4 or Ransom, Individually or in
`Combination, Discloses “receiving a REST API request
`that specifies an API resource URI” of Claim 1[b][i] ............. 48
`Petitioner Fails to Show that ETSI-4 and Ransom,
`Individually or in Combination, Disclose “receiving a
`REST API request” of Claim 1[b][i] ....................................... 49
`A POSA Would Not Have Been Motivated to Combine
`ETSI-4 and Ransom to Arrive at Claim 1[b][i] ....................... 51
`Petitioner Fails to Show that ETSI-4 Discloses “responding to
`the API request according to the request and the specified
`resource URI” of Claim 1[b][ii] ......................................................... 53
`Petitioner Fails to Show Maes and Ransom, Individually or in
`Combination, Disclose the Challenged Dependent Claims ............... 54
`iii
`
`D.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`E.
`
`

`

`Case IPR2017-01977
`Patent No. 8,755,376
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`4.
`
`Petitioner Fails to Show ETSI-4 and Ransom, Individually
`or in Combination, Disclose Claim 2 ....................................... 54
`Petitioner Fails to Show ETSI-4 and Ransom, Individually
`or in Combination, Disclose Claim 5 ....................................... 55
`Petitioner Fails to Show ETSI-4 and Ransom, Individually
`or in Combination, Disclose Claim 14 ..................................... 55
`Petitioner Fails to Show ETSI-4 and Ransom, Individually
`or in Combination, Disclose Claim 16 ..................................... 56
`VIII. GROUND 4: THE PETITION FAILS TO DEMONSTRATE
`CLAIM 17 WOULD HAVE BEEN OBVIOUS OVER ETSI-4 IN
`VIEW OF RANSOM AND FURTHER IN VIEW OF ETSI-7 .............. 56
`IX. GROUND 5: THE PETITION FAILS TO DEMONSTRATE
`CLAIM 19 WOULD HAVE BEEN OBVIOUS OVER ETSI-4 IN
`VIEW OF RANSOM AND FURTHER IN VIEW OF ETSI-2 .............. 57
`OBJECTIVE INDICIA ESTABLISH NON-OBVIOUSNESS .............. 57
`A.
`Petitioner Copied Patent Owner’s Invention ...................................... 58
`B.
`Patent Owner’s Products Embody the Claimed Invention................. 59
`C.
`Patent Owner’s Products Have Achieved Significant
`Commercial Success Because of the Inventive Features ................... 61
`Patent Owner’s Claimed Technology Received Industry-Wide
`Praise .................................................................................................. 63
`There Was a Long-Felt Need for the Invention ................................. 64
`E.
`XI. CONCLUSION ........................................................................................... 65
`
`X.
`
`D.
`
`iv
`
`

`

`Case IPR2017-01977
`Patent No. 8,755,376
`
`Exhibit Description
`
`LIST OF EXHIBITS
`
`2001
`
`2002
`
`2003
`
`2004
`
`2005
`
`2006
`
`2007
`
`2008
`
`2009
`
`2010
`
`2011
`
`2012
`
`2013
`
`Sarah J. Guske Biography
`
`Jay B. Schiller Biography
`
`Defendant TeleSign Corporation’s Responsive Claim Construction
`Brief, from Twilio Inc. v. TeleSign Corporation, Case No. 5:16-cv-
`06925-LHK-SVK, ECF No. 110
`Transcript of Claim Construction Hearing, from Twilio Inc. v. TeleSign
`Corporation, Case No. 5:16-cv-06925-LHK-SVK
`Order Construing Claim Terms of U.S. Patent Nos. 8,306,021;
`8,837,465; and 8,755,376, from Twilio Inc. v. TeleSign Corporation,
`Case No. 5:16-cv-06925-LHK-SVK, ECF No. 137
`Deposition Transcript of Dr. Seth Nielson, from Twilio Inc. v. TeleSign
`Corporation, Case No. 5:16-cv-06925-LHK-SVK
`Declaration of Seth Nielson, Ph.D., from Twilio Inc. v. TeleSign
`Corporation, Case No. 5:16-cv-06925-LHK-SVK
`TeleSign’s Patent Local Rule 4-2 Preliminary Claim Constructions,
`from Twilio Inc. v. TeleSign Corporation, Case No. 5:16-cv-06925-
`LHK-SVK
`Information Disclosure Statement for Application No. 13/743,078,
`January 16, 2013
`Declaration of Dr. Kevin Negus
`
`Final draft ETSI ES 202 391-1 V1.2.1 (2006-10), “Open Service
`Access (OSA); Parlay X Web Services; Part 1: Common (Parlay X 2)”
`(ETSI ES 202 391-1)
`“Service Station - More On REST”, by Jon Flanders, July 2009,
`available
`at
`https://msdn.microsoft.com/en-
`us/magazine/dd942839.aspx
`“Web Services, Part 1: SOAP vs. REST”, by Brennan Spies, May 2,
`2008,
`available
`at
`http://www.ajaxonomy.com/2008/xml/web-
`services-part-1-soap-vs-rest
`
`v
`
`

