The response below was filed well over 6 months ago and IMO should be denied soon by the USPTO. It has been said that the VP folks are expecting a decision on that soon too, but who knows, it could be 1-3 more months. What I do know is the response from VP pretty much laid waste to the arguments for invalidity in the re-examination request. And, I'm under the impression that if this falls in VP's favor, the KOH ruling in NDCA will no longer be a concern, but who really knows about that. Think we'd need an expert to way in on that.
________________________________________________________________________________________
RESPONSE TO OFFICE ACTION
Applicant also notes in passing that the issue of “preserving the routing of privatenetwork calls” (e.g., by not corrupting or misinterpreting private numbers such as PBX
extensions) in the proposed combination is also a live issue in the present case. Ironically, the
Petitioner in IPR2016-01198 and IPR2016-01201 unsuccessfully attempted to combine an
enterprise-level plan with a personalized dial plan, which the Patent Owner and its expert pointed
out was implausible. Patent Owner submits that the Dr. Min’s argument also implausibly
attempts to combine enterprise- and individual-level dial plans, which is like trying to push a
square peg into a round hole. (This argument will be developed in much greater detail below.)
In summary, while the responsive arguments below take seriously the arguments made by
the Office action and Dr. Min, the response to them is not to be taken as any sort of concession
that Mermel’s disclosure is sufficient, or that it is proper to jump back and forth between ACD
features and dial plan features as a basis of forming a proper obviousness rejection.
1. Mermel’s ACD scripts are not based on a “second participant identifier.”
2. Without a “first participant identifier,” Bedingfield cannot be used in Mermel.
3. Mermel’s and Bedingfield’s dialing plans are in irreconcilable conflict.
4. Mermel’s/H.323’s remote zone LCF in Figure 40 is not a “routing message”.
5. Dr. Min’s declaration fails to identify these problems or to provide any solutions.
__________________________________________________________________________________
Once this RBR re-examination is denied, it's my opinion that Amazon will have no choice but to settle or purchase. AND/OR, with Amazon knowing that Apple/Att are still on the hook and also may be in the running to purchase VP's patent family, that could open a bidding war between apple/att and Amazon. That is still a very real possibility and one I hope Mr. Parrish is setting up for. I would love to see a license agreement somewhere in here as part of settlement prior to purchase.
Everyone knows that amzn has settled once already and according to Hudnell it was a "Favorable Settlement", that means favorable to VP. IMO, there is no settlement that is "favorable" to VP unless there was money involved, there's no question about it! Else it would have been a waste of time, effort and money on legal fees for VP. Who knows, maybe amzn has already licensed the MG patent, which would strengthen the tmob/V cases too.
I really think this re-examination will be the final hurdle for VP. If we do see a decision on this within the next month, we could very easily be at .15 by year end.
"Baron Rothschild, of the famous banking dynasty, said the best time to buy was "when there is blood in the streets." In other words - when everyone is selling, it's a great time to buy! This would seem to be very reasonable advice, yet few people follow it."
AI
