UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`GOOGLE LLC,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`FLYPSI, INC.,
`Patent Owner.
`
`Case IPR2023-00361
`Patent 10,051,105
`
`___________________________________
`
`DECLARATION OF DR. ROBERT AKL
`IN SUPPORT OF PATENT OWNER’S RESPONSE
`___________________________________
`
`1
`
`FLYPSI, INC.
`
`IPR2023-00361
`
`Ex. 2010, p. 1 of 66
`
`GOOGLE EXHIBIT 1103
`Google LLC v. Flypsi, Inc.
`IPR2023-00357
`
`Page 1 of 66
`
`

`

`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................ 5
`
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`II. BACKGROUND AND QUALIFICATIONS .................................................. 5
`
`III. MATERIALS RELIED UPON IN FORMING MY OPINIONS ..................12
`
`IV. LEGAL STANDARDS FOR PATENTABILITY .........................................12
`
`A.
`
`Claim Construction..............................................................................12
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`Anticipation .........................................................................................13
`
`Obviousness .........................................................................................13
`
`V. LEVEL OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART ............................................15
`
`VI. OVERVIEW OF THE ’105 PATENT............................................................16
`
`VII. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION ............................................................................19
`
`A.
`
`“channel” terms ...................................................................................19
`
`B.
`
`“transmitting pre-call information …” (limitation [1.g]) /
`
`“transmitting … pre-call information …” (limitation [2.a]) ...............25
`
`C.
`
`“a bridge telephone number for connecting the handset to the
`
`incoming call at the switch” (limitation [1.g]) ....................................28
`
`VIII. OVERVIEW OF THE CITED PRIOR ART ..................................................30
`
`A.
`
`Backhaus (Ex. 1005) ...........................................................................31
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`Taylor (Ex. 1007) ................................................................................32
`
`Logan (Ex. 1015) .................................................................................33
`
`D. Winbladh (Ex. 1020) ...........................................................................34
`
`IX. GROUND 1.....................................................................................................36
`
`2
`
`FLYPSI, INC.
`
`IPR2023-00361
`
`Ex. 2010, p. 2 of 66
`
`Page 2 of 66
`
`

`

`A.
`
`Backhaus and Logan do not render obvious limitation [1.g]’s
`
`requirement to transmit “pre-call information” via a “data
`
`channel.” ..............................................................................................36
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`4.
`
`Backhaus and Logan do not render obvious that the pre-
`call information includes a bridge telephone number “for
`connecting the handset to the incoming call at the
`switch.” .....................................................................................36
`
`The Petition’s “first way” fails to disclose transmitting
`“via a data channel.” .................................................................37
`
`The Petition’s “second way” fails to disclose transmitting
`“via a data channel.” .................................................................43
`
`The Petition’s “second way” fails to render obvious
`“transmitting pre-call information …” as properly
`construed. ..................................................................................44
`
`B.
`
`Backhaus and Logan do not render obvious limitation [1.b]’s
`
`storing information indicating “a selection of call processing
`
`rules for the primary telephone number” in a computer memory
`
`associated with the server. ...................................................................45
`
`X. GROUND 2.....................................................................................................51
`
`A. A POSITA would not combine Backhaus and Winbladh ...................51
`
`B.
`
`Backhaus and Winbladh do not render obvious receiving the
`
`call on a switch in [2.a] and connecting with a bridge number
`
`via the same switch in [2.b]. ................................................................57
`
`C.
`
`Backhaus and Winbladh do not render obvious limitation [2.b]s
`
`requirement that the pre-call information allows “the handset to
`
`accept the incoming call … by making a first bridge call using
`
`the first bridge telephone number to connect the incoming call
`
`to the telephone handset via the switch.” ............................................59
`
`3
`
`FLYPSI, INC.
`
`IPR2023-00361
`
`Ex. 2010, p. 3 of 66
`
`Page 3 of 66
`
`

