[00:00:00] Speaker 05:
016-1805 Bear Creek Technologies versus Cisco.

[00:00:34] Speaker 04:
How do I say your last name?

[00:00:36] Speaker 00:
Good morning, Your Honors.

[00:00:37] Speaker 00:
Mealy.

[00:00:37] Speaker 04:
Mealy, please proceed.

[00:00:39] Speaker 00:
Thank you.

[00:00:47] Speaker 00:
May it please the Court.

[00:00:48] Speaker 00:
My name is Anthony Mealy, and I represent Bear Creek Technologies.

[00:00:52] Speaker 00:
The 722 patents claimed discriminator determines whether an already IP-converted, given-cause destination is on an IP network

[00:01:05] Speaker 00:
or another phone network.

[00:01:08] Speaker 00:
The board erroneously concludes that the IWAMI communication server corresponds to the discriminator by, one, inflating a phrase in the abstract in contradiction to the disclosure the abstract summarizes, two, improperly moving a program 31 from a communication terminal into the communication server, thereby modifying IWAMI.

[00:01:34] Speaker 05:
Even if the board was wrong about the program 31 being part of server 20, why does that error affect whether Iwami discloses the relevant limitation given that Bear Creek had admitted below that the 722 patent itself gives no guidance on how the discriminator works?

[00:02:00] Speaker 05:
Bear Creek... That last part was a quote.

[00:02:04] Speaker 05:
from the appendix where you said that.

[00:02:07] Speaker 00:
In what part of the appendix?

[00:02:37] Speaker 00:
That's argument made before the Patent Office.

[00:02:41] Speaker 00:
It characterizes the discriminator, but there's replete mentioning and references to how the discriminator works in reference to the specification.

[00:02:52] Speaker 00:
In the briefing, the specification shows, for example, with reference to Figure 13.

[00:03:07] Speaker 00:
specifically, which is at Appendix 6646.

[00:03:13] Speaker 00:
And within there, there's a step 1316, just toward the lower right-hand corner of that diagram, that shows how and where the determination occurs.

[00:03:29] Speaker 05:
Is that claimed?

[00:03:33] Speaker 00:
That statement that was made in prosecution at that location you cited, Your Honor,

[00:03:37] Speaker 00:
was a statement regarding whether the specification showed how the discriminator works.

[00:03:42] Speaker 00:
The claim itself is very clear as to what the discriminator is doing, and it's very clear as to when it's doing it.

[00:03:50] Speaker 00:
This invention has to do with a situation where you're setting in course this call to be an intellectual.

[00:04:00] Speaker 05:
Just so I understand your argument, what are you telling me I'm supposed to discern from figure 13?

[00:04:04] Speaker 00:
So what happens is,

[00:04:08] Speaker 00:
And figure 13 shows where the discrimination occurs in one embodiment.

[00:04:22] Speaker 00:
What happens is, if you go back to figure 11, which relates to figure 13, a phone call comes in the internet line 1112, which is in the upper left-hand portion of that diagram.

[00:04:38] Speaker 00:
into an internet server.

[00:04:41] Speaker 00:
The internet server processes that signal and you see at the top of figure 13 that signal is coming in at the very top left hand portion and then it arrives at a determination step which is 1316 where the program determines whether the destination is via internet or phone lines.

[00:05:03] Speaker 00:
And the difference between how this works versus how Iwami works is in Iwami, the user specifies one type of input, which predestines the determination to be a local area network call.

[00:05:21] Speaker 00:
And then it specifies another input, which would be a regular telephone number, which predestines it to be a telephone number.

[00:05:27] Speaker 00:
But in Iwami, there is a determination in Figure 5 of Iwami

[00:05:33] Speaker 00:
that then makes the determinations to whether it's an outside phone call or it stays within the LAN.

[00:05:39] Speaker 00:
In step 1316 of the 722 patent, what happens is you look at the, and in previous to that there's step 1315, what happens is the software looks at the destination phone number and then determines whether or not it is an intellectual, an internet protocol call

[00:05:58] Speaker 00:
which means it would stay Internet Protocol or it's another phone network or PSTN call.

