throbber
IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`
`In re post-grant review of:
`U.S. Patent 8,855,280 to Passe et al. Atty. Docket: 3210.055PGR0
`
`Filed: Herewith
`
`For: Communication Detail Records
`(CDRs) Containing Media for
`Communications in Controlled-
`Environment Facilities
`
`
`
`Declaration of Frank Koperda in Support of
`Petition for Post-Grant Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,855,280
`
`Mail Stop Post Grant Review
`
`Attn: Patent Trial and Appeal Board
`Commissioner for Patents
`PO Box 1450
`Alexandria, VA 22313-1450
`
`Commissioner:
`
`
`
`I, Frank Koperda, declare as follows:
`
`1. I have been retained on behalf of Global Tel*Link Corporation (the
`
`“Petitioner”) for the above-captioned post-grant review proceeding. I understand that
`
`this proceeding involves U.S. Patent No. 8,855,280 (“the ’280 patent”) titled
`
`“Communication Detail Records (CDRs) Containing Media for Communications in
`
`Controlled-Environment Facilities,” issued to Scott Passe and Adam C. Edwards,
`
`and that the ’280 patent is currently assigned to Securus Technologies, Inc.
`
`GTL 1002
`PGR of U.S. Patent No. 8,855,280
`
`

`
`2. I have reviewed and am familiar with the specification of the ’280 patent. I
`
`understand that the ’280 patent has been provided as Ex. 1001. I will cite to the
`
`specification using the following format: ’280 patent, 1:1-10. This example citation
`
`points to the ’280 patent specification at column 1, lines 1-10.
`
`3. I have also reviewed and am familiar with the following prior art used in the
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of the ’280 patent:
`
` U.S. Patent No. 7,805,457 to Viola et al. Viola was published on
`
`September 28, 2010, almost three years before the earliest possible
`
`priority date of the ’280 patent. I understand that Viola has been
`
`provided as Ex. 1004.
`
` U.S. Patent Publication 2004/0190688 to Timmins et al. Timmins was
`
`published on September 30, 2004, almost nine years before the earliest
`
`possible priority date of the ’280 patent. I understand that Timmins has
`
`been provided as Ex. 1005.
`
` U.S. Patent Publication 2013/0263227 to Gongaware et al. Gongaware
`
`was filed on March 15, 2013, more than 6 months before the earliest
`
`possible priority date of the ’280 patent. I understand that Gongaware
`
`has been provided as Ex. 1008.
`
`
`
`- 2 -
`
`

`
` U.S. Patent No. 7,494,061 to Dennis J. Reinhold. Reinhold was
`
`published on February 24, 2009, over four years before the earliest
`
`possible priority date of the ’280 patent. I understand Reinhold has
`
`been provided as Ex. 1003.
`
` U.S. Patent Publication 2013/0044867 to Walters et al. Walters was
`
`published on February 21, 2013, more than 7 months before the
`
`earliest possible priority date of the ’280 patent. I understand that
`
`Walters has been provided as Ex. 1007.
`
` U.S. Patent Publication 2012/0051604 to Dudovich et al. Dudovich
`
`was published on March 1, 2012, more than 1 year before the earliest
`
`possible priority date of the ’280 patent. I understand Dudovich has
`
`been provided as Ex. 1006.
`
`4. I have also reviewed the following other documents:
`
` U.S. Patent No. 7,403,766 to Steven L. Hodge. I understand Hodge
`
`has been provided as Ex. 1009.
`
` The Post Grant Review petition filed in this case.
`
`5. I am familiar with the technology described in the ’280 patent as of its
`
`earliest possible priority date of September 27, 2013. I have been asked to provide
`
`
`
`- 3 -
`
`

