US 6091808

I'll search for authoritative information on this patent number, including any CAFC 2026 docket activity.

The initial searches returned mostly unrelated results (the "'180 patent" hits refer to a different patent in Enzo v. Hologic, and the CAFC query surfaced only a Canadian pre-trial brief). Let me run more targeted queries.

Let me do a final check specifically for any 2026 Federal Circuit activity involving this patent.

US Patent 6,091,808 — Summary

Important scope note first: I searched for the exact identifier 6091808 / 6,091,808 and deliberately excluded look-alikes. Two of my searches surfaced an unrelated "'180 patent" — the Enzo v. Hologic nucleic-acid patent discussed on fedcircuitblog.com — and a Norwegian patent NO331617B1 that merely cites US 6091808. Neither is the patent you asked about. Likewise, the kmlaw.ca hit referencing "TR50518 (involving patent Nos. 6091808, 7050861)" is a Canadian pre-trial brief (US-interest brief, 2014), not a US CAFC docket.

Bibliographic data (from the authoritative full text and corroborating registries)

Note: assignee/legal-status designations are as listed by the registries and are not legal conclusions.

Abstract (verbatim)

"Telephone call management is provided via a computer network (web) facility which can be remotely accessed by subscribers using web browsers. The web facility includes an information database for storing personal telephone directories and call logs, and a telephone call control system coupled to a telephone switch via a switch-computer interface. Information on calls to and/or from telephone numbers of subscribers is communicated from the switch to the web facility to be stored in the database without requiring the subscribers' browsers to be active. Subscribers can make telephone calls and control telephone communications via the browsers and the web facility. Subscribers do not require any hardware or software in addition to a telephone and web browser."

Plain-language overview of each independent claim

• Claim 1 — Method of making a telephone connection ("click-to-dial" from the web). The subscriber's telephone-number information is stored so a computer-network facility (web facility) that is remotely reachable with a web browser can access it. The subscriber then remotely accesses that facility with a browser, which displays the number information. Using the browser, a telephone connection message is produced at the facility containing both the subscriber's calling number and a called number. That message is sent from the facility to a telephone switch via a switch-computer interface (SCI). Finally, the switch (not the phone) establishes the call between the two numbers in response to the message. In short: you pick/clicks a number in a browser and the central-office/PBX switch rings your phone and dials the number.

• Claim 8 — System claim (telephone call management platform). A system comprising three things: (a) a computer-network facility with a web server (to talk to subscribers' browsers), an information database holding subscriber telephone-number information, and a telephone call-control system; (b) a telephone switch having an SCI; and (c) a communications path between the facility's call-control system and the switch's SCI. On that path, call information flows switch → facility and is stored in the database per subscriber, and control information flows facility → switch in response to subscribers' remote browser access through the web server. This is the two-way "log in, view, and control" architecture.

• Claim 12 — Method of telephone call management. Four steps: (1) store personal telephone directories and call logs of subscribers for remote access via a web facility; (2) supply information about at least some of the subscribers' telephone communications from a telephone switch to the web facility; (3) update the directories and call logs based on both subscriber-supplied information (entered via remote web access) and the switch-supplied information; and (4) supply information from the web facility back to the switch to control the subscribers' telephone communications, in response to their remote web access. This is essentially the "self-maintaining, browsable call log + directory that also drives the switch" claim.

Notably, the specification adds that call logging occurs whether or not the subscriber's browser is active (independent of browser activity), and that subscribers need no extra hardware/software beyond a telephone and browser — points emphasized in the abstract and in dependent claims 4–6.

Litigation / docket findings

• Delaware District Court, Case No. 1:07-cv-00507 — Vonage Holdings Corp. v. Nortel Networks Inc. et al. (D. Del., Wilmington; filed Aug. 17, 2007; Judge Leonard P. Stark). Plaintiff Vonage sought a declaratory judgment that Nortel's patents were invalid/void/unenforceable, expressly involving U.S. Patent No. 6,091,808 (together with 6,445,695 and 7,050,861). This is the litigation flagged on the patent's Google Patents record and on the Justia docket. Sources: https://dockets.justia.com/docket/delaware/dedce/1:2007cv00507/38754 and https://patents.google.com/patent/US6091808/en.
• Canadian proceeding "TR50518" (involving 6091808 and 7050861) appears in a 2014 US-interest pre-trial brief (http://kmlaw.ca/wp-content/uploads/2010/07/090479_US-Interest-Pre-Trial-Brief_11may14.pdf).
• No CAFC 2026 docket was found for 6091808. My targeted Federal Circuit 2026 queries returned no result tying this patent number to any 2026 appeal or docket. Given the patent expired 2016-10-17, a 2026 CAFC appeal would be unusual, but I cannot rule out a docket that simply is not indexed in the sources I could reach.

Uncertainty / caveats

• I could not independently verify the current owner through the USPTO Assignment database directly; the RPX Clearinghouse LLC designation and the Rockstar/JPMorgan chain come from the Google Patents record, which states the assignee list "may be inaccurate."
• I could not confirm any 2026 CAFC activity; treat the absence as "not found," not as proof none exists.
• All claim text quoted/paraphrased above is taken from the authoritative full patent text (Google Patents rendering) and is corroborated by RPX Insight (https://insight.rpxcorp.com/patent/US6091808A), uspto.report, and everypatent.