[00:06:08] Speaker 00:
But the language of the claim is clear in the timing of the discrimination and it's also clear in that that discrimination happens to an already IP-converted given call.

[00:06:24] Speaker 00:
And those aspects cannot be treated

[00:06:28] Speaker 00:
by the way the board associates the configuration or the communication server.

[00:06:34] Speaker 05:
Do you think the representative claim requires that a server or a particular component perform the network discrimination limitation?

[00:06:44] Speaker 00:
The way the claim is set right now, it doesn't require explicitly that.

[00:06:51] Speaker 05:
So it requires the function to be performed, but it doesn't require a particular component to perform that function.

[00:06:56] Speaker 00:
It doesn't require a specific component.

[00:06:58] Speaker 00:
It requires that it occur within the network at a particular time and location.

[00:07:03] Speaker 05:
So I guess my point comes back to, if the claim itself doesn't require a particular component to perform the function, why does it matter if the board got Iwami wrong and if

[00:07:17] Speaker 05:
Program 31 was not actually part of Server 20 as long as it's still a function that's occurring.

[00:07:26] Speaker 00:
Well, the moving Program 31 without an explanation as to how you would move that into the communications server doesn't fix anything, so it doesn't... Wait, you just said that the representative claims don't require any particular server or any particular

[00:07:42] Speaker 05:
component to actually perform the network discriminator limitation, it's just a functional requirement.

[00:07:47] Speaker 05:
It has to be performed, but it doesn't tell you who.

[00:07:50] Speaker 05:
So why does it matter whether the board got wrong in Awami, who is performing it?

[00:07:55] Speaker 00:
There's structure that's required in the claim.

[00:07:58] Speaker 00:
It's not strictly functional, and the structure involves a specific physical and time location where these signals arrive at the discriminator, and the discriminator happens at a particular time.

[00:08:11] Speaker 00:
The discriminator is doing a discrimination as to whether this call is going to be routed as an IP call or another phone network call on a call that's a given call that's already IP converted.

[00:08:24] Speaker 00:
So this is a call that's coming from an IP pipe.

[00:08:29] Speaker 00:
It's not like what happens with Iwami, where you have the communication server processing calls that are coming from an IP pipe, which are always sent to a public phone.

[00:08:40] Speaker 00:
And then the only time a call comes into the communication server in Awami is when it's going to an IP pipe, is when it's coming from a public phone.

[00:08:49] Speaker 00:
And when it comes from a public phone, that's not an already IP-converted call.

[00:08:54] Speaker 00:
So that cannot correspond to the claimed discriminator function.

[00:09:12] Speaker 05:
Do you have anything further?

[00:09:13] Speaker 00:
Well, I think what's important is that the timing of the way the communication server acts is clearly required in figure five, step 125, where it's clear within that figure of Iwami that the determination that's made by Iwami happens before

[00:09:43] Speaker 00:
before conversion to IP signal occurs when the signal is then sent off to the communication server.

[00:09:50] Speaker 05:
This timing argument is the one that Cisco argues you waived by never raising it below?

[00:09:56] Speaker 05:
Can you tell me where you did raise it below?

[00:09:57] Speaker 00:
The argument was raised below in the briefing, the original appeal briefing to the board where

[00:10:11] Speaker 00:
where it was emphasized that the user with reference to White, there was an argument with reference to this other reference that the determination didn't meet the timing aspect because the user was inputting the information.

[00:10:31] Speaker 00:
So that was not occurring after an IP conversion.

[00:10:34] Speaker 00:
And then what happened was the council for Bear Creek explained that

[00:10:41] Speaker 00:
Iwami had the same deficiency.

[00:10:44] Speaker 00:
And remember that the examiner had applied numerous rejections based on numerous references.

[00:10:51] Speaker 00:
And so there were some shorthand that was used.

[00:10:53] Speaker 00:
Another thing that the council did to handle that argument was they pointed out in a footnote, which is shown in Appendix 4094, Note 27, that whenever there was an argument with respect to the discriminator, it was effectively referring to the entire limitation.

[00:11:11] Speaker 00:
and all of the language associated with that limitation.