`
`my technical review, analysis, insights, and opinions regarding the ’280 patent. I
`
`have used this experience and insight along with the above-noted references as the
`
`basis for the grounds of rejection set forth in the Petition for Post-Grant Review of
`
`the ’280 Patent.
`
`I.
`
`Qualifications
`6. My qualifications are stated more fully in my curriculum vitae, attached as
`
`Exhibit 1010. Here I provide a brief summary of my qualifications:
`
`7. I received a BA degree in Physics and a BA degree in Chemistry from State
`
`University of New York in 1974.
`
`8. I received an MS in Computer Engineering from Case Western Reserve
`
`University in 1976.
`
`9. I am a named inventor on numerous US and foreign patents including those
`
`relating to data and telephony communications which require the use of call control,
`
`call records, billing, and secure data transport mechanisms.
`
`10. I have been employed as the Owner of NextGen Datacom, Inc. since 1999. I
`
`was employed as Director of Research and Systems Engineering at Hayes
`
`Microcomputer Products from 1998-1999. I was employed as a Distinguished
`
`Member of Technical Staff – Exploratory Development
`
`for BellSouth
`
`
`
`- 4 -
`
`

`
`Telecommunications from 1996-1998. I was employed as Chief Architect for Data
`
`Communications for Scientific-Atlanta Inc. from 1994-1996. I was employed by
`
`IBM from 1977-1994 in various capacities including Communications Architecture
`
`from 1990-1994.
`
`11. I have substantial work experience relating to telephone devices and systems
`
`as well as data communications devices and systems. I have designed
`
`telecommunications/data
`
`communications hardware, developed networking
`
`protocols and routing algorithms, and participated in various national and
`
`international networking standards organizations. As a part of this development, I
`
`am a named inventor on patents relating to networking hardware, software, and
`
`algorithms.
`
`12. I have authored numerous publications including the following:
`
`F.R. Koperda
`Cable Modem: Old Protocols for a new Paradigm,
`National Cable Television Association Technical Papers, May 1996
`
`F. Farhan, F.R. Koperda.
`Challenges with Transmission of Data over CATV Networks, National
`Cable Television Association Technical Papers,
`May 1995
`
`A.L. Bond, D.W. Davenport, F.R. Koperda.
`Mechanism for Non-Disruptive Dynamic Testing of a Communications
`Network,
`IBM Technical Disclosure Bulletin, Vol 34 No 7A, pp. 239-240
`December 1991
`
`
`
`- 5 -
`
`

`
`
`F.R. Koperda, D.K. Popken
`Automatic Compensation of Skin Conductance in Electromyographic
`Sensing,
`IBM Technical Disclosure Bulletin, Vol 34 No 4B, pp. 124-126
`September 1991
`
`F.R. Koperda, Extraction of the Electric Fields of the Brain in a Noisy
`Environment,
`IBM Technical Disclosure Bulletin, Vol 32 No 7. 1989.
`
`R.A. Schulz, F.R. Koperda,
`Position Determination Using Pulse Delays,
`IBM Technical Disclosure Bulletin, V27:2385, 1984.
`
`F.R. Koperda, Ultrasonic Position Locator,
`IBM Technical Disclosure Bulletin, V27:1670, 1984.
`
`F.R. Koperda,
`Voice Recognition,
`Microprocessor Applications Handbook, pp. 14.1, McGraw-Hill 1982.
`
`J.D. Dixon, R.F. Farrel, F.R. Koperda, G.U. Merckel,
`Parity Mechanism for Detecting both Address and Data Errors,
`IBM Technical Disclosure Bulletin, V24:794, 1981.
`
`F.R. Koperda,
`Magnetic Bubble and Charge Coupled Devices, Power-up and
`Resynchronization,
`IBM Technical Disclosure Bulletin, V22:450, 1979.
`
`F.R. Koperda, F.I. Parke,
`Interactive Design of Visual Aids,
`Proceedings 1977 Annual Conference, Association for Computing
`Machinery, pp. 434, 1977
`
`
`
`
`- 6 -
`
`

