PTAB

IPR2015-00155

Securus Technologies Inc v. Global Tel Link

Log In
Key Events
Petition
petition

1. Case Identification

2. Patent Overview

  • Title: Telecommunication Call Management and Monitoring System
  • Brief Description: The `’243` patent relates to a call management system for authenticating and monitoring telephone calls originating from within a privately controlled network, such as a correctional facility. The system restricts access to a public telephone network by using a combination of biometric (voiceprint) and personal identification number (PIN) authentication, monitoring for three-way call attempts, and detecting predetermined keywords within the call audio. The invention's stated improvements focus on associating a recorded voiceprint with an identifier for a group of potential callers and matching those credentials to grant or deny access.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Obviousness over Susen in view of Gainsboro - Claims 1-7 are obvious over Susen in view of Gainsboro.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Susen (Patent 7,035,386) and Gainsboro (Patent 6,064,963).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that Susen discloses the core authentication method of independent claim 1. Susen teaches a system for verifying access authorization for voice telephony that uses a database of personally identifying voice samples (a "voice reference data record") or PINs for authorized users. Susen discloses assigning an initial identifier, recording a user's voiceprint in a training phase, storing this data in a database, prompting a user for a second identifier (e.g., a PIN) and a second voice sample during a call attempt, and comparing the inputs to the stored data to authenticate the user and grant access. Petitioner asserted that Gainsboro, which discloses a system for monitoring inmate phone calls, teaches the remaining limitations. Specifically, Gainsboro describes an "automatic speech recognition" (ASR) module for spotting keywords and teaches that a prison phone system must be able to detect a called party's hook flash to prevent unauthorized three-way calling.
    • Motivation to Combine: A person of ordinary skill in the art (POSITA) would combine Susen's authentication framework with the specific correctional facility monitoring features taught by Gainsboro. Both patents address the same field of telecommunications control and monitoring. Petitioner argued the combination would be a predictable implementation to enhance the security of an institutional telephone system, an environment where robust authentication and comprehensive call monitoring are critical and well-known needs. The `’243` patent itself acknowledged that such monitoring techniques were known in the art.
    • Expectation of Success: Integrating the known monitoring techniques from Gainsboro into the authentication system of Susen would have been a straightforward application of existing technologies to achieve the predictable result of a more secure system. Petitioner also argued that Susen and/or Gainsboro disclose the limitations of dependent claims 2-7, including the use of PINs (claim 2), DTMF keypads (claim 3), verifying numbers against an allowed call list (claim 4), preventing calls to numbers not on the list (claim 5), and sampling voice data to detect unauthorized speakers (claim 7).

Ground 2: Obviousness over Barak in view of Gainsboro - Claims 1-6 are obvious over Barak in view of Gainsboro.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Barak (Patent 6,788,772) and Gainsboro (Patent 6,064,963).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner contended that Barak, like Susen, teaches the foundational authentication elements of claim 1. Barak discloses a method for controlling telephone calls by having a primary user assign identifiers (including numeric dialing codes and system-recognizable voiceprints) to authorized users. These identifiers and associated call control limitations (e.g., allowed/disallowed numbers) are stored in a database. Barak's system, using an Interactive Voice Response (IVR) peripheral, prompts a user to input an identifier, validates it against the database via code lookup or voice recognition, and then determines whether to connect the call. Petitioner argued that Gainsboro supplies the remaining elements of claim 1 not found in Barak, namely monitoring for three-way call attempts via hook flash detection and performing keyword spotting.
    • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA would have been motivated to incorporate the well-known institutional monitoring capabilities of Gainsboro into the general-purpose call control system of Barak. This would adapt Barak's system for the specific, high-security needs of a correctional facility, a predictable and desirable improvement. Petitioner noted that both references operate in the same technical space of controlled telephone access and that Barak itself suggests its system is suited for institutional-type settings (e.g., business or school dormitories) where user accountability is important.
    • Expectation of Success: The combination was presented as the predictable result of applying a known security feature (Gainsboro's monitoring) to a known access control system (Barak's authentication), with a high likelihood of success. The petition further asserted that Barak and Gainsboro, in combination, teach the limitations of dependent claims 2-6, covering the use of PINs, DTMF entry, and managing calls with allowed lists.

4. Key Claim Construction Positions

  • Petitioner argued that no special claim construction is necessary for the challenged terms in the `’243` patent.
  • The petition stated that all claim terms are amenable to their broadest reasonable construction based on their plain and customary meaning as understood by a POSITA in the context of the patent's disclosure, and it reserved the right to respond to any constructions proposed by the Patent Owner.

5. Relief Requested

  • Petitioner requested the institution of an inter partes review and the cancellation of claims 1-7 of Patent 7,853,243 as unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. §103.