[00:11:13] Speaker 01:
I'm having a little bit of a hard time following you.

[00:11:18] Speaker 01:
You're saying this paragraph on page 4102 where you're talking about an entirely separate reference is enough to preserve your argument on why Iwami also doesn't do it?

[00:11:31] Speaker 00:
No.

[00:11:31] Speaker 00:
What happened was what I'm saying is that there was a specific reference in discussing Iwami

[00:11:36] Speaker 00:
that said that Iwami has the same exact deficiency, that Iwami's like white.

[00:11:42] Speaker 01:
Where do you say that?

[00:11:59] Speaker 00:
At the bottom of page eight of the reply brief, there's a reference to appendix

[00:12:05] Speaker 05:
That's the oral argument, hearing transcript, before the board.

[00:12:10] Speaker 05:
You can't raise an argument for the first time in oral argument at the hearing.

[00:12:16] Speaker 00:
Oh, I'm sorry.

[00:12:16] Speaker 00:
I'm sorry.

[00:12:17] Speaker 00:
Earlier, at Appendix 4102.

[00:12:20] Speaker 05:
Yeah, that's where we are now, 4102.

[00:12:25] Speaker 05:
That's the discussion of white.

[00:12:26] Speaker 00:
Right.

[00:12:26] Speaker 00:
And what they said was, what Council said was Iwami describes a system that, like white,

[00:12:34] Speaker 00:
requires the user to discriminate between telephone or internet lines.

[00:12:37] Speaker 00:
When the user discriminates between telephone and internet lines, the timing aspect's not met because it occurs before there's been a conversion, an IP conversion of the call.

[00:12:49] Speaker 05:
Okay, you're into your rebuttal time.

[00:12:50] Speaker 05:
Would you like to save the remainder?

[00:12:54] Speaker 05:
Mr. McCombs.

[00:13:06] Speaker 03:
Good morning, Your Honors.

[00:13:07] Speaker 03:
May it please the Court?

[00:13:10] Speaker 03:
Bear Creek's appeal logic is faulty.

[00:13:12] Speaker 03:
The appeal in this case is premised on ignoring the teachings of the claimed discriminator functionality because, in Bear Creek's view, there are other parts of Awami that it believes operate differently than the portions cited below.

[00:13:26] Speaker 03:
This logic fails because the explicit teachings that the Board did rely upon, the abstract and the flowchart steps of Figure 5, they are not erased or contradicted or discredited

[00:13:37] Speaker 03:
by any other aspects of Iwami.

[00:13:40] Speaker 05:
The board's conclusion that the claim discriminator provides... Do you agree that the board erroneously concluded program 31 was part of server 20 as opposed to communication terminal 10?

[00:13:53] Speaker 03:
No, I don't because figure five as stated in appendix page seven

[00:13:59] Speaker 03:
Show me what you'd like me to look at.

[00:14:03] Speaker 03:
I'd like you to look at Appendix 7 where it says, Figure 5 is a teaching of voice communication control processing.

[00:14:11] Speaker 05:
Appendix 7, Figure 5 illustrates voice communication control processing performed by Voice Communication Program 31.

[00:14:19] Speaker 03:
Yes, so that's a teaching of voice communication control processing.

[00:14:24] Speaker 03:
As far as the program itself, the location of the program is not

[00:14:28] Speaker 03:
is not critical to the claim.

[00:14:31] Speaker 03:
The program 31 is an additional teaching of what is stated in the abstract, that the server in the abstract is a computer.

[00:14:40] Speaker 03:
A computer runs on software.

[00:14:42] Speaker 03:
The location of where that program is is not pertinent to the broader teaching of performing the discrimination function that the abstract clearly says is performed.

[00:14:54] Speaker 03:
You can view these as two consistent teachings.

[00:14:56] Speaker 03:
They're separate clarifying teachings of the same function.

[00:15:01] Speaker 03:
To the extent that the program 31 is described in the specification as being contained within the terminal, that does not change the teaching of the abstract.

[00:15:14] Speaker 03:
In fact, it's entirely consistent.