`

`Case IPR2017-01977
`Patent No. 8,755,376
`
`Exhibit Description
`
`2014
`
`2015
`
`2016
`
`2017
`
`2018
`
`2019
`
`2020
`
`2021
`
`2022
`
`2023
`
`2024
`
`“REST and SOAP: When Should I Use Each (or Both)?”, by Mike
`Rozlog,
`April
`1,
`2010,
`available
`at
`https://www.infoq.com/articles/rest-soap-when-to-use-each
`Affidavit of Christopher Butler (Internet Archive), May 17, 2018 with
`Attachment A (“TeleSign Introduces REST APIs,” Feb. 21, 2012)
`Excerpts of Plaintiff Twilio Inc.’s Fourth Amended Objections and
`Responses to Defendant Telesign’s First Set of Interrogatories (Nos. 1-
`13), Twilio Inc. v. TeleSign Corporation, Case No. 5:16-cv-06925-
`LHK-SVK (N.D. Cal. Dec. 18, 2017)
`Complaint, D.I. 1, Twilio, Inc. v. TeleSign Corp., Case No. 16–cv–
`06925–LHK (N.D. Cal. Dec. 1, 2016)
`March 5-26, 2018 Email chain between counsel for the parties
`
`Article entitled “When Twilio was young: the early years”, by Ronny
`Kerr, November 4, 2016, available at http://vator.tv/news/2016-11-04-
`when-twilio-was-young-the-early-years
`Article entitled “The Wizard Of Apps: How Jeff Lawson Built Twilio
`Into The Mightiest Unicorn”, by Miguel Heft, Septemeber 14, 2016,
`Forbes,
`available
`at
`https://www.forbes.com/sites/miguelhelft/2016/09/14/the-wizard-of-
`apps-how-jeff-lawson-turned-twilio-into-the-mightiest-
`unicorn/#2d1f4d81b580
` RESERVED
`
`Improves Audio Quality of VoIP
`Article entitled “Twilio
`Communucations Service”, by Michael Vizard, March 17, 2014,
`available
`at
`https://www.programmableweb.com/news/twilio-
`improves-audio-quality-voip-communications-service/2014/03/17
`Article entitled “NewVoiceMedia builds a contact center in minutes
`with Twilio; Fully Integrated Contact Center Built from Scratch in just
`20 Minutes”, M2 PRESSWIRE, November 28, 2013, available on
`WestLaw
` RESERVED
`
`vi
`
`