`

`D.
`
`Backhaus and Winbladh do not render obvious claims 3, 4, or
`
`6-11. .....................................................................................................63
`
`XI. GROUND 3.....................................................................................................63
`
`A.
`
`Backhaus in view of Winbladh and Logan does not render
`
`obvious claim 5. ..................................................................................63
`
`XII. GROUND 4.....................................................................................................64
`
`A.
`
`Backhaus in view of Logan and Taylor does not render obvious
`
`claim 1. ................................................................................................64
`
`XIII. GROUND 5.....................................................................................................64
`
`A.
`
`Backhaus in view of Winbladh and Taylor does not render
`
`obvious claims 2-4 or 6-11. .................................................................64
`
`XIV. GROUND 6.....................................................................................................65
`
`A.
`
`Backhaus in view of Logan, Winbladh, and Taylor does not
`
`render obvious claim 5. .......................................................................65
`
`XV. ADDITIONAL REMARKS ...........................................................................65
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`4
`
`FLYPSI, INC.
`
`IPR2023-00361
`
`Ex. 2010, p. 4 of 66
`
`Page 4 of 66
`
`

`

`I, Robert Akl, D.Sc. of Dallas, Texas, hereby state and declare:
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`1.
`
`I am over the age of 18 and am competent to make this Declaration. I
`
`have personal knowledge, or have developed knowledge, of these technologies
`
`based upon my education, training, and/or experience, of the matters set forth herein.
`
`If called upon to do so, I would testify competently thereto.
`
`2.
`
`I have been retained by counsel for Patent Owner Flypsi, LLC (“Flypsi”)
`
`in the above matter. I am submitting this Declaration in response to the Petition for
`
`Inter Partes Review for U.S. Patent 10,051,105 (“’105 Patent”) and in rebuttal to
`
`the declaration of Dr. Lin. Specifically, I have been asked to consider the validity of
`
`claims 1-11 of the ’105 Patent (the “Challenged Claims”) in view of prior art,
`
`obviousness considerations, and understanding of a person of ordinary skill in the
`
`art (“POSITA”) at the time of the invention as it relates to the ’105 Patent.
`
`II. BACKGROUND AND QUALIFICATIONS
`
`3.
`
`I am an expert in the field of telecommunication systems. I have studied,
`
`taught, practiced, and researched this field for over 28 years. I have summarized in
`
`this section my educational background, work experience, and other relevant
`
`qualifications. Exhibit 2011 is a true and correct copy of my curriculum vitae
`
`describing my background and experience.
`
`4.
`
`I earned two Bachelor of Science degrees in Electrical Engineering and
`
`5
`
`FLYPSI, INC.
`
`IPR2023-00361
`
`Ex. 2010, p. 5 of 66
`
`Page 5 of 66
`
`

`

`Computer Science summa cum laude with a grade point average of 4.0/4.0 and a
`
`ranking of first in my undergraduate class from Washington University in St. Louis
`
`in 1994. In 1996, I earned my Master of Science degree in Electrical Engineering
`
`from Washington University in St. Louis with a grade point average of 4.0/4.0. I
`
`earned my Doctor of Science in Electrical Engineering from Washington University
`
`in St. Louis in 2000, again with a grade point average of 4.0/4.0, with my dissertation
`
`being on “Cell Design to Maximize Capacity in Cellular Code Division Multiple
`
`Access (CDMA) Networks.”
`
`5. While a graduate student, from 1997 through 1999, I worked at
`
`MinMax Corporation in St. Louis, where I designed software packages that provided
`
`tools to flexibly allocate capacity in a CDMA communications network and
`
`maximize the number of subscribers. I also validated the hardware architecture for
`
`an Asynchronous Transfer Mode (ATM) switch capable of channel group switching,
`
`as well as performed logical and timing simulations, and developed the hardware
`
`architecture for the ATM switch. I also worked with Teleware Corporation in Seoul,
`
`South Korea, where I designed and developed algorithms that were commercially
`
`deployed in a software package suite for analyzing the capacity in a CDMA network
`
`implementing the IS-95 standard to maximize the number of subscribers.
`
`6.
`
`After obtaining my Doctor of Science degree, I worked as a Senior
`
`Systems Engineer at Comspace Corporation from October of 2000 to December of
`
`6
`
`FLYPSI, INC.
`
`IPR2023-00361
`
`Ex. 2010, p. 6 of 66
`
`Page 6 of 66
`
`