[00:15:16] Speaker 05:
I understand your argument that the claim doesn't require a particular

[00:15:22] Speaker 05:
component be the one that perform, but are you telling me that I'm not appropriately reading the board's decision on page six when it says program 31 is part of communication server 20?

[00:15:36] Speaker 05:
Because I think it comes across pretty clearly.

[00:15:38] Speaker 05:
I want to make sure you're answering my question because I don't think that it dooms your case if the board misrecognized the location if the location is not a claim requirement.

[00:15:52] Speaker 05:
But are you telling me I'm wrong to be even looking at this board opinion as having misunderstood where program 31 is located?

[00:16:01] Speaker 03:
I think it could be read either way.

[00:16:04] Speaker 03:
I think it could be read as implying that program 31 is in the terminal.

[00:16:10] Speaker 03:
But I don't think that the board considered that important as far as the broader teaching.

[00:16:14] Speaker 05:
What about page six would suggest to me that

[00:16:18] Speaker 05:
program 31 is located in the terminal, which is element 10, as opposed to in the server, which is element 20.

[00:16:24] Speaker 03:
Yes.

[00:16:26] Speaker 05:
What sentence in here, since it mentions server 20 multiple times, which sentence would you say shows that they really understood it to be located in 10?

[00:16:36] Speaker 03:
As far as whether it's located in 10 versus the abstract, server 20 that is, you could read this as interpreting this as the

[00:16:48] Speaker 03:
as the board viewing this program to be within the terminal.

[00:16:52] Speaker 03:
But again, I think that's a box drawing exercise because I don't think it matters where the discriminator function is performed in the claim.

[00:17:03] Speaker 03:
And I think that the teaching in the abstract is clear, and it's clear that the teaching of the discrimination function that's performed by the server 20 would be software.

[00:17:14] Speaker 03:
It wouldn't have to be this particular program 31 because

[00:17:18] Speaker 03:
abstract statement and teaching stands on its own.

[00:17:22] Speaker 03:
The conclusion that the board reached on Appendix 7 that because the Server 20 of Iwami determines if the address of the other party is connected through the LAN 1 or the public network 3, the conclusion was that Iwami teaches the discriminator functionality.

[00:17:44] Speaker 03:
So I don't believe that the location of the discriminator

[00:17:48] Speaker 03:
as it relates to figure five, discredits or undermines that teaching.

[00:17:55] Speaker 03:
We're looking at what the broader teaching of the reference is.

[00:18:01] Speaker 03:
And with respect to the second point, Awami's discrimination does happen after the transmitted media is converted to IP addressed media.

[00:18:11] Speaker 03:
Bear Creek's argument on this point, to the contrary, is flawed because it's confusing

[00:18:17] Speaker 03:
call request transmitted media with voice payload data.

[00:18:21] Speaker 03:
The transmitted media was consistently treated throughout the proceeding below and the related litigation by Bear Creek before the district court to include converting call requests specifically into IP address media.

[00:18:37] Speaker 03:
All of the examiner cited portions of AWAMI pertaining to converting

[00:18:43] Speaker 03:
they pertain to converting call requests when they're referring to this claim element.

[00:18:47] Speaker 03:
The examiner did recognize the difference between voice payload and call requests.

[00:18:53] Speaker 03:
And this makes sense because the voice payload doesn't exist until after you've routed the call and begin talking.

[00:19:02] Speaker 03:
The transmitted media being the call request was clear based on the examiner adopting the construction that Bear Creek had advanced in the litigation.

[00:19:12] Speaker 03:
which is that the transmitted media pertains to the destination information or the pre-payload phase, which is the call request.

[00:19:21] Speaker 03:
And even as well, at Bear Creek's own brief in this case, appeal brief at page 23, Bear Creek concedes that the specification shows the transmitted media at this stage of a call is the outbound telephone number.

[00:19:36] Speaker 03:
So the argument that Bear Creek's presenting in its reply brief on this point

[00:19:43] Speaker 03:
is misleading because the reply brief at page five crops off step 123 in figure five.