`
`II. My Understanding of Claim Construction
`13. I understand that, during a post-grant review, claims are to be given their
`
`broadest reasonable construction in light of the specification as would be read by a
`
`person of ordinary skill in the relevant art.
`
`III. My Understanding of Obviousness
`14. I understand that a patent claim is invalid if the claimed invention would
`
`have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the field at the time the application
`
`was filed. This means that even if all of the requirements of the claim cannot be
`
`found in a single prior art reference that would anticipate the claim, the claim can
`
`still be invalid.
`
`15. As part of this inquiry, I have been asked to consider the level of ordinary
`
`skill in the field that someone would have had at the time the claimed invention was
`
`made. In deciding the level of ordinary skill, I considered the following:
`
` the levels of education and experience of persons working in the field;
`
` the types of problems encountered in the field; and
`
` the sophistication of the technology.
`
`
`16. To obtain a patent, a claimed invention must have, as of the priority date,
`
`been nonobvious in view of the prior art in the field. I understand that an invention is
`
`obvious when the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and
`
`
`
`- 7 -
`
`

`
`the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at
`
`the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art.
`
`17. I understand that to prove that prior art or a combination of prior art renders
`
`a patent obvious, it is necessary to (1) identify the particular references that, singly
`
`or in combination, make the patent obvious; (2) specifically identify which elements
`
`of the patent claim appear in each of the asserted references; and (3) explain how the
`
`prior art references could have been combined in order to create the inventions
`
`claimed in the asserted claim.
`
`18. I understand that certain objective indicia can be important evidence
`
`regarding whether a patent is obvious or nonobvious. Such indicia include:
`
`commercial success of products covered by the patent claims; a long-felt need for
`
`the invention; failed attempts by others to make the invention; copying of the
`
`invention by others in the field; unexpected results achieved by the invention as
`
`compared to the closest prior art; praise of the invention by the infringer or others in
`
`the field; the taking of licenses under the patent by others; expressions of surprise by
`
`experts and those skilled in the art at the making of the invention; and the patentee
`
`proceeding contrary to the accepted wisdom of the prior art.
`
`
`
`- 8 -
`
`

`
`IV. Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art
`
`19. A person having ordinary skill in the art (PHOSITA) would have a B.S.
`
`degree in Electrical Engineering, Computer Engineering, or an equivalent field, as
`
`well as at
`
`least 2-5 years of academic or
`
`industry experience
`
`in
`
`the
`
`telecommunications industry.
`
`20. By equivalent field, I mean that the required levels of educational and
`
`industry experience is on a sliding scale relative to each other. For example, a person
`
`of ordinary skill could have a more advanced educational degree with less industry
`
`experience.
`
`V. Overview of the ’280 Patent
`21. In general, the ’280 patent relates to creating, maintaining, and making
`
`available communication detail records (CDRs) that include a “media file,” or a
`
`reference to a “media file” in “controlled-environment facilities,” such as
`
`correctional facilities.1 According to the ’280 patent, CDRs are “a record produced
`
`by a telecommunication device,” and often include “metadata having data fields that
`
`describe a specific instance of a telecommunication transaction....”2 The ’280 patent
`
`further states that prior art CDRs “do[] not include audio data or recordings” (i.e.,
`
`
`1’280 patent, Abstract
`2 See e.g., Viola, 8:61-64, 9:13
`
`
`
`- 9 -
`
`

`
`media files).3 Thus, the ’280 patent discloses “systems and methods for creating,
`
`maintaining and making available ... CDRs ... with media....”4
`
`22. To create CDRs containing media data, the ’280 patent first describes that “a
`
`communication between two or more parties” is enabled, where one of the two or
`
`more parties is an inmate.5 According to the ’280 patent, the “communication” can
`
`be a variety of types, such as “a telephone call, a video visitation session, an
`
`electronic chat session, a video telephone call, a text message, a prerecorded video
`
`message, a social network message, and/or an electronic mail message.”6
`
`23. Next, media data that is associated with the communication is captured.7 The
`
`media data might include “a still photograph, a movie, video, and/or audio of the
`
`resident or of a non-resident party.”8 The media data might also be captured from
`
`the communication device itself, or a “distinct media capture device disposed within
`
`the correctional facility” or a “media capture device disposed of outside of the
`
`facility.”9 In the case where the capture device is disposed outside of the facility, the
`
`
`3 ’280 patent, 1:37-38
`4 ’280 patent, 1:55-57
`5 ’280 patent, 12:56-61
`6 ’280 patent, 12:62-65
`7 ’280 patent, 12:66-67
`8 ’280 patent, 13:1-3
`9 ’280 patent, 13:5-10
`
`
`
`- 10 -
`
`

