Voip Pal Com Inc (VPLM)

[GTCar]

Petitioner’s attempt to combine Chu ‘684 with Chu ‘366 or Chen distorts the
operation of Chu ‘684’s system. These distortions are evident when one looks at the shifting explanations of Petitioner’s Declarant in describing the proposed
combinations during deposition. These distortions also undermine the ability of
the combined system to accurately function for its intended purpose, i.e., call
routing.
Therefore, Petitioner’s arguments fail to carry its burden of proving that
Claims 1, 24-26, 49-50, 73-79, 83-84, 88-89, 92, 94-96, 98, and 99 of the ‘005
Patent would have been obvious. 35 U.S.C. § 316(e). Petitioner fails to meet its
burden for at least the following reasons:
1. Patent Owner submits herewith detailed evidence that the
invention claimed in the ‘005 Patent was actually reduced to practice
at least as early as June 6, 2005, prior to the filing dates of both Chu
‘366 and Chen, thus neither reference constitutes prior art under preAIA
35 U.S.C. § 102(e).