`

`2001. At Comspace, I designed and developed advanced data coding and modulation
`
`methods for improving reliability and increasing the available data rates for cellular
`
`communications. I coded and simulated different encoding schemes (including
`
`Turbo coding, Viterbi decoding, trellis coded modulation, and Reed-Muller codes)
`
`and modulation techniques using amplitude and phase characteristics and multi-level
`
`star constellations. This work further entailed the optimization of soft decision
`
`parameters and interleavers for additive white Gaussian and Rayleigh faded channels.
`
`In addition, I also extended the control and trunking of Logic Trunked Radio (LTR)
`
`to include one-to-one and one-to-many voice and data messaging.
`
`7.
`
`In January of 2002, I joined the faculty of the University of New
`
`Orleans in Louisiana as an Assistant Professor in the Department of Electrical
`
`Engineering. While in this position, I designed and taught two new courses called
`
`“Computer Systems Design I and II.” I also developed a Computer Engineering
`
`Curriculum with a strong hardware-design emphasis, formed a wireless research
`
`group, and advised graduate and undergraduate students.
`
`8.
`
`In September of 2002, I received an appointment as an Assistant
`
`Professor in the Department of Computer Science and Engineering at the University
`
`of North Texas (UNT), in Denton, Texas. In May of 2008, I earned tenure and was
`
`promoted to the rank of Associate Professor. As a faculty member, I have taught
`
`courses and directed research in networking and telecommunications, including 2G,
`
`7
`
`FLYPSI, INC.
`
`IPR2023-00361
`
`Ex. 2010, p. 7 of 66
`
`Page 7 of 66
`
`

`

`3G, 4G, 5G, CDMA/WCDMA, GPS, GSM, UMTS, LTE, ad-hoc networks, antenna
`
`design and beamforming, Bluetooth, call admission control, channel coding, channel
`
`estimation, communication interfaces and standards, compression, computer
`
`architecture, MIMO systems, multi-cell network optimization, network security,
`
`packet-networks, telephony, VoIP, Wi-Fi (802.11), 802.15.4, Zigbee, wireless
`
`communication, and wireless sensors. Between January of 2015 and August of 2022,
`
`I was appointed Associate Chair of Graduate Studies in the Department of Computer
`
`Science and Engineering. In May of 2023, I was promoted to the rank of Professor.
`
`9.
`
`I am also the director of the Wireless Sensor Lab (“WiSL”) at UNT. I
`
`am a member of the Center for Information and Cyber Security (CICS). It is the
`
`only program in the U.S. to be federally certified by the National Security Agency
`
`as a Center of Academic Excellence in Information Assurance Education and
`
`Research and Cyber Defense Research. I was also a member of the NSF Net-Centric
`
`& Cloud Software & Systems: Industry-University Cooperative Research Center
`
`(I/UCRC). Several of my research projects are funded by industry and the National
`
`Science Foundation and published in IEEE conference proceedings and journals.
`
`10.
`
`In addition to advising and mentoring students at UNT, I was asked to
`
`join the faculty of the University of Arkansas in Little Rock as an Adjunct Assistant
`
`Professor from 2004 to 2008 in order to supervise the research of two Ph.D. graduate
`
`students who were doing research in wireless communications. At UNT, I have
`
`8
`
`FLYPSI, INC.
`
`IPR2023-00361
`
`Ex. 2010, p. 8 of 66
`
`Page 8 of 66
`
`

`

`advised and supervised more than 250 undergraduate and graduate students, several
`
`of whom received a master’s or doctorate degree under my guidance.
`
`11. Between 2005 and 2017, I have received over a million dollars in
`
`funding from the State of Texas, Texas Higher Education Coordination Board, the
`
`National Science Foundation, and industry to design and conduct robotics, video,
`
`and mobile gaming (e.g., Xbox, PC, mobile device) programming summer camps
`
`for middle and high school students at UNT. By using video and mobile gaming as
`
`the backdrop, participants have learned coding and programming principles and
`
`developed an understanding of the role of physics and mathematics in video game
`
`design.
`
`12. Between 2011 and 2013, I was director of the Bio-Com Project that was
`
`funded by Raytheon. The project evaluated the feasibility study using Surface
`
`Electromyography (EMG) and bend resistive sensors, which are attached to each of
`
`the five fingers of the hand, for hand gesture recognition. This approach is sometimes
`
`known as a “data glove.” A prototype was developed and demonstrated at Raytheon,
`
`to help soldiers in close-combat situations communicate with hand gestures and hand
`
`signals that would be recognized and transmitted to other soldiers’ Head Up Display
`
`(HUD) without breaking radio silence.
`
`13.
`
`In addition to my academic work, I have remained active in the
`
`communication industry through my consulting work. In 2002, I consulted for
`
`9
`
`FLYPSI, INC.
`
`IPR2023-00361
`
`Ex. 2010, p. 9 of 66
`
`Page 9 of 66
`
`

`

`Input/Output Inc. and designed and implemented algorithms for optimizing the
`
`frequency selection process used by sonar for scanning the bottom of the ocean. In
`
`2004, I worked with Allegiant Integrated Solutions in Ft. Worth, Texas to design
`
`and develop an integrated set of tools for fast deployment of wireless networks, using
`
`the 802.11 standard. Among other features, these tools optimize the placement of
`
`Access Points and determine their respective channel allocations to minimize
`
`interference and maximize capacity. I also assisted the Collin County Sheriff’s
`
`Office (Texas) in a double homicide investigation, analyzing cellular record data to
`
`determine user location.
`
`14.
`
`I have authored and co-authored over 100 journal publications,
`
`conference proceedings, technical papers, book chapters, and technical presentations
`
`in a broad array of communications-related technologies, including networking and
`
`wireless communication. I have also developed and taught over 100 courses related
`
`to communications and computer systems, including several courses on signals and
`
`systems, 4G/LTE and 5G/NR, OFDM, VoIP, Wi-Fi (802.11), 802.15.4, Zigbee,
`
`wireless communication, antenna design and beamforming, communications
`
`systems, communication interfaces and standards, channel estimation, location
`
`management, sensor networks, source coding and compression, network security,
`
`computer systems design, game and app design, and computer architecture. These
`
`courses have included introductory courses on communication networks and signals
`
`10
`
`FLYPSI, INC.
`
`IPR2023-00361
`
`Ex. 2010, p. 10 of 66
`
`Page 10 of 66
`
`

`

`and systems, as well as more advanced courses on wireless communications. A
`
`complete list of my publications and the courses I have developed and/or taught is
`
`also contained in my curriculum vitae.
`
`15. My professional affiliations include services in various professional
`
`organizations and serving as a reviewer for a number of technical publications,
`
`journals, and conferences. I have also received a number of awards and recognitions,
`
`including the IEEE Professionalism Award (2008), UNT College of Engineering
`
`Outstanding Teacher Award (2008), and Tech Titan of the Future (2010) among
`
`others, which are listed in my curriculum vitae.
`
`16.
`
`I have also served as an expert in certain legal proceedings. A list of
`
`cases in which I have testified at trial, hearing, or by deposition (including those
`
`during the past four years) is provided in my curriculum vitae. Over the years, I have
`
`been retained by both patent owners and petitioners, as well as plaintiffs and
`
`defendants.
`
`17.
`
`I am being compensated for my work in this case at my standard rate. I
`
`am also being reimbursed for expenses that I incur during the course of this work.
`
`My compensation is not contingent upon the results of my study, the substance of
`
`my opinions, or the outcome of any proceeding involving the challenged claims. I
`
`have no financial interest in the outcome of this matter.
`
`11
`
`FLYPSI, INC.
`
`IPR2023-00361
`
`Ex. 2010, p. 11 of 66
`
`Page 11 of 66
`
`

`

`III. MATERIALS RELIED UPON IN FORMING MY OPINIONS
`
`18.
`
`In preparing this Declaration, I have reviewed the ’105 Patent and its
`
`prosecution history, and the Petition for IPR for the ’105 Patent, including
`
`accompanying exhibits and the declaration of Dr. Bill Lin in support of the Petition.
`
`I have also reviewed the other documents and materials cited herein. When quoting
`
`from these materials, all emphasis is added unless otherwise noted.
`
`19. My opinions are also based upon my education, training, research,
`
`knowledge, and personal and professional experience.
`
`IV. LEGAL STANDARDS FOR PATENTABILITY
`
`20.
`
`I am not an attorney and I offer no opinion on the law itself. My
`
`understanding of the relevant legal principles in this section is based on information
`
`provided to me by counsel.
`
`A. Claim Construction
`
`21.
`
`I understand that claim terms are typically given their ordinary and
`
`customary meaning, as would have been understood by a person of ordinary skill in
`
`the art, at the time of the alleged invention, which I was asked to assume is the
`
`October 2013 timeframe. In considering the meaning of the claims, I also understand
`
`that one must consider the claim language, specification, prosecution history, and
`
`the knowledge of a person of ordinary skill in the art (“POSITA”) at the relevant
`
`time. I have followed these principles in my analysis.
`
`12
`
`FLYPSI, INC.
`
`IPR2023-00361
`
`Ex. 2010, p. 12 of 66
`
`Page 12 of 66
`
`

`

`22.
`
`I have been asked to apply the plain and ordinary meaning of the claim
`
`terms consistent with the specification.
`
`B. Anticipation
`
`23.
`
`I have been informed that a patent claim is invalid as “anticipated” if
`
`each and every limitation of the claim is described in a single publication or patent
`
`that predates the claimed invention. I understand that, in patent law, these prior
`
`publications or patents are called “prior art.” I understand that in order to anticipate
`
`a claim, a prior art reference must do more than merely disclose each element of the
`
`claim, but rather the prior art reference must disclose all of the elements of the
`
`claimed invention arranged as is recited by the claim. I also understand that for a
`
`prior art reference to anticipate a claim of a patent, the reference must enable one of
`
`ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to practice the claim without
`
`undue experimentation.
`
`24.
`
`I have been informed that a claim can be inherently anticipated if the
`
`prior art necessarily functions in accordance with or includes the claim limitations.
`
`I understand that inherency cannot be established by mere probabilities or
`
`possibilities.
`
`C. Obviousness
`
`25.
`
`I have been informed by counsel that a claim may be invalid if the
`
`invention recited in the claim would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in
`
`13
`
`FLYPSI, INC.
`
`IPR2023-00361
`
`Ex. 2010, p. 13 of 66
`
`Page 13 of 66
`
`

`

`the art at the time the invention was made in light of the prior art. I understand for a
`
`claim to be found obvious, every claim limitation must be found present in the
`
`combination of the prior art references before the obviousness analysis proceeds.
`
`26.
`
`In considering whether a claim is obvious, I understand that one must
`
`consider (a) the level of skill in the art at the time of the claimed invention, (b) the
`
`scope and content of the prior art, (c) any differences between the prior art and the
`
`claims of the patent-in-suit, and (d) any “secondary factors” tending to show non-
`
`obviousness of the claimed invention, including commercial success, long-felt but
`
`unresolved need, failure of others, copying, praise by others, unexpected results, and
`
`simultaneous invention by others.
`
`27.
`
`I understand that a claim composed of several elements is not proved
`
`obvious merely by demonstrating that each of its elements was independently known
`
`in the prior art. I also understand that obviousness should not be analyzed using the
`
`benefit of hindsight. Instead, it must be analyzed from the standpoint of what was
`
`known and understood by a POSITA at the time of the claimed invention. I further
`
`understand demonstrating whether making a modification to a reference or whether
`
`combining multiple references would have been obvious requires providing a reason
`
`for why a POSITA would modify the reference or combine multiple references, and
`
`that reason must be supported with some rationale underpinning. Merely pointing
`
`out that two references are similar or in the same field of endeavor is not sufficient.
`
`14
`
`FLYPSI, INC.
`
`IPR2023-00361
`
`Ex. 2010, p. 14 of 66
`
`Page 14 of 66
`
`

`

`28.
`
`I understand that if a combination of two or more prior art references is
`
`used to render a claimed invention obvious, there must be a reasonable expectation
`
`of success in making or practicing the claimed invention based on such combination.
`
`I understand the combination cannot modify a prior art reference such that it would
`
`render the reference unsatisfactory for its intended purpose.
`
`29.
`
`I understand that it is impermissible to use the patent as a template (and
`
`reason) for combining prior art references as that would be applying hindsight. I
`
`understand that a POSITA would have to be motivated to combine references to
`
`create the combination of features required by the claims of the patent.
`
`V. LEVEL OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART
`
`30.
`
`In rendering the opinions set forth in this Declaration, I was asked to
`
`consider the patent claims and the prior art through the eyes of a person of ordinary
`
`skill in the art (“POSITA”). The “art” is the field of technology to which a patent is
`
`related. In my Declaration, I use the term POSITA and skilled person to refer to the
`
`same hypothetical person of ordinary skill in the art. I considered factors such as the
`
`educational level and years of experience of those working in the pertinent art; the
`
`types of problems encountered in the art; the teachings of the prior art; patents and
`
`publications of other persons or companies; and the sophistication of the technology.
`
`I understand that a POSITA is not a specific real individual, but rather a hypothetical
`
`individual having the qualities reflected by the factors discussed above.
`
`15
`
`FLYPSI, INC.
`
`IPR2023-00361
`
`Ex. 2010, p. 15 of 66
`
`Page 15 of 66
`
`