`
`media data may include “an image, movie, or audio captured in the vicinity of a
`
`non-resident party participating in the communication.”10
`
`24. After the media data is captured, the ’280 patent describes performing one or
`
`more biometric operations on the media file to identify one of the parties involved in
`
`the communication.11 The biometric operation could be based on facial recognition
`
`or voice verification depending on the type of media.12 Finally, once the biometric
`
`recognition operations are performed, and the identity of at least one of the parties is
`
`established, the ’280 patent describes that “the media file,” “a reference to the media
`
`file,” and/or “the identification of the at least one of the two or more parties” is
`
`added to the “CDR associated with the communication.”13
`
`VI. Overview of the State of the Art at the Time of Filing
`25. Call detail records, which are also known as CDRs or “Call Data Records,”
`
`have been used in the telecommunication industry for decades. In its most basic
`
`form, a CDR is a record containing attributes of a call that has occurred. For
`
`example, a CDR might include details such as the originating number, the called
`
`number, the time the call was connected, the time the call was terminated, and
`
`
`10 ’280 patent, 13:10-12
`11 ’280 patent, 13:16-19
`12 See ’280 patent, 13:19-22
`13 ’280 patent, 13:36-39
`
`
`
`- 11 -
`
`

`
`various routing and billing details.14 A CDR might also include a recording of the
`
`call or a reference to a recording to a call.15 CDRs are often used for billing purposes
`
`and a variety of other circumstances. Other uses include gathering line utilization
`
`statistics, debugging failures, and as will be explained below, they can also be used
`
`for investigative purposes.
`
`26. CDRs were used in “controlled environments” (i.e. prisons, jails, etc.) long
`
`before the filing date of the ’280 patent16. These CDRs stored information such as
`
`the
`
`“Called/Calling
`
`Party,”
`
`“Source
`
`Identifier/Number,”
`
`“Destination
`
`Identifier/Number,” as well as the identity of the “prisoner by name, account
`
`number, or other identifier.”17 The CDRs in these “controlled environments” could
`
`also store recordings of the call.18
`
`27. Controlled-environments often use CDRs for purposes other than billing
`
`because of the unique needs of such facilities. For example, controlled-environments
`
`such as jails, prisons, and other correctional facilities often use CDRs for
`
`investigative or monitoring purposes. The CDRs contain important information,
`
`which can aid in the investigation or monitoring of inmates. For example, the CDRs
`
`
`14 See e.g., Viola, 8:44-57
`15 See e.g., Viola, 8:61-64, 9:13
`16 Hodge, 27:34-51
`17 Viola, 8:38-9:15
`18 Viola, 8:61-64, 9:13
`
`
`
`- 12 -
`
`

`
`contain who inmates call, the length of calls, and can store a recording of the call or
`
`a reference to such recording. Linking together multiple inmates, CDRs can reveal
`
`information on gangs, relationships between members, and commonality of people
`
`outside of the gangs. In the aggregate, this type of information can be very useful to
`
`establish patterns of use by inmates that can then aid in identifying known associates
`
`of prisoners, as well as interrupting illegal activities perpetrated by prisoners.19
`
`28. Another problem that affects controlled-environments, such as correctional
`
`facilities, is how to ensure that the identity of the inmate using a communication
`
`device is known and that the communication to the particular called party is
`
`authorized. It is important to reliably determine the identity of the inmate for at least
`
`three reasons: (1) the identity of the inmate can be used to establish the responsible
`
`party to charge; (2) there are often restrictions placed on inmates’ calls to stop them
`
`from contacting certain individuals (e.g., the judge or prosecutor involved in their
`
`case, victims, other criminals, etc.); and (3) monitoring inmates’ communications for
`
`investigative purposes.20
`
`29. One known method used to identify inmates in correctional facilities is by
`
`assigning an inmate a “personal identification number (PIN)”, which the inmate then
`
`
`19 Viola, Abstract
`20 Hodge, 1: 24-40; 3:34-38, 4:51-59
`
`
`
`- 13 -
`
`