[00:19:51] Speaker 03:
And step 123 is where the voice communication request is generated and converted to IP address media, which happens right before the claim discrimination step.

[00:20:02] Speaker 05:
Can you turn to and address the timing requirement argument, please?

[00:20:06] Speaker 03:
Yes.

[00:20:06] Speaker 03:
So the timing, with regard to the timing, again, the timing occurs where

[00:20:14] Speaker 03:
the communication request is generated.

[00:20:18] Speaker 03:
That is where the IP address media is, the transmitted via the call request is converted to IP address media.

[00:20:28] Speaker 03:
And if you look at the step 123 that was cropped off of their figure five presentation in their reply brief at page five, it is the generating the voice communication request

[00:20:43] Speaker 03:
where that gets put into the packet structure shown in Awami's figure 13, that packet structure is, as Awami says at column 17, lines 45, is being put into TCP IP protocol.

[00:20:59] Speaker 05:
Do you believe the examiner or the board addressed this timing issue?

[00:21:05] Speaker 03:
Yes.

[00:21:05] Speaker 03:
Yes, Your Honor.

[00:21:06] Speaker 03:
I think that there were quotes specifically.

[00:21:10] Speaker 05:
Let's look on your red brief at page 23.

[00:21:13] Speaker 02:
Yes.

[00:21:15] Speaker 05:
Do you have your red brief handy?

[00:21:16] Speaker 02:
Yes.

[00:21:23] Speaker 05:
Tell me when you get to page 23.

[00:21:25] Speaker 02:
Yes.

[00:21:27] Speaker 05:
Are you there?

[00:21:28] Speaker 02:
Yes.

[00:21:28] Speaker 05:
Do you see the big quote where you said, for example, the examiner addressed this timing feature directly, the rejection states?

[00:21:35] Speaker 02:
Yes.

[00:21:36] Speaker 05:
And do you see that quote?

[00:21:37] Speaker 02:
Yes.

[00:21:40] Speaker 05:
And then you see the appendix site afterwards on the next page, 5889.

[00:21:43] Speaker 03:
Yes, so we're on page 23 and 24.

[00:21:50] Speaker 05:
Yes, the large quote that you say is from the examiner's rejection that shows where he addressed it.

[00:21:56] Speaker 03:
Yes.

[00:21:56] Speaker 05:
You do realize that quote's not from the examiner's rejection.

[00:21:59] Speaker 05:
It's from your petition.

[00:22:00] Speaker 03:
Yes, and that's a mistake in the record.

[00:22:02] Speaker 05:
But it's an enormous mistake, because you're alleging to this court that the examiner and the board addressed this issue.

[00:22:08] Speaker 05:
And the only citation you have

[00:22:10] Speaker 05:
which you claim to be the examiner's statement in the record, is in fact a quote from your brief below, not a quote from any office action.

[00:22:18] Speaker 05:
And we went through every office action, even though you only gave us excerpts.

[00:22:23] Speaker 05:
We dug into this entirely.

[00:22:25] Speaker 05:
And there's no office action that I can find where an examiner said anything like this.

[00:22:30] Speaker 03:
It's at appendix 0449, which contains the rejection.

[00:22:34] Speaker 03:
0449.

[00:22:40] Speaker 03:
which contains the rejection.

[00:22:42] Speaker 03:
And that rejection incorporates request exhibit BB, which was the page that was cited.

[00:22:51] Speaker 05:
449.

[00:22:57] Speaker 03:
Which is at page 44 of that office action.

[00:23:02] Speaker 03:
The appendix page 449.

[00:23:06] Speaker 03:
At the bottom of the page, it says,

[00:23:09] Speaker 03:
Claims 1-12 and 14-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C.

[00:23:14] Speaker 03:
Section 103 as being unpatentable over Awami in view of Baratz.

[00:23:19] Speaker 03:
C. Request Exhibit B.B., which is incorporated by reference as to those claims.

[00:23:27] Speaker 03:
And those pages are the citation to page 5889.

[00:23:33] Speaker 05:
Okay.

[00:23:34] Speaker 05:
I apologize then.