`

`Case IPR2017-01977
`Patent No. 8,755,376
`
`Exhibit Description
`
`2025
`
`2026
`
`2027
`
`2028
`
`2029
`
`2030
`
`2031
`
`2032
`
`2033
`
`2034
`
`2035
`
`2036
`
`2037
`
`January 13, 2014 Email from Darren Berkovitz and Charles McColgan
`with attachment, bates stamped TLS_00022310-18 (SUBMITTED
`UNDER SEAL)
`November 21, 2011 Email from Charles McColgan to Maya Sudhakar,
`bates stamped TLS_00021739-41 (SUBMITTED UNDER SEAL)
`April 19, 2012 Email from Raman Dhillon, bates stamped
`TLS_00021863 (SUBMITTED UNDER SEAL)
`“TeleSign Introduces REST APIs”, Petitioner’s Press Release (Feb. 21,
`2012),
`available
`at
`https://web.archive.org/web/20150509072257/https://www.telesign.c
`om/blog/post/restful-apis/
`Article entitled “Twilio Brings Cloud Communications to Windows
`Azure”, Business Wire, May 2, 2012, available on WestLaw
`Complaint, D.I. 1, TeleSign Corporation v. Twilio, Inc., Case No. 15-
`cv-03240-PSG-SS (C.D. Cal Apr. 30, 2015)
`Plaintiff's Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support of
`Motion for Preliminary Injunction. D.I. 21, TeleSign Corp. v. Twilio,
`Inc., Case No. 15-cv-03240-PSG-SS (C.D. Cal Aug. 5, 2015)
`Plaintiff Twilio Inc.’s Disclosure of Asserted Claims and Infringement
`Contentions Pursuant to Patent L.R. 3-1, Twilio Inc. v. TeleSign
`Corporation., Case No. 5:16-cv-06925-LHK-SVK (N.D. Cal. March
`15, 2017)
`October 27, 2017 Email between counsel for the parties
`
`Ph.D. Dissertation of Roy Thomas Fielding entitled “Architectural
`Styles
`and
`the Design
`of Network-Based
`Software
`Architecture,” submitted to the Information and Computer Science
`Department, University of California, 2000
`IEEE 100 - The Authoritative Dictionary of IEEE Standards Terms,
`Seventh Edition, Published by Standards Information Network IEEE
`Press
`May 25, 2018 Excerpt of email chain between counsel for the parties
`
`Request for Comments: 3986, The Uniform Resource Identifier (URI):
`Generic Syntax, January 2005
`
`vii
`
`

`

`Case IPR2017-01977
`Patent No. 8,755,376
`
`Exhibit Description
`
`2038
`
`2039
`
`2040
`
`2041
`
`2042
`
`2043
`
`2044
`
`2045
`
`2046
`
`2047
`
`2048
`
`2049
`
`2050
`
`2051
`
`2052
`
`2053
`
`2054
`
`2055
`
`2056
`
`Twilio Inc. Form S-1, filed on May 26, 2016
`
`Transcript of PTAB Conference Call on May 23, 2018
`
`Webpage
`Customers
`Twilio
`https://customers.twilio.com
`Mutual Nondisclosure Agreement, dated February 28, 2010
`
`list,
`
`available
`
`at
`
`Wikipedia article, “Representational state transfer”, last accessed on
`June 5, 2018
`Wikipedia article, “Media type”, last accessed on June 5, 2018
`
`Wikipedia article, “Parlay Group”, last accessed on June 5, 2018
`
`Wikipedia article, “SOAP”, last accessed on June 5, 2018
`
`Declaration of Larissa Soboleva
`
`Twilio Salesforce Account Summary
`
`Twilio Salesforce Account Summary
`
`Twilio Salesforce Account Summary
`
`Twilio Salesforce Account Summary
`
`Twilio Salesforce Account Summary
`
`Twilio Salesforce Account Summary
`
`Twilio Salesforce Account Summary
`
`Twilio Salesforce Account Summary
`
`Website,
`Twilio’s
`from
`Printout
`https://www.twilio.com/docs/sms/twiml/message
`Printout
`from
`Twilio’s
`Website,
`https://www.twilio.com/docs/voice/twiml
`
`available
`
`available
`
`at
`
`at
`
`viii
`
`

`

`Case IPR2017-01977
`Patent No. 8,755,376
`
`Exhibit Description
`
`2057
`
`2058
`
`2059
`
`2060
`
`2061
`
`2062
`
`2063
`
`2064
`
`2065
`
`2066
`
`2067
`
`2068
`
`2069
`
`2070
`
`available
`
`available
`
`Website,
`Twilio’s
`from
`Printout
`https://www.twilio.com/docs/voice/twiml/dial
`Printout
`from
`Twilio’s
`Website,
`https://www.twilio.com/docs/sms/twiml
`Printout
`from
`Twilio’s
`Website,
`https://customers.twilio.com/249/lyft/
`Website,
`Printout
`from
`Twilio’s
`https://customers.twilio.com/261/hulu/
`Printout
`from
`Twilio’s
`Website,
`https://customers.twilio.com/280/handy/
`available
`Printout
`from
`Twilio’s
`Website,
`https://customers.twilio.com/312/paybyphone-sends-users-payment-
`reminders-to-avoid-parking-tickets
`Twilio Salesforce Account Summary
`
`available
`
`available
`
`available
`
`at
`
`at
`
`at
`
`at
`
`at
`
`at
`
`Twilio Salesforce Account Summary
`
`Twilio Salesforce Account Summary
`
`Twilio Salesforce Account Summary
`
`Excerpts of Twilio PowerPoint Presentation - Finance December 2017
`
`Twilio’s Infringement Contentions Pursuant to L. Pat. R. 3-1 - U.S.
`Patent 8,755,376
`Website,
`Twilio’s
`Printout
`from
`https://www.twilio.com/docs/voice/api
`available
`Printout
`from
`Twilio’s
`Website,
`https://www.twilio.com/docs/usage/your-request-to-twilio
`
`at
`
`at
`
`available
`
`ix
`
`

