PTAB

IPR2015-01106

Verizon Services Corp v. AIP Acquisition LLC

Log In
Key Events
Petition
petition Intelligence

1. Case Identification

2. Patent Overview

  • Title: Efficient Communication Through Networks
  • Brief Description: The ’756 patent describes methods and systems for routing communications through different types of networks. The technology is directed at identifying an accessible communication access location for a called party, checking for authorization, and then transparently routing the communication, potentially using callback technology to connect the calling and called parties.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Obviousness of Claims 8, 11-12 over Yue and Goodman

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Yue (WO 94/06236) and Goodman (a 1991 IEEE article titled "Second Generation Wireless Information Networks").
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that Yue teaches a personal communication system that meets most limitations of claim 8. Yue's system receives calling and called party numbers and checks the status of multiple, pre-selected communication access locations (e.g., office phone, mobile phone, pager) associated with a single personal number. These access locations are connected to different forms of communication networks. Goodman disclosed the IS-54 digital transmission standard, which specified a VSELP coder for converting voice communications from a higher data rate wireline network (64 kbps) to a lower rate suitable for mobile networks (7.95 kbps). Petitioner contended that for Yue's system to route a call from a wireline network to a mobile destination, it would necessarily require the conversion taught by Goodman, thereby satisfying the "converting said communications" limitation of claim 8. The apparatus claims 11-12 were argued to be obvious for the same reasons.
    • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA implementing Yue's cross-network routing system would have immediately recognized the fundamental technical requirement to convert the voice data rate between the incompatible wireline and mobile networks. Goodman provided a well-known, standardized (IS-54) solution for this exact problem. Combining Goodman's standard conversion technique with Yue's routing system represented a straightforward application of a known solution to a known problem.
    • Expectation of Success: The combination involved applying a standard converter (Goodman) to a system with standard network interfaces (Yue's MTSO interface), providing a high and predictable expectation of successful integration.

Ground 2: Obviousness of Claims 8, 11-12 over Yue, Goodman, and Wille

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Yue (WO 94/06236), Goodman (1991 IEEE article), and Wille (Patent 5,638,432).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: This ground supplemented the Yue/Goodman combination with Wille's teachings to explicitly address the "checking for authorization" limitation of claim 8. While Yue and Goodman provided the core routing and conversion functions, Petitioner argued they lacked an explicit authorization step. Wille taught a private branch exchange (PBX) system that checks if a calling party is authorized to use its services. This authorization could be continuously monitored via a real-time call charge tracking feature, which would terminate a call if a predetermined cost limit was reached. Petitioner asserted that Wille's authorization and billing-control mechanism supplied this missing element.
    • Motivation to Combine: Petitioner argued that Yue's system, which enabled calls to potentially expensive destinations, created an obvious commercial need for cost control and user authorization. A POSITA would have been highly motivated to incorporate a known authorization and billing system, such as that taught by Wille, into the Yue/Goodman system to manage costs and prevent unauthorized access, satisfying a clear business requirement in telecommunications.
    • Expectation of Success: Integrating a known authorization and billing module (Wille) into a call routing system (Yue/Goodman) was argued to be a conventional and predictable design choice with a successful outcome.

Ground 3: Obviousness of Claim 16 over Wille, Weinberger, and Carlsen

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Wille (Patent 5,638,432), Weinberger (Patent 5,425,085), and Carlsen (Patent 6,192,254).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: This ground addressed the callback method of claim 16. Petitioner argued Wille provided the basic framework of a PBX initiating separate communications to a calling and called party and then connecting them. Weinberger taught an in-line, least-cost routing device that performs the claimed steps of determining which service providers service a connection, comparing them based on cost criteria, and selecting the most appropriate provider. Carlsen taught receiving a status signal indicating the called party's line is available (e.g., on-hook) and, in response, initiating the callback communications. Petitioner asserted that the combination of these references taught every step of claim 16 in a logical sequence.
    • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA would combine Wille's callback system with Weinberger's least-cost routing to make the system more economically efficient, a primary and constant driver of innovation in telecommunications. Furthermore, a POSITA would logically incorporate Carlsen's availability-checking feature to improve both system efficiency (by not wasting resources on failed call attempts) and user experience (by connecting the call more reliably), which was a predictable improvement.
    • Expectation of Success: The combination involved the modular integration of three well-understood and complementary telecommunication features—callback, least-cost routing, and status checking—which a POSITA would have expected to function together successfully.

4. Key Claim Construction Positions

  • Petitioner argued for a specific construction of the term "in a manner that is transparent to users of the calling party access number and the called party access number" based on the prosecution history of a related patent.
  • The proposed construction was "in a manner without the called party and the calling party being aware of or needing to understand the operation of" the recited call processing steps. This construction was central to Petitioner's obviousness arguments, as it contended that prior art systems performing automated routing and connection steps without user interaction would satisfy this limitation.

5. Relief Requested

  • Petitioner requested institution of an IPR and cancellation of claims 8, 11-12, and 16 of 6,188,756 as unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. §103.