Support: 888-992-3836
Copyright © 2023 InvestorsHub Inc.
Replies to post #41587 on Voip Pal Com Inc (VPLM)
GTCar
08/26/17 1:39 AM
#41588 RE: Shine53 #41587
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 .