`
`uses for authentication before making any telephone calls.21 The restrictions could
`
`then be applied, and the inmate identified based on the PIN number entered. The
`
`problem with the PIN solution is that all too often, inmates shared their PINs with
`
`other inmates, either voluntarily or by force.22 Accordingly, if an inmate was able to
`
`obtain another inmate’s PIN, then that inmate may have been able to avoid certain
`
`restrictions, or thwart monitoring efforts.
`
`30. The problems of using only PINs for prisoner identification were well
`
`known prior to the filing date of the ’280 patent. To solve the identification problem,
`
`correctional facilities began using additional authentication means such as biometric
`
`identification23 or voiceprint analysis24 each time a user attempts to place a telephone
`
`call. Other biometric means were also used such as “fingerprints, retinal prints, hand
`
`geometry, and the infrared pattern of the face….”25 It was also well-known that one
`
`could use facial recognition through video surveillance systems to identify inmates.26
`
`
`21 Hodge, 2:54-55
`22 Hodge, 3:8-14
`23 Hodge, 5:20-22
`24 Hodge, 15:24-30
`25 Hodge, 12:30-33
`26 Gongaware, [0196]
`
`
`
`- 14 -
`
`

`
`VII. Claims 1-4, 7, 11, 15, and 18 are obvious over Viola and Timmins
`A. Overview of Viola
`31. Viola generally discloses “monitoring activity of detainees” by searching
`
`data stored in a variety of databases populated with data as inmates engage in
`
`activities.27 One such database disclosed in Viola is a “call record database[]”, which
`
`includes information about inmate communications. (Id.)
`
`32. Viola explains that inmate communications such as “telephone calls”, “voice
`
`messages”, and “text and/or email messages”, are typically managed by a system
`
`known as a “call management system (CMS)”, which “may be used at a prison, jail,
`
`or other detention facility to provide telephone and/or messaging services to
`
`prisoners.”28 For example, Viola explains that inmates use telephones controlled by
`
`the CMS “to make telephone calls to family, friends and other parties.”29
`
`33. Viola’s CMS maintains a record of each call, referred to as a “Call Detail
`
`Record (CDR).”30 These CDRs are stored in the “call record database.”31 Each CDR
`
`contains an identifier indicating the identity of the inmate: “The CDR may identify
`
`the prisoner by name, account number or other identifier. The CDR preferably
`
`
`27 Viola, abstract
`28 Viola, 8:14-22
`29 Viola, 8:19-23
`30 Viola, 8:37-41
`31 Viola, 8:66-67
`
`
`
`- 15 -
`
`

`
`includes information to identify the source and destination of the call, such as a
`
`called and calling telephone number or IP address.”32
`
`34. Viola’s CDRs can also include a copy of a recording of the call. Specifically,
`
`Viola describes “[t]he CDR or other record may include information such as the
`
`fields illustrated in Table 7,” and Table 7 indicates that one field in the CDR is a
`
`“Recording of [the] Call”:
`
`
`
`(Viola, 9:13 (Table 7).)
`
`35. Viola further discloses performing biometric analysis on a call to determine
`
`the identity of a party of the call. The biometrics analysis may be based on “live or
`
`
`32 Viola, 8:44-48
`
`
`
`- 16 -
`
`