[00:23:37] Speaker 05:
I still think that you had an obligation to make this a lot clearer to the court because you cite me, you claim the examiner rejected it and included a quote and you say that quote is from his rejection.

[00:23:48] Speaker 05:
And then you cite me to a page in the appendix, which is only your brief.

[00:23:53] Speaker 05:
And it didn't look to me like the examiner had done that.

[00:23:55] Speaker 05:
And we, we searched all of the references for this quote and of course couldn't find it, but you're absolutely right.

[00:24:00] Speaker 05:
If he incorporated by reference your petition request, which

[00:24:07] Speaker 05:
By the way, it's really weird.

[00:24:09] Speaker 05:
I don't know if he, have you ever said, I've never seen an examiner, because he incorporates by reference your request, but what does that mean?

[00:24:21] Speaker 05:
I mean, does that mean he's making fact findings completely in line with the things you advocate about it?

[00:24:29] Speaker 05:
It certainly leaves me a bit confused.

[00:24:33] Speaker 03:
I think that in this case, the examiner had quoted portions of the text later on as being incorporated from the original claim chart, which was at Exhibit BB, and that's how that occurred.

[00:24:52] Speaker 03:
And as far as the specifics of where this argument was

[00:24:59] Speaker 03:
Also contained, I think there are other portions in the record on page 24 of our brief that show that the discrimination is applied specifically.

[00:25:10] Speaker 05:
What exactly is Request Exhibit BB?

[00:25:14] Speaker 03:
Request Exhibit BB is a claim chart that shows the mapping of the claim elements to the WAMI reference.

[00:25:25] Speaker 05:
Is that the thing that appears at 5889?

[00:25:29] Speaker 03:
Yes.

[00:25:31] Speaker 03:
Yes, your honor.

[00:25:50] Speaker 05:
I don't even know what to make about that, but I would definitely urge you.

[00:25:54] Speaker 05:
I mean, I don't know if you're right.

[00:25:56] Speaker 05:
That should be read as the examiner making a fact finding consistent with what you say there.

[00:26:00] Speaker 05:
He's incorporating by reference your arguments.

[00:26:03] Speaker 05:
I don't know if that means he's incorporating them as in these are an explanation of your arguments or if he's adopting them.

[00:26:09] Speaker 05:
Incorporating adopting by reference is different from adopting the arguments made in that reference and making fact findings accordingly.

[00:26:16] Speaker 05:
I don't know what to make of it.

[00:26:17] Speaker 05:
You've certainly done a better job of

[00:26:20] Speaker 05:
diffusing my unhappiness with your reference by pointing to this.

[00:26:26] Speaker 05:
But in the future, you've got to walk a court through this.

[00:26:29] Speaker 05:
I mean, you cited a portion of your own brief and said this was a statement made by the examiner in rejection.

[00:26:35] Speaker 05:
And it's not.

[00:26:37] Speaker 05:
It's not.

[00:26:37] Speaker 03:
Yes, Your Honor.

[00:26:38] Speaker 03:
It's one step removed.

[00:26:41] Speaker 05:
Yes.

[00:26:41] Speaker 05:
At best for you, it's one step removed.

[00:26:43] Speaker 05:
I'm not sure I actually agree with you that this

[00:26:47] Speaker 05:
incorporation by reference means that he was making a fact-finding consistent with your argument.

[00:26:55] Speaker 05:
I don't know what it means.

[00:26:55] Speaker 05:
C, request exhibit BB, which is incorporated by reference as to those claims.

[00:26:59] Speaker 05:
I don't even know what to make of that.

[00:27:02] Speaker 05:
It's very strange.

[00:27:04] Speaker 05:
Have you ever seen an examiner do this?

[00:27:05] Speaker 05:
I haven't.

[00:27:07] Speaker 03:
Yes, Your Honor.

[00:27:08] Speaker 03:
In reexamination practice, that's fairly common in these large reexamination requests where

[00:27:14] Speaker 03:
where you have a right of appeal notice, for example, that's over 100 pages long, it's fairly common to do that.

[00:27:24] Speaker 05:
Why wouldn't they say, we incorporate by reference this document and accept the arguments or make fact-bindings consistent with it?