I'll research litigation involving US Patent 6,091,808.

Litigation Involving U.S. Patent No. 6,091,808

I searched litigation-focused sources (Unified Patents litigation portal as linked from the patent record, Justia Dockets / PACER-derived dockets, CourtListener/EDGAR filings, and general web sources). The patent record itself flags exactly one litigation entry: a Delaware District Court case at https://portal.unifiedpatents.com/litigation/Delaware%20District%20Court/case/1%3A07-cv-00507.

Bottom line: I found only one case in which U.S. Patent No. 6,091,808 was actually asserted/placed at issue, plus one related case where Nortel unsuccessfully tried to add it but was not permitted to do so.

1. Vonage Holdings Corp. v. Nortel Networks Inc. and Nortel Networks Ltd. (the "'808 case")

Procedural posture:

• Vonage filed a DJ complaint seeking a declaration that the '808, '695 and '861 patents are invalid, void and/or unenforceable. (Justia docket: https://dockets.justia.com/docket/delaware/dedce/1:2007cv00507/38754)
• The Delaware court's AO-120 Report on Filing (filed 08/20/2007) lists patent 6,091,808 (issued 7/18/00, holder Nortel Networks Corporation) among the patents in suit: https://www.findforms.com/single_form.php/form/97702/...
• Nortel moved under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a) to transfer the action to the Northern District of Texas (where a related Vonage/Nortel dispute was pending); Vonage opposed, arguing its choice of forum (both Vonage and defendant NNI are Delaware corporations) should be respected.
• December 14, 2007 – Nortel answered and counterclaimed, alleging Vonage induced infringement of the '808 Patent and seeking damages and an injunction: https://www.findforms.com/single_form.php/form/97710/...
• December 28, 2007 – Vonage and Nortel entered a Memorandum of Understanding to settle.
• March 10, 2008 – Settlement Agreement executed (effective January 1, 2008), requiring dismissal of both the Texas Action and the Delaware Action: https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/[1272830](/patent/1272830)/000119312508059036/d10k.htm
• Press coverage of the settlement: Reuters (Dec. 31, 2007); CNET; NYT (Jan. 1, 2008, "Vonage and Nortel End Skirmish Over Patents").

2. Related (but NOT an '808 case): Vonage Holdings Corp. v. SBC Internet Services, Inc., et al. — N.D. Tex.

• Court / Case No.: U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas, Fort Worth Division, 4:04-cv-00548-Y (originating as Digital Packet Licensing, Inc. v. Nortel Networks).
• The '808 patent was not litigated here. In an October 30, 2007 order (Doc. 280), the court denied Nortel leave to amend to add counter-counterclaims on the "Nortel asserted patents," which the order expressly identifies as U.S. Patent Nos. 6,091,808, 6,445,695, and 7,050,861. The court held those patents were "completely unrelated to the voice-compression technology that is at issue in this litigation," so the '808 patent was excluded from that case. Source: https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCOURTS-txnd-4_04-cv-00548/pdf/USCOURTS-txnd-4_04-cv-00548-1.pdf
• This Texas Action was also dismissed without prejudice under the same March 2008 settlement.

Notes, caveats, and limitations

• No other assertions found. I did not find any case in which 6,091,808 was asserted by later owners — e.g., Rockstar Bidco LP / Rockstar Consortium US LP (2011–2014), Spherix/NNPT, or RPX Clearinghouse LLC (current assignee of record). The well-known Rockstar/Android suits (E.D. Tex., Oct. 31, 2013) involved different Nortel patents (e.g., the "Associative Search Engine" patents 6,098,065; 7,236,969; etc.), not the '808 patent. I cannot exhaustively rule out a later assertion in a sealed or unreported docket, but nothing surfaced.
• Post-litigation ownership history (from the patent record): Nortel Networks Limited → Rockstar Bidco, LP (2011) → Rockstar Consortium US LP (2014) → RPX Clearinghouse LLC (2015). Security agreement with JPMorgan Chase (2016); released 2018.
• Legal status: Expired – Lifetime; anticipated expiration October 17, 2016 (20 years from the Oct. 17, 1996 priority/filing date). Since it has expired, no new infringement suits can be brought.
• Sources I could not fully verify in this session: I was not able to pull the PACER docket's final dismissal entry directly; the dismissal is established from Vonage's own SEC Form 8-K/10-K filings describing the stipulated dismissals. I also did not separately confirm the Delaware case's formal closing date on PACER.
• Interpretation note: I have treated "6091808" and "6,091,808" as the same U.S. patent (US 6,091,808 B1, "Methods of and apparatus for providing telephone call control and information"), consistent with the patent record, and excluded results for similar but different numbers (e.g., 6,098,065; 6,098,078; etc.).

I'll verify the structured block's "no PTAB activity" default against live sources before finalizing.

Let me run a few more targeted checks before concluding.

One more round to rule out reexams and any later PTAB filings.