`
`recorded detainee conversations.”33 Specifically, Viola explains that “a rules-based
`
`engine may be configured to monitor and alert on the content of live or recorded
`
`detainee conversations.”34 For example, an alert can be sent “if a detainee having a
`
`certain gang affiliation or nationality ... calls or communicates with a specified
`
`individual or group.”35 To determine the identity of the parties on the call, Viola
`
`discloses that the content may be monitored for “a voice biometric match,” and if
`
`there is a match “trigger an alert.”36 In other words, Viola describes performing
`
`voice biometrics on a “live or recorded” conversation to determine the identity of the
`
`parties, and if there is a match, triggering an alert.
`
`B. Overview of the Combination of Timmins and Viola
`36. As explained above, Viola discloses that for calls initiated by an inmate, the
`
`CMS creates a CDR for each call that includes the “prisoner’s name” and a
`
`recording of a call.37 Viola also discloses that identities of parties can be determined
`
`based on “a voice biometric match”, but Viola does not explicitly state that “voice
`
`biometrics” could be used to establish the “prisoner’s name” stored in a CDR.38
`
`
`33 Viola, 19:15-16
`34 Id.
`35 Viola, 19:5-10
`36 Viola, 19:21-22
`37 Viola, 8:44-49; Viola, 9:13
`38 Viola, 19-15:22
`
`
`
`- 17 -
`
`

`
`37. It was well understood to a PHOSITA long before the filing date of the ’280
`
`patent, that accurate methods were needed to ensure inmate identification. Since
`
`proper inmate identification controls many aspects of privileges afforded to an
`
`inmate and the limitations placed upon that inmate, such identification is important
`
`to the functioning of the facility. The identity of the inmate controls a number of
`
`aspects of their communications, such as calling restrictions placed on an inmate.39
`
`Thus, if an inmate can thwart an identification system, that inmate may be able to
`
`avoid restrictions placed on his or her own communications.
`
`38. To enhance the process of identifying the inmate, Viola describes using
`
`voiceprint analysis to determine the identity of callers40 during the call or a copy of
`
`the recorded call.41 Viola also describes having a CDR which contains the identity of
`
`inmate-callers42 and a copy of the recording of the call.43 To the extent that a
`
`PHOSITA would not have already understood that Viola’s voiceprint analysis is the
`
`method to determine the “Prisoner’s Name” field in the CDR, Timmins specifically
`
`discloses using voiceprint analysis to add an identifier to a CDR.
`
`
`39 Hodge, 1: 24-40; 3:34-38, 4:51-59
`40 Viola, 19:21-22
`41 Viola, 19:15-16
`42 Viola, 8:44-46
`43 Viola, Table 7 (Recording of Call entry)
`
`
`
`- 18 -
`
`

`
`39. Like Viola, Timmins discloses “a communications system”.44 The
`
`communications system of Timmins includes a “processor ... programmed to
`
`identify an account associated with a user of the system based, at least in part, on a
`
`voiceprint of the user and a first voiceprint sample or model of the user, stored by
`
`the system.”45 Timmins performs this voiceprint analysis by comparing “a voiceprint
`
`of a caller” with “stored voiceprint sample or samples of authorized users of the
`
`account to determine if there is an acceptable match.”46 If there is an acceptable
`
`match, “an identifier of the individual may be inserted into a call detail record
`
`(‘CDR’) for that communication.”47
`
`40. Timmins describes a voiceprint analysis that results in an identifier
`
`corresponding to a caller being placed in a CDR.48 Specifically, Timmins describes
`
`determining the identity of a caller and inserting an identifier regarding the identity
`
`of the caller into a CDR.
`
`41. To the extent a PHOSITA would have needed to determine how to insert the
`
`identity of the prisoner in the CDR beyond using Viola’s already disclosed
`
`voiceprint analysis, it would have been obvious to incorporate Timmins’ voiceprint
`
`
`44 Timmins, [0020]
`45 Id.
`46 Timmins, [0068]
`47 Timmins, [0124]
`48 Timmins, [0124]
`
`
`
`- 19 -
`
`