`

`Case IPR2017-01977
`Patent No. 8,755,376
`
`CLAIM ELEMENT NUMBERING
`
`Petition
`
`Claim 1
`[1]
`
`Patent Owner
`Response
`Claim 1
`1(a)
`
`[1a]
`[1b]
`
`[1c]
`
`[1d]
`
`[1e]
`
`[1f]
`
`[1g]
`
`1(a)(i)
`1(a)(ii)
`
`1(a)(iii)
`
`1(a)(iv)
`
`1(b)
`
`1(b)(i)
`
`1(b)(ii)
`
`Claim Language
`
`A method comprising:
`operating a telephony network and internet
`connected system cooperatively with a plurality
`of application programming Interface (API)
`resources, wherein operating
`the
`system
`comprises:
`initiating a telephony session,
`communicating with an application server to
`receive an application response,
`into
`response
`converting
`the application
`executable operations to process the telephony
`session,
`creating at least one informational API resource;
`and
`exposing the plurality of API resources through
`a representational state transfer (REST) API that
`comprises:
`receiving a REST API request that specifies an
`API resource URI, and
`responding to the API request according to the
`request and the specified resource URI.
`
`x
`
`

`

`Case IPR2017-01977
`Patent No. 8,755,376
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`Page(s)
`
`CASES
`Allergan, Inc. v. Sandoz Inc.,
`796 F.3d 1293 (Fed. Cir. 2015) .......................................................................... 52
`Apple, Inc. v. VOIP-Pal.com, Inc.,
`IPR2016-01201, Paper 54 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 20, 2017) ................................... 25, 39
`Belden Inc. v. Berk-Tek LLC,
`805 F.3d 1064 (Fed. Cir. 2015) .................................................................... 22, 44
`Bilstad v. Wakalopulos,
`386 F.3d 1116 (Fed. Cir. 2004) .......................................................................... 42
`Free Motion Fitness, Inc. v. Cybex Int’l, Inc.,
`423 F.3d 1343 (Fed. Cir. 2005) .......................................................................... 38
`GN Resound A/S v. Oticon A/S,
`IPR2015-00103, Paper 13 (P.T.A.B. June 18, 2015) .... 36, 37, 38, 40, 53, 54, 56
`Harmonic Inc. v. Avid Tech., Inc.,
`815 F.3d 1356 (Fed. Cir. 2016) .......................................................................... 15
`In re Clay,
`966 F.2d 656 (Fed. Cir. 1992) ............................................................................ 21
`In re Magnum Oil Tools Int’l, Ltd.,
`829 F.3d 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2016) .......................................................................... 34
`Innovention Toys, LLC v. MGA Entm’t, Inc.,
`637 F.3d 1314 (Fed. Cir. 2011) .......................................................................... 19
`Intelligent Bio-Sys., Inc. v. Illumina Cambridge Ltd.,
`821 F.3d 1359 (Fed. Cir. 2016) .......................................................................... 65
`Intri-Plex Tech. v. Saint-Gobain Performance Plastics Rencol Ltd.,
`IPR2014-00309, Paper 83 (P.T.A.B. March 23, 2015) ...................................... 63
`
`xi
`
`