[00:27:31] Speaker 05:
You know, something.

[00:27:31] Speaker 05:
I mean, they just reference your exhibit and say it's incorporated by reference.

[00:27:38] Speaker 05:
Very strange.

[00:27:39] Speaker 05:
If you have anything further, go ahead.

[00:27:43] Speaker 05:
I'm done with that.

[00:27:45] Speaker 03:
No, I have nothing further, Your Honor.

[00:27:47] Speaker 05:
Okay, thank you very much.

[00:27:52] Speaker 05:
We have some rebuttal time.

[00:28:08] Speaker 00:
What's clear by the board emphasizing the communication server as corresponding to the claimed discrimination is that the board is trying to address the timing aspect of the claim.

[00:28:24] Speaker 00:
But neither the examiner nor the board specifically shows something that addresses that timing aspect.

[00:28:31] Speaker 00:
Even if you look at the communication request, that communication request is not addressed and sent

[00:28:38] Speaker 00:
until after there's been a determination as to whether there's an IP or another network.

[00:28:43] Speaker 00:
And that's shown in figure five, and there's a snippet of that at page five of our reply brief.

[00:28:52] Speaker 00:
And step 123 that my brother pointed out does not involve an IP addressing.

[00:28:58] Speaker 00:
You cannot IP address to go somewhere until you know the address, and that occurs at step 125, which is a later step.

[00:29:06] Speaker 00:
There's no evidence that

[00:29:08] Speaker 00:
The Patent Office has pointed to establish that a communication request has the proper timing.

[00:29:15] Speaker 00:
In fact, the communication request 126, as shown in Fig 5, occurs after the determination of what kind of path you're going over.

[00:29:27] Speaker 00:
In 2011, Bear Creek filed its lawsuit against some of the defendants in some related litigation.

[00:29:33] Speaker 00:
In September 2012, this re-exam proceeding was started.

[00:29:38] Speaker 00:
was requested after two earlier re-exams challenging the patent resulted in the patent being valid.

[00:29:49] Speaker 00:
Over 200 pages for the action closing prosecution were issued by the examiner.

[00:29:56] Speaker 00:
Now we're six years after the original lawsuit and almost five years after the re-exam.

[00:30:03] Speaker 05:
What's important about this- The other two re-exams raise Iwami?

[00:30:07] Speaker 00:
No, they don't raise Iwami.

[00:30:09] Speaker 00:
There's Pepe.

[00:30:10] Speaker 00:
I know one of them raises Pepe, which is one of the references.

[00:30:14] Speaker 00:
And some of the rejection is asserted in this case.

[00:30:17] Speaker 00:
The invention involves setting a course for a phone call before you know where you're going.

[00:30:27] Speaker 00:
And that course is over an IP connection.

[00:30:29] Speaker 00:
So basically, it allows you to put an internet connection at the premise.

[00:30:33] Speaker 00:
And that gets you to the carrier.

[00:30:35] Speaker 00:
That resulted in a significant paradigm shift in technology.

[00:30:39] Speaker 00:
That timing is exactly the opposite of the prior art, exactly the opposite of Iwami, which determines the route before it goes.

[00:30:50] Speaker 00:
The call doesn't go anywhere.

[00:30:51] Speaker 00:
It's in the communication terminal.

[00:30:53] Speaker 00:
There's a determination as to where it's going to go.

[00:30:55] Speaker 00:
And if it's going to go to another communication terminal, it goes after that determination.

[00:30:59] Speaker 00:
If it's going to go to an outside phone, it goes after that determination.

[00:31:04] Speaker 00:
Modern landlines follow this approach, which Bear Creek invented in the 90s while it was

[00:31:09] Speaker 00:
making and selling software to the Bell companies and to Bell Labs.

[00:31:13] Speaker 00:
It still makes and sells software that it provides to Bell Canada today.

[00:31:18] Speaker 05:
Key advantages of having that internet connection... I think most of this we have from your briefs and your time is up, so we're going to have to bring this case to a close.

[00:31:27] Speaker 05:
Thank both of you for their arguments and the case is taken under submission.