`
`analysis with Viola’s CMS & voice biometric capabilities to provide the prisoner
`
`identification that is inserted into the communications CDR. It is merely combining
`
`Viola’s known CMS that creates CDRs with Timmins’ well-known voiceprint
`
`analysis to yield this predictable result.
`
`C. The combination of Viola and Timmins renders claim 1 obvious
`a)
`1[A]
`A method, comprising:
`
`enabling, at least in part via one or more communication systems, a
`communication between two or more parties, wherein at least one of the two
`or more parties is a resident of a controlled-environment facility, and
`wherein the resident operates a communication device disposed within the
`controlled-environment facility;
`42. Viola discloses a communication system in the form of a CMS, which “may
`
`be used at a prison, jail, or other detention facility to provide telephone and/or
`
`messaging services to prisoners.”49 As Viola explains “prisoners use a plurality of
`
`telephones 114, which are controlled by CMS 113, to make telephone calls to
`
`family, friends and other parties.”50 Viola’s CMS enables communication between
`
`two parties where one of the parties is a resident of a controlled environment (i.e., a
`
`prison) and is using a device located within the controlled environment (i.e., a prison
`
`telephone).
`
`
`49 Viola, 8:16-19
`50 Viola, 8:19-22
`
`
`
`- 20 -
`
`

`
`1[B]
`
`b)
`creating, at least in part via the one or more communication systems,
`a CDR associated with the communication, wherein the CDR includes or
`references a digital media file;
`43. The CMS of Viola maintains CDRs for each telephone call made by an
`
`inmate.51 Specifically, “[a] separate CDR may be created for every call or other
`
`communication.”52 Viola describes in its Table 7, that the CDR can include a
`
`“Recording of Call”.53
`
`
`
`
`
`44. The “Recording of Call” field is a “copy of the [call] recording stored for
`
`real-time or later review and analysis,” and a PHOSITA would understand the call
`
`
`51 Viola, 8:39-41
`52 Viola, 8:43-44
`53 Viola, 8:41-43
`
`
`
`- 21 -
`
`

`
`recording can be stored as a digital media file.54 Specifically, Viola discloses that its
`
`CMS can be configured for Voice over Internet Protocol (VoIP) communication
`
`between “prison telephone 114 and destination device 120.”55 VoIP is a
`
`communication system
`
`that
`
`transmits
`
`telephone communications digitally.
`
`Accordingly, a PHOSITA would understand that when Viola’s CMS is configured
`
`for VoIP, Viola’s call recordings are readily stored in a digital format because VoIP
`
`communications are already in a digital format. The storage of the digital
`
`information is commonly done by putting this captured data representing the
`
`conversation into a file.
`
`1[C]
`
`c)
`identifying, at least in part via the one or more communication
`systems, at least one of the two or more parties based upon a comparison
`between the digital media file and a signature; and
`45. Viola discloses that a recorded telephone call56 may be monitored for “a
`
`voice biometric match.”57 As explained previously, this “voice biometric match”
`
`establishes the identity of a party to a call based on a voiceprint analysis of a call
`
`recording (i.e., a digital media file).
`
`
`54 Viola, 8:61-64
`55 Viola, 8:31-35
`56 Viola, 19-15:16
`57 Viola, 19-21:22
`
`
`
`- 22 -
`
`

`
`46. Timmins also discloses linking the voiceprint reference stored in an account
`
`(i.e. the signature) with the voiceprint derived from the recorded conversation (i.e.
`
`the digital media file) stating:58
`
`“... identifying an account associated with a user of the
`system based, at least in part, on a voiceprint of the user
`and a first voiceprint sample of the user, stored by the
`system. The method further comprises collecting a
`voiceprint of the user while the user is requesting a
`service from the system and processing the voiceprint for
`storage as a second voiceprint sample of the user.”
`d)
`adding a resulting identification of the at least one of the two or more
`parties to the CDR
`47. Viola discloses that CDRs “may identify the prisoner by name, account
`
`1[D]
`
`number or other identifier.”59 Viola also explained that the live or recorded voice
`
`conversation could be used as a biometric to identify a call participant and provide
`
`an alert if the biometric information did not match.
`
`48. To the extent that Viola does not already teach using a digital media file to
`
`identify a call participant and provide the identification in the CDR, an invention by
`
`Timmins taught such voice identification and CDR technology. A PHOSITA faced
`
`with needing to reliably identify a call participant and put that identity into a CDR
`
`
`58 Timmins, ¶ [0019]
`59 Viola, 8:44-46
`
`
`
`- 23 -
`
`