`

`Case IPR2017-01977
`Patent No. 8,755,376
`
`Johns Manville Corp. v. Knauf Insulation, Inc.,
`IPR2015-01633, Paper 10 (P.T.A.B. January 4, 2016) ...................................... 38
`Kinetic Techs., Inc. v. Skyworks Sols., Inc.,
`IPR2014-00529, Paper 8 (P.T.A.B. Sept. 23, 2014)............ 22, 25, 45, 47, 56, 57
`KSR v. Teleflex, Inc.
`550 U.S. 398 (2007) .......................................................................... 23, 32, 45, 51
`Merck Sharp & Dohme B.V. v. Warner Chilcott Co.,
`711 F. App’x. 633 (Fed Cir. 2017) ..................................................................... 24
`Nissan N. Am., Inc. v. Bd. of Regents, Univ. of Tex. Sys.,
`IPR2012-00035, Paper 30 (P.T.A.B. March 19, 2013) ...................................... 28
`Pure Fishing v. Globeride,
`IPR2015-01252, Paper 30 (P.T.A.B. October 31, 2016) .................................... 21
`Ruiz v. A.B. Chance Co.,
`234 F.3d 654 (Fed. Cir. 2000) ................................................................ 24, 25, 39
`Twilio, Inc. v. TeleSign Corp.,
`Case No 5:16-cv-6925-LHK (N.D. Cal.).............................................................. 2
`Ultratec, Inc. v. CaptionCall, LLC,
`872 F.3d 1267 (Fed. Cir. 2017) .......................................................................... 28
`Unwired Planet, LLC v. Google Inc.,
`841 F.3d 995 (Fed. Cir. 2016) ............................................................................ 20
`
`xii
`
`

`

`Case IPR2017-01977
`Patent No. 8,755,376
`
`U.S. Patent No. 8,755,376 (“the ‘376 Patent”) is directed to a novel
`
`architecture for modern applications to interface with traditional telephony
`
`networks. Every challenged claim requires “operating a telephony network and
`
`internet connected system cooperatively with a plurality of application programming
`
`interface (API) resources,” “exposing the plurality of API resources through a
`
`representational state transfer (REST) API,” “receiving a REST API request that
`
`specifies an API resource URI,” and “responding to the API request according to the
`
`request and the specified resource URI.” EX1001 at cl. 1.
`
`None of Petitioner’s references disclose the ‘376 Patent claims—whether
`
`alone or in combination. Instead of aligning the claim limitations with disclosure
`
`from the prior art, Petitioner asserts that the ‘376 claims were obvious because the
`
`SOAP protocol and the REST architectural style were known at the time of the
`
`invention. But the validity of the ‘376 Patent does not hinge on a mere substitution
`
`of REST for SOAP. Rather, the ‘376 Patent requires a specific claimed architecture
`
`that provides flexibility and ease of use to developers. For example, the claims
`
`require “a plurality of API resources,” each of which is individually addressed with
`
`a URI. Developers may use the claimed plurality of API resources as building blocks
`
`to create communications applications that leverage legacy telephony networks.
`
`Petitioner ignores the requirements of the claims, instead improperly relying on a
`
`broad argument that “REST was known.”
`1
`
`

`

`Case IPR2017-01977
`Patent No. 8,755,376
`
`Petitioner also fails to provide sufficient motivation to combine its proposed
`
`prior art references. Petitioner relies on a combination with Ransom for all its
`
`grounds. But Ransom is non-analogous art—it is directed to “a power management
`
`architecture for an electrical power distribution system” and bears no relation to
`
`telephony equipment. That Petitioner performed a comprehensive search for prior
`
`art, could not find any reference using REST in the telephony field, and instead only
`
`came up with an unrelated reference is telling and supports the patentability of the
`
`‘376 Patent. And Petitioner cites no reasoning for why a POSA would have looked
`
`to modify or combine the cited prior art references, contending only that the
`
`references could be combined. Petitioner relies on its expert Nielson for
`
`combinability, but Nielson swore in in District Court that he could not understand
`
`the claim limitations that he now contends are obvious.
`
`Objective indicia further prove that the claims are not obvious.
`
`Thus, the Board should confirm the patentability of claims 1-3, 5, 14, 16-17,
`
`and 19 (hereinafter, “the challenged claims”) of U.S. Patent No. 8,755,376.
`
`I.
`
`RELATED PROCEEDINGS
`The ’376 Patent is asserted in the following patent infringement lawsuit:
`
`Twilio, Inc. v. TeleSign Corp., Case No 5:16-cv-6925-LHK (N.D. Cal.).
`
`2
`
`