`

`31. Relative to the ’105 Patent, a POSITA would have had a bachelor’s
`
`degree in electrical engineering, computer engineering, computer science, or a
`
`related field, and two years of experience in the design or development of
`
`telecommunication systems. Additional graduate education could substitute for
`
`professional experience, or significant experience in the field could substitute for
`
`formal education.
`
`32.
`
`I understand that Petitioner has proposed the following set of
`
`qualifications: “an undergraduate degree in electrical engineering, computer
`
`engineering, computer science or a related field along with two years of work
`
`experience in the field of telecommunication. More education can supplement
`
`practical experience and vice versa.” Petition at 4-5. I am qualified to provide
`
`opinions concerning what a POSITA would have known and understood, and my
`
`analysis and conclusions herein are from the perspective of a POSITA and would
`
`apply under either set of qualifications.
`
`VI. OVERVIEW OF THE ’105 PATENT
`
`33.
`
`I have reviewed the ’105 Patent. It is my opinion that the ’105 Patent is
`
`patentable, valid, and not rendered obvious in view of the prior art references
`
`presented by Petitioner.
`
`34. The ’105 Patent relates to “delivering telephone calls using the
`
`combination of a data channel and a voice channel.” Ex. 1001 at Abstract. The ’105
`
`16
`
`FLYPSI, INC.
`
`IPR2023-00361
`
`Ex. 2010, p. 16 of 66
`
`Page 16 of 66
`
`

`

`Patent states that it “permit[s] the same handset to be associated with multiple
`
`secondary telephone numbers from which calls appear to have been made and to
`
`which calls appear to have been placed.” Id.
`
`35. The specification describes both incoming calls (from a third-party) and
`
`outgoing calls (to a third-party). The claims of the ’105 Patent, however, relate
`
`primarily to incoming calls, and I have therefore focused my analysis in this
`
`Declaration on that aspect of the ’105 Patent specification.
`
`36. The ’105 Patent teaches that a handset may be associated with a primary
`
`number (such as the number assigned by a carrier at activation) and one or more
`
`secondary numbers:
`
`In connection with step 204, the server 100 may transmit information
`to the handset 340 via the data channel, which, through automatic
`operation of the handset application, permits the user to select one or
`more secondary telephone numbers to be referenced to a primary
`telephone number for the handset. The primary telephone number,
`preferably, may be a SIM number or ESN which is assigned to the
`handset 340 at the time of activation.
`
`Ex. 1001 at 4:64-5:4.
`
`37. The ’105 Patent teaches that a bridge telephone number “may be
`
`associated with the switch 110, and calls to the bridge telephone number may be
`
`automatically routed to this switch.” Ex. 1001 at 7:55-57.
`
`38. The ’105 Patent describes the process for receiving an incoming call
`
`and depicts that process in Figure 4, which I have excerpted below. In step 402
`
`17
`
`FLYPSI, INC.
`
`IPR2023-00361
`
`Ex. 2010, p. 17 of 66
`
`Page 17 of 66
`
`

`

`(highlighted in yellow), “[a]n incoming call to the secondary telephone number may
`
`be placed … by a calling party.” Ex. 1001 at 5:55-57. In step 404 (highlighted in
`
`blue), the call is “routed over the PSTN 310 to the switch 110.” Id. at 5:58-59.
`
`Switch 110 is “as associated telecommunications switch 110” for “server 100.” Id.
`
`at 4:13-16. In step 406 (highlighted in green), the server looks up call processing
`
`rules and applies them. Id. at 5:60-6:31. If the call is allowed to proceed, according
`
`to the call processing rules, in step 408 (highlighted in pink), “the Call Manager 104
`
`may transmit pre-call notification information to the handset 340, which includes the
`
`assigned/looked up bridge telephone number, via the data channel connection, i.e.,
`
`over the Internet 316.” Id. at 6:32-37. The handset can display certain information
`
`and call handling options to the user. Id. at 6:45-61. If the call is accepted, “the
`
`handset application may automatically cause the handset 340 to call the bridge
`
`telephone number in step 422 [highlighted in purple] over a voice channel.” Id. at
`
`6:62-65. Finally, in step 424 (highlighted in orange), once the switch receives the
`
`handset’s call to the bridge telephone number, it can “bridge” the incoming call with
`
`the call from the third-party, thus connecting both ends of the call. Id. at 6:67-7:6.
`
`18
`
`FLYPSI, INC.
`
`IPR2023-00361
`
`Ex. 2010, p. 18 of 66
`
`Page 18 of 66
`
`