`
`field would have been motivated to implement the teachings of Timmins. Timmins,
`
`like Viola’s “voice biometrics,” identifies at least one party of a call by comparing a
`
`voiceprint to a previously stored sample (i.e. a signature). Timmons then records the
`
`resulting identity of the party in a CDR. The information assistance service system
`
`of Timmins “identif[ies] a profile of one of the plurality of users stored by the
`
`system based, at least in part, on a voiceprint of the one user received in the call.”60
`
`49. Timmins performs the voiceprint analysis by comparing “a voiceprint of a
`
`caller” with “stored voiceprint sample or samples of authorized users of the account
`
`to determine if there is an acceptable match.”61 If there is an acceptable match an
`
`identifier is added to the CDR: “[o]nce identified, an identifier of the individual may
`
`be inserted into a call detail record (‘CDR’) for that communication.”62 Thus, the
`
`combination of Viola and Timmins teaches these limitations because Viola teaches
`
`creating a CDR with a call recording (i.e., digital media file) and performing voice
`
`biometric analysis on that call recording and Timmins teaches adding an identifier to
`
`a CDR based on the results of voice biometrics analysis.
`
`50. It would have been obvious to incorporate Timmins’ voiceprint analysis
`
`with Viola’s CMS because it is merely combining Viola’s known CMS that creates a
`
`60 Timmins, ¶ [0015]
`61 Timmins, ¶ [0068]
`62 Timmins, ¶ [0124]
`
`
`
`- 24 -
`
`

`
`CDR with Timmins’ well-known voiceprint analysis to yield predictable results.
`
`Viola describes CDRs containing the identity of inmate-callers and a copy of the
`
`recording of the call.63 Viola further describes using voiceprint analysis to determine
`
`the identity of callers on a live or a copy of the recorded call.64 Timmins describes a
`
`voiceprint analysis that results in an identifier corresponding to a caller being placed
`
`in a CDR.65 Specifically, Timmins describes determining the identity of a caller and
`
`inserting an identifier regarding the identity of the caller into a CDR. Thus, it would
`
`have been obvious to incorporate Timmins’ voiceprint analysis with Viola’s CMS
`
`because it is merely combining known elements to yield predictable results because
`
`Timmins’ voiceprint analysis results in an identity of the caller being added to a
`
`CDR and Viola’s CDRs have the identity of the caller in them. Thus, one could use
`
`Timmins’ voiceprint analysis to insert the caller’s identity (“prisoner’s name”) into
`
`Viola’s CDRs.
`
`2.
`
`The combination of Viola and Timmins renders claim 15
`obvious
`51. In my opinion, Viola in view of Timmins, discloses all of the limitations of
`
`claim 15. Many of the elements of independent claim 15 are substantially similar to
`
`claim 1 and my opinions expressed for those elements are the same for the
`
`63 Viola, 8:62-64
`64 Viola, 19:17-22
`65 Timmins, ¶ [0124]
`
`
`
`- 25 -
`
`

`
`corresponding elements of claim 15. Where distinctions exist between these claims,
`
`my opinion is fully supported with the explanation provided below.
`
`15[A]
`
`a)
`A non-transitory computer-readable storage medium having program
`instructions stored thereon that, upon execution by one or more computer
`systems, cause the one or more computer systems t

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


Or .

Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.

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

Accept $ Charge
throbber

Still Working On It

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

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

throbber

A few More Minutes ... Still Working

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

Thank you for your continued patience.

This document could not be displayed.

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

Your account does not support viewing this document.

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

Your account does not support viewing this document.

Set your membership status to view this document.

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

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

Become a Member

One Moment Please

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

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

Your document is on its way!

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

Sealed Document

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

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


Access Government Site

We are redirecting you
to a mobile optimized page.





Document Unreadable or Corrupt

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket

We are unable to display this document.

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket