PTAB

IPR2017-01541

Ooma Inc v. Deep Green Wireless LLC

Log In
Key Events
Petition
petition

1. Case Identification

2. Patent Overview

  • Title: Apparatus for voice communications over wired and wireless networks.
  • Brief Description: The ’714 patent relates to an apparatus for routing digital data signals, including voice communications, among multiple telecommunications devices over a network. The apparatus comprises a network interface for connecting to a wired line, a wireless interface for communicating with wireless devices, a processor for routing, and a “discrimination circuit” for detecting incoming voice signals from among other digital data.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Claims 35, 37-39, 43-44, 46-48, 52-53, and 55-57 are anticipated by Gernert under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e).

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Gernert (Patent 6,600,734).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that Gernert discloses every limitation of the challenged claims. Gernert describes a data communications network that integrates wireless and wired communication, teaching an apparatus for routing digitized voice signals encapsulated in IP packets. Gernert’s integral apparatus, which combines an access point and gateway, functions as the claimed network interface by connecting a wireless local area network to a wide area network or public switched telephone network (PSTN) via Ethernet, xDSL, or ISDN interfaces. The system’s use of an RF link to communicate with remote mobile units, such as voice communication handsets, was asserted to teach the claimed wireless interface and processor for routing between the interfaces. Critically, Petitioner argued Gernert discloses the “discrimination circuit” by teaching that voice packets contain a header with a flag indicating voice-encoded data. This flag allows a network node, such as a hub or router, to treat a voice packet differently from a data packet to minimize delay, thereby detecting and discriminating voice signals.

Ground 2: Claims 35, 37-39, 43-44, 46-48, 52-53, and 55-57 are anticipated by Farris under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e).

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Farris (Patent 6,721,306).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner contended that Farris, which describes a localized wireless gateway system, also anticipates all challenged claims. Farris’s system uses server and client PCs connected to a LAN to provide local voice/data communications and access to a public packet data network. The network interface was mapped to Farris’s LAN cards connecting PCs to an Ethernet communication line. The wireless interface was mapped to the standardized air interface between the base stations and wireless telephone handsets. The system’s CPUs function as the claimed processor for routing data. Petitioner asserted that Farris’s disclosure of PCs on a voice-and-data LAN meets the “discrimination circuit” limitation. These PCs perform packet processing to detect incoming voice signals by examining identifying information, such as the MAC address or packet header, to handle each packet according to its data type and route it appropriately.

Ground 3: Claims 35, 37-39, 43-44, 46-48, 52-53, and 55-57 are obvious over IBM in view of Arai under 35 U.S.C. § 103.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: IBM (European Patent # 0789470) and Arai (European Patent # 0785637).

  • Core Argument for this Ground:

    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that IBM alone teaches nearly every claim limitation. IBM discloses a gateway that connects to both voice and data networks and is capable of splitting a combined signal into separate voice and data streams for routing. This gateway includes a processor (DSP) and a discrimination circuit that determines whether an incoming call is a voice telephone call or a modem data call before routing it. However, Petitioner noted that IBM does not explicitly disclose a wireless interface. Arai was introduced to supply this element, as it teaches a wireless communication apparatus that uses time-division multiplexing and frequency hopping to enable simultaneous wireless voice and data communication with multiple devices.
    • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA would combine Arai's wireless interface with IBM's gateway to expand the system's flexibility and address the known market demand for wireless mobility. Petitioner asserted that IBM itself acknowledges the broad applicability of its architecture to mobile applications, making the integration of a known wireless solution like Arai a simple and logical step. The combination would have been a predictable implementation of known technologies to achieve a wireless-capable voice/data gateway.
    • Expectation of Success: A POSITA would have had a reasonable expectation of success in combining these references. Integrating a known wireless communication system (Arai) with a gateway designed for separating voice and data (IBM) involved applying well-understood principles of network design and would have yielded the predictable result of a gateway that could route traffic between wired networks and wireless devices.

  • Additional Grounds: Petitioner asserted additional obviousness challenges based on combining Gernert or Farris with AT&T (Patent 6,452,923). These grounds argued that if Gernert or Farris were found not to teach the "discrimination circuit," a POSITA would have been motivated to incorporate AT&T’s teachings on discriminating traffic forms to improve traffic control and bandwidth allocation.

4. Key Claim Construction Positions

  • Petitioner argued that the claim term “discrimination circuit” is indefinite under 35 U.S.C. § 112 because the specification mentions it only once without providing sufficient detail for a POSITA to understand its scope. For the purposes of the IPR, however, Petitioner contended that the term’s broadest reasonable interpretation must encompass, at a minimum, the functionality described in the Patent Owner’s infringement contentions. Based on those contentions, Petitioner argued the term should be construed as “software capable of detecting voice signals among digital data signals.” This construction was central to Petitioner’s arguments that the prior art’s use of packet headers, flags, and software-based packet processing meets this limitation.

5. Relief Requested

  • Petitioner requests institution of IPR for claims 35, 37-39, 43-44, 46-48, 52-53, and 55-57, and that the Board find these claims unpatentable and cancel them.