`

`VII. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
`
`A.
`
`“channel” terms
`
`
`
`39. A POSITA would understand that a “channel” does not have to be fully
`
`connected on both ends to qualify as a channel. Additionally, a POSITA would
`
`understand that a channel does not have to be actually transmitting something to
`
`qualify as a channel at that moment.
`
`40. The specification of the ’105 Patent describes the use of data and voice
`
`19
`
`FLYPSI, INC.
`
`IPR2023-00361
`
`Ex. 2010, p. 19 of 66
`
`Page 19 of 66
`
`

`

`channels in its invention through numerous examples. Specifically, it repeatedly
`
`teaches that IP is an example data channel, and that channels such as CDMA, GSM,
`
`LTE, 3G, and/or 4G are example voice channels:
`
`The present invention relates to systems and methods for setting up and
`connecting telephone calls, and delivering information related to such
`telephone calls using an Internet Protocol (IP) or other data channel
`while delivering the voice portion of the call in accordance with
`CDMA, GSM or like voice channel delivery standards.
`
`Ex. 1001 at 1:18-23.
`
`Responsive to the foregoing challenges, Applicant has developed an
`innovative method of providing telephone service by transmitting call
`handling information between a handset and a switch using an IP
`channel or similar protocol channel and by transmitting a voice call
`associated with the call handling information between the handset and
`the switch using a voice channel provided in accordance with a voice
`channel protocol, e.g., in accordance with CDMA or GSM, 3G, 4G,
`LTE or like future protocol channels standards.
`
`Id. at 1:44-53.
`
`It should be noted that in connection with the described embodiments,
`reference is made to a data channel. A preferred data channel may be
`an Internet Protocol (IP) channel, which is not a conventional telephone
`voice channel.
`
`Id. at 4:5-8.
`
`The communications between the server 100 and the handset 340 over
`the Internet 316 may utilize IP as a protocol opposed to protocols used
`to establish communications according to CDMA, GSM, or like
`standards. Such IP governed communications are referred to herein as
`being conducted over a “data channel.” Conversely, communications
`between the switch 110 and the handset over the PSTN 310 may be
`transmitted and received in accordance with CDMA, GSM or like
`standards as opposed to using IP. Such CDMA, GSM or like governed
`
`20
`
`FLYPSI, INC.
`
`IPR2023-00361
`
`Ex. 2010, p. 20 of 66
`
`Page 20 of 66
`
`

`

`communications, when used to carry voice information, are referred to
`herein as being conducted over a “voice channel.”
`
`Id. at 4:35-46.
`
`41. The exemplary voice channels (CDMA, GSM, LTE, 3G, and/or 4G)
`
`are all conventional voice channels that a POSITA would be familiar with because
`
`they are used in conventional telephony.
`
`42. The specification includes the following statement: “Such CDMA,
`
`GSM or like governed communications, when used to carry voice information, are
`
`referred to herein as being conducted over a ‘voice channel.’” Ex. 1001 at 4:43-46.
`
`A POSITA would not understand the language “when used to carry voice
`
`information” to mean that a voice channel only qualifies as a channel when actually
`
`transmitting voice but not at other times (e.g., when the phone is ringing, before the
`
`audio is connected). There is no teaching anywhere in the specification that would
`
`support such a temporal limitation, and it is not consistent with how POSITAs
`
`describe channels and protocols.
`
`43.
`
`In fact, later teachings in the specification expressly contradict that that
`
`the “when” language imposes any such temporal requirement. Specifically, the
`
`patent describes that in an incoming call, there are two pending calls at the switch
`
`on a “voice channel” before they are bridged together to connect both ends. The
`
`specification consistently and repeatedly describes the calls as using a “voice
`
`channel” before they are connected (highlighted in blue below) and, afterwards, they
`
`21
`
`FLYPSI, INC.
`
`IPR2023-00361
`
`Ex. 2010, p. 21 of 66
`
`Page 21 of 66
`
`

`

`are connected (highlighted in red below)
`
`If the call is accepted in step 414, however, the handset application may
`automatically cause the handset 340 to call the bridge telephone number
`in step 422 over a voice channel. The return call from the handset 340
`to the bridge telephone numb