Voip Pal Com Inc (VPLM)

[GTCar]

Chu ’684 Does Not Disclose A Caller Dialing
Profile As Recited In The Claims ............................................... 7
b. The “Subscriber” Dial Plans in Chu ’684 Are
Enterprise Dial Plans ........................................................ 9
c. Petitioner Has Admitted That Chu ’684 Uses
the Word “Subscriber” To Mean an Enterprise
Rather Than an Individual Caller ................................... 11
d. Petitioner Has Admitted That Chu ’684 Does
Not Disclose a Caller Dialing Profile ............................. 14
e. Despite Previous Admissions, the Present
Petition Adopts A Misinterpretation of Chu
’684 ................................................................................. 18
f. Enterprise Dial Plans Cannot Be Relied On
To Demonstrate The Claims Are Obvious ..................... 22

Scott Does Not Disclose a Caller Profile As Recited
In The Claims ............................................................................ 24
The Gateway Application Settings of Scott Is
Not a Caller Dialing Profile ............................................ 26
c. The Petition Does Not Assert That the
Gateway Application Settings in Scott Are
Caller-Specific ...............................................................

Hinchey Does Not Disclose a Caller Dialing Profile
As Recited In the Claims ..........................................................
b. The “Dial Plan Schema” of Hinchey Is Not a
Caller Profile ................................................................... 28
c. The Petition Does Not Assert That the Dial
Plan Schemas of Hinchey Are Caller-Specific

Grounds 1 and 2 Fail Because Petitioner has Misconstrued
Claim 1 as Not Requiring an Order of Steps [1a] and steps
[1b] and [1c] ........................................................................................ 30
1. Steps [1b] and [1c] depend upon step [1a] ............................... 30
2. The Board Must Resolve a Claim Construction
Dispute ...................................................................................... 31
3. Petitioner Cites to Steps Performed in the Wrong
Order

Grounds 1 and 2 Fail Because Petitioner’s Proposed
Combination Would be Inoperative .................................................... 33
1. Petitioner Has Proposed a Manner of Combining
Chu ’684 With Scott That Does Not Work............................... 33

2. Petitioner Acknowledged In the Previous IPR
Proceedings That the Manner of Combination Was
Defective ................................................................................... 37
3. Petitioner Has Not Refuted Patent Owner’s Previous
Arguments Regarding the Inoperative Nature of the
Proposed Combinations ............................................................ 42
4. Reformatting Only Calls Destined for the PSTN
Would be the Operative Manner of Combination .................... 43
a. Chu ’684 Classifies Calls Using a Prefix Digit
As Is Standard For PBX Systems ................................... 43
b. Petitioner’s Assertion That Chu ’684 Does
Not Operate Like a Conventional PBX is
Unsupported .................................................................... 44
c. Petitioner’s Declarant Admitted That Using a
Prefix Digit With Chu ’684 Would Solve The
Corruption Of Private Numbers ..................................... 47
d. Petitioner’s Proposed Combination Is Based
on Hindsight

Grounds 1 and 2 Fail Because Petitioner’s Proposed
Motivation to Combine is Flawed ....................................................... 50
1. Petitioner Cites a Non-Existent Deficiency in Chu
’684 as a Reason to Combine References ................................. 50
2. Petitioner’s Arguments That Users of Chu ’684
Cannot Dial As If On the PSTN Are Unsupported ..

This Follow-On Petition Should be Denied Under 35
U.S.C. §§ 314(a) and/or 325(d) ........................................................... 53

1. The Petition Is Unjustified Under the Factors For 35
U.S.C. § 314(a) ......................................................................... 55
a. Same petitioner, same independent claims ..................... 56
b. Petitioner uses the same primary reference,
and should have known of the second
reference ......................................................................... 57
c. The earlier proceeding was far along when
second Petition was filed ................................................ 58
d. Nearly a year had lapsed between petition
filings .............................................................................. 58
e. Petitioner does not explain the purpose for its
belated second attack ...................................................... 59
2. Petitioner will be estopped from maintaining this
proceeding .