`

`Case IPR2017-01977
`Patent No. 8,755,376
`
`II.
`
`TECHNICAL BACKGROUND
`A.
`The ‘376 Patent
`The ‘376 Patent claims address a problem relating to bridging modern
`
`software developers with the often older, complex telephony networks. EX1001 at
`
`1:28-59. Developing an app to work with telephony network components and
`
`protocols required developers to customize their apps to interface, for example, with
`
`voice networking codecs, specialty hardware, and specialty software. Id. The ‘376
`
`Patent recognized that revolutionary new telephony services were feasible, but the
`
`limitations of the prior art platforms were such that the development of new
`
`telephony services still required “significant upfront and ongoing investment in
`
`specialized infrastructure, skills, and operations.” Id. at 1:44-54. The ‘376 Patent
`
`addressed this critical problem with a novel platform that makes telephony services
`
`available to application developers that know little to nothing about implementing
`
`telephony services. Id. at 1:30-59.
`
`One solution to these problems is in claim 1 of the ‘376 Patent. Claim 1 is
`
`directed to improvements in “operating a telephony network and internet connected
`
`system cooperatively.” EX1001 at 18:30-31. The method uses “a plurality of API
`
`resources” that are exposed using a REST API. Id. at 18:31-41. The ability to use
`
`multiple API resources provides extensibility and flexibility so a single system can
`
`be used by different developers for a variety of purposes. For example, a developer
`
`3
`
`

`

`Case IPR2017-01977
`Patent No. 8,755,376
`
`can select any of the available API resources to create a highly-customized
`
`application (the specification provides examples: the AutoAttendant, FollowMe,
`
`Conference, AutoConference, Device, Person, VoicemailBox, Group, and Queuing
`
`applications). EX1001 at 15:50-55. And, as required by claim 1, each REST API
`
`request specifies a Uniform Resource Identifier (URI) for a particular API resource
`
`(i.e., an API resource URI). Id. at 18:40-43. The specification provides that “[t]he
`
`API resource of the preferred embodiment functions as an addressable representation
`
`of call router meta-data, internal call router state, or the state of a given resource
`
`used by the call router” such that each “API resource is preferably addressed by a
`
`persistent URI.” Id. at 9:30-37; see also id. at 8:23-26. Each API resource URI also
`
`“preferably contains all the necessary state information, and this preferably makes
`
`data persistent, queryable, and recoverable.” EX1001 at 8:23-26. According to
`
`claim 1, the API resource submits a response according to the request and the
`
`specified resource URI. Id. at 18:44-45.
`
`SOAP
`B.
`SOAP is a standardized messaging protocol “intended for exchanging
`
`structured and typed information” “in a decentralized, distributed environment using
`
`XML.” EX1015 at 3. It was designed at Microsoft around 1998. EX2010, ¶277;
`
`EX2045 at 2. SOAP messages require at least an envelope and a body, which
`
`contains “mandatory information intended for the ultimate SOAP receiver.” See
`
`4
`
`

`

`Case IPR2017-01977
`Patent No. 8,755,376
`
`EX1015 at 4, 7, 11. SOAP requests are sent to and processed by servers that
`
`maintain state information of the session. EX2010, ¶291 (citing EX2014 at 2-3).
`
`Because the SOAP message body contains the information pertinent to handling the
`
`request, complex operations affecting multiple network components can be included
`
`in a single request. EX2010, ¶287. However, resources are not individually
`
`addressed by a URI. Id.
`
`REST APIs
`C.
`REST refers to an architectural style coined by Roy Fielding in his doctoral
`
`dissertation in 2000. EX2005 at 19; EX2034. REST APIs generally comply with
`
`four constraints: identification of resources; manipulation of resources through
`
`representations; self-descriptive messages; and, hypermedia as the engine of
`
`application state. EX2005 at 19; EX2034. In a RESTful architecture, state
`
`information is included in requests and not stored on a server, and URIs (Uniform
`
`Resource Identifiers) are used to identify and call individual resources. EX2010,
`
`¶¶287-288, 291. This allows each request to stand alone. Id.
`
`The ability to send requests directly to individual API resources identified by
`
`a URI in a REST architecture makes the requests simpler and the resources more
`
`easily accessible as compared to SOAP. EX2010, ¶¶283, 285-88. However, SOAP
`
`is better than REST for handling complex operations affecting multiple network
`
`5
`
`

