PTAB

IPR2016-01254

Cisco Systems Inc v. Focal IP LLC

Log In
Key Events
Petition
petition Intelligence

1. Case Identification

2. Patent Overview

  • Title: Branch Calling and Caller ID Based Call Routing Telephone Features
  • Brief Description: The ’113 patent relates to systems and methods for routing telephone calls between packet-switched networks (e.g., the Internet) and circuit-switched networks (e.g., the PSTN). The technology uses a web-enabled processing system to apply user-selected call control features, such as call forwarding, to intelligently interconnect calls across the different network types.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Obviousness over Burger in view of Alexander - Claims 38 and 65 are obvious over Burger in view of Alexander.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Burger (Patent 6,353,660) and Alexander (Patent 6,798,767).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that Burger discloses all limitations of the challenged claims. Burger teaches an Enhanced Services Platform (ESP) that serves as an intelligent interconnection between a packet-switched network and a circuit-switched network. Burger’s ESP receives calls, determines if subscribers have set call control features (e.g., call forwarding), and initiates a second call over the appropriate network based on those features. Petitioner contended that Burger’s ESP is a web-enabled processing system with a call processing system that receives call data and establishes voice communication across both networks. To the extent Burger is found not to explicitly teach coupling its ESP to a "switching facility," Petitioner asserted that Alexander remedies this deficiency by disclosing various switching facilities (e.g., gateways, private branch exchange (PBX), central offices) coupled to a similar web-enabled call manager.
    • Motivation to Combine (for §103 grounds): A POSITA would combine Alexander's teachings with Burger to ensure Burger's ESP could operate as intended for routing calls across the PSTN. A POSITA would recognize that for Burger's ESP to route long-distance calls, it must connect to standard network components like the gateways, PBXs, and central offices taught by Alexander. Petitioner argued the combination is suggested by Burger itself, which discloses that its packet interface can be a Cisco voice gateway and that an alternate embodiment of its circuit network is a PBX, both of which are taught in Alexander.
    • Expectation of Success (for §113 grounds): A POSITA would have a reasonable expectation of success in combining the systems because interconnections in the PSTN, including the use of SS7 signaling and AIN switching controllers, were well-known and standardized. Connecting Burger’s ESP to the standard network facilities shown in Alexander using standard protocols would have been a predictable implementation.

Ground 2: Obviousness over Archer in view of Chang - Claims 38 and 65 are obvious over Archer in view of Chang.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Archer (Patent 6,683,870) and Chang (Patent 5,958,016).

  • Core Argument for this Ground:

    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that Archer discloses an intelligent web-based controller (server processor and database) that routes telephone calls for a "find-me/follow-me" service between circuit- and packet-switched networks. Archer’s system receives call data, looks up designated destination devices, and multicasts call requests to enable voice communication across both networks. Petitioner asserted that Archer's converters and server processor constitute a web-enabled processing system with call processing capabilities. To the extent Archer is found not to explicitly teach coupling its system to a "switching facility" like a Service Control Point (SCP), Petitioner asserted that Chang teaches this element. Chang discloses a web-based platform that provides user control selections to switching facilities in the PSTN, specifically SCPs that control tandem switches using SS7 signaling.
    • Motivation to Combine (for §113 grounds): A POSITA would combine Archer and Chang to leverage existing, well-developed PSTN infrastructure for call control. Combining Archer’s web-enabled system with Chang’s teaching of coupling to standard AIN switching facilities (like SCPs) would allow Archer’s system to use existing PSTN control functionality without modification. This would lead to predictable results, reduce development costs, and further Archer's stated goal of reducing switching traffic on the PSTN by allowing its system to off-load and efficiently control call routing.
    • Expectation of Success (for §113 grounds): The combination would have yielded predictable results. By the priority date, providing user feature selections to switching facilities in circuit-switched networks via standard AIN functional units (SCPs, STPs) and signaling protocols (SS7), as taught by Chang, was a well-known and conventional technique. Applying this known technique to Archer’s system would have been straightforward for a POSITA.

  • Additional Grounds: Petitioner asserted additional obviousness challenges against claims 38 and 65 based on Burger in view of the knowledge of a POSA, and Archer in view of the knowledge of a POSA. These grounds relied on similar arguments that a POSA would have understood the primary references to inherently include or would have been motivated to modify them to include the necessary "switching facility" couplings based on the standardized nature of PSTN and AIN architecture at the time.

4. Key Claim Construction Positions

  • "call data": Petitioner argued that based on claim differentiation with dependent claims, the plain and ordinary meaning of "call data" should be construed to include at least telephone numbers, IP addresses, and/or call requests.
  • "switching facility": Petitioner argued this term should be construed broadly based on its plain meaning and the prosecution history of a parent application. The applicant had previously defined it to include "any point in the switching fabric of converging networks," providing examples such as tandem switches, signal control points (SCPs), gateways, and session border controllers (SBCs). This broad construction was argued as critical to showing the prior art meets this limitation.

5. Relief Requested

  • Petitioner requests institution of an inter partes review and cancellation of claims 38 and 65 of the ’113 patent as unpatentable.