`

`Case IPR2017-01977
`Patent No. 8,755,376
`
`elements in a single request. EX2010, ¶287; EX2013 at 4-5; EX2012 at 2. SOAP
`
`also has a set of well-established rules. EX2010, ¶291; EX2014 at 2. For at least
`
`these reasons, at the time of the invention of the ‘376 Patent, REST APIs, which
`
`were well-known, were generally not used in complex systems like telephony
`
`systems. EX2010, ¶287. None of Petitioner’s prior art references teaches, suggests,
`
`or motivates the use of a REST API in a telephony system.
`
`D.
`
`Prior Art Relied on by Petitioner
`1. Maes
`U.S. Patent No. 6,901,604 to Maes et al. (“Maes”) is directed to a SOAP-
`
`based system for “building distributed conversational applications.” EX1003 at
`
`3:45-49.
`
`Maes uses and endorses SOAP. See EX1003 at 24:19-23 (“This solution
`
`[SOAP] presents the advantage to provide flexibility, scalability and extensibility
`
`while reusing an existing framework that fits the evolution of the web”); 28:12-16;
`
`28:22-36. Maes does not mention “REST,” “REST API,” or “REST API request.”
`
`Consistent with SOAP, Maes does not send requests to individual resources
`
`specified by a URI. EX2010, ¶¶194-198; EX1003 at 15:66-16:11, cols. 34-35
`
`(showing sample control messages). Rather, Maes uses intermediaries (task
`
`manager 15 and router 21) to parse messages, determine which network components
`
`are needed to implement the request, and assign addresses for available speech
`6
`
`

`

`Case IPR2017-01977
`Patent No. 8,755,376
`
`engines. EX1003 at 15:66-16:14, FIG. 8, cols. 33-34; EX2010, ¶¶194-198. Sample
`
`control messages, which list a number of “enumeration values” in a single message,
`
`are shown in EX1003, cols. 33-34.
`
`The Patent Office was aware of Maes at the time of issuance. Maes was listed
`
`by Patent Owner in an IDS during prosecution of the ’376 Patent, but the Examiner
`
`did not cite Maes in any rejection. EX2009. Petitioner’s arguments regarding the
`
`interchangeability of SOAP and REST APIs are rehashing what the Patent Office
`
`has already reviewed and rejected.
`
`Ransom
`2.
`U.S. Patent Pub. No. 2003/0204756 to Ransom et al. (“Ransom”) is non-
`
`analogous art to the ‘376 Patent. Ransom is in a different technology area—”[a]
`
`power management architecture for an electrical power distribution system.”
`
`EX1004, Abstract; EX2010, ¶¶221-226. Ransom does not relate to the telephony
`
`field or to the sending of SMS or voice messages. Its only mention of “telephony”
`
`is a statement that “telephony networks” are inferior in providing the desired
`
`scalability for the architecture of Ransom. EX1004, [0075]. Petitioner characterizes
`
`Ransom as relating to “web services”, but “electrical power distribution” is not in
`
`the same field as or even in a similar field as the ’376 Patent (processing telephony
`
`sessions). EX1009, ¶¶57-58; EX2010, ¶¶221-226. Further analysis regarding
`
`7
`
`

`

`Case IPR2017-01977
`Patent No. 8,755,376
`
`Ransom’s failure to qualify as prior art for obviousness is below. See Section
`
`V.B.3.a).
`
`Even if Petitioner could show that Ransom was somehow pertinent to the ‘376
`
`Patent, its disclosure is insufficient to fill in the gaps of the primary references. In
`
`every ground, Petitioner relies on Ransom for a “REST API” and “URI”. But
`
`Ransom’s disclosure is limited to passing mentions of the “REST model”. See
`
`EX1004, [0163], [0185]. Ransom (1) does not include any disclosure of what
`
`Ransom’s “REST model” is, (2) does not discuss any “REST API,” (3) does not
`
`address the four conventions of a REST API, and (4) does not disclose how to
`
`implement a REST API in its electrical power distribution system, nor how to do so
`
`in a complex telephony network. See generally EX1004. Ransom focuses on SOAP.
`
`EX1004, [