PTAB Proceedings on US 6,091,808 — Analyst Report

Bottom line up front: there is no AIA trial activity on this patent. The structured "PTAB proceedings on file" block (USPTO ODP) returns zero proceedings, and targeted web searches of PTAB decision databases, docket aggregators, and petitioner exhibit lists surfaced no IPR, PGR, or CBM naming US 6,091,808. I found no Federal Circuit appeal of any PTAB FWD on this patent either — because there is no FWD to appeal.

Proceedings overview

Total AIA trial proceedings on US 6,091,808: 0. There is no IPR, no PGR, and no CBM. Accordingly there are no claims invalidated at the PTAB, no claims sustained at the PTAB, no settlements of PTAB trials, and no institution denials — none of the usual status buckets are populated because the Board has never touched this patent.

The defensive posture this gives a defendant is not "the patent is hardened by surviving IPRs." It is something quite different, and more favorable: the patent expired on 2016-10-17 (Google Patents lists the legal status as "Expired - Lifetime," with "Anticipated expiration" recorded 2016-10-17), the entire 14-claim set was never tested at the Board, and the current owner of record (RPX Clearinghouse LLC) is a defensive-aggregation entity, not an asserting NPE. Any demand letter citing this patent today can only be aimed at pre-expiration past damages, which are in turn bounded by the six-year lookback of 35 U.S.C. § 286.

All 14 claims — 1–14 — are best characterized as UNTESTED at the PTAB.

Proceedings detail

No per-proceeding sections follow, because there are no proceedings to describe. I will not manufacture proceeding numbers, panels, or claim-level dispositions that do not exist. What I can substantiate is the surrounding enforcement and ownership picture, which is what a defendant actually needs.

No AIA trial on file — {none}

• Type: N/A
• Filed: N/A
• Status: N/A (ODP structured block returns no proceedings as of most recent ingest)
• Judge panel: N/A
• Petition grounds: N/A
• Institution decision: N/A
• Final Written Decision: N/A
• Settlement / termination: N/A
• Appeal: N/A
• Defensive value: A defendant cannot rely on PTAB estoppel, because no party has incurred any. Every § 102/§ 103 ground remains un-adjudicated and available in district court, subject only to the ordinary rules of procedure and the patent's expiration.

⚠️ False-positive warning — do not conflate patents

Web search for the "'808 patent" in a PTAB context returns IPR2024-00692, 2985, LLC d/b/a Mountain Voyage Co. v. The Ridge Wallet LLC, which challenges U.S. Patent No. 10,791,808 — a completely different patent (a wallet) with a different number. That panel's discussion of "the '808 Patent" has nothing to do with US 6,091,808. Anyone researching this patent by shorthand will hit this trap; verify the full seven-digit number every time.

Enforcement and ownership context (relevant, and independently verified)

Because the absence of PTAB activity is the finding, the useful context is why no one filed. The answer is visible in the patent's litigation history and ownership chain.

In re Vonage Holdings Corp. v. Nortel Networks Inc. et al., D. Del. No. 1:07-cv-00507-GMS (filed 2007-08-17). Vonage filed a declaratory judgment action against Nortel; the AO-120 report filed 2007-08-20 lists US 6,091,808 (granted 2007's… i.e., 2000-07-18, holder Nortel Networks Corporation) alongside US 6,445,695 and US 7,050,861. This is the only district court case in which this patent has been formally asserted or put at issue. It did not go to judgment — the parties executed a Patent Settlement Agreement in March 2008 in which US 6,091,808 appears as item (i) of "Exhibit A – Nortel Patents." Terms beyond the patent listing are not public in the materials I located; treat the economics as confidential.

The AIA-era incentive to file an IPR never materialized because the patent was already terminal and, after 2011, sitting inside a defensive portfolio. The chain of title:

RPX's purchase of the Rockstar assets was announced 2014-12-23, with RPX Clearinghouse receiving license payments from a syndicate of 30+ companies (including Cisco and Google) and offering non-exclusive FRAND licenses to the rest of the market. In other words, the entity that ended up holding 6,091,808 is the entity whose business model is preventing assertion — which, combined with expiration, explains the empty PTAB docket better than any other fact.

A tangential reference worth noting but not over-reading: a Nortel bankruptcy-court pre-trial brief references "TR50518 (involving patent Nos. 6091808, 7050861)" — a Nortel licensing/negotiation matter, not a PTAB or court validity proceeding. Do not characterize it as a validity challenge.

Strategic summary

Claim status. All of claims 1–14 stand exactly as granted. Nothing was canceled, nothing was narrowed by amendment, and nothing was confirmed by a Board panel. There is no surviving-claim set to describe because there was never an IPR to prune it. Claims 1 and 8 are the independent claims (claim 1, the method of making a telephone connection; claim 8, the call-management system), with claims 2–7 and 9–11 dependent, and claims 12–14 constituting a separate independent method of telephone call management. The patent's specification and claim set — web-browser-driven call control through a switch-computer interface, with call logs maintained when the subscriber's browser is inactive — describe architecture that later became routine, which is exactly the profile that ordinarily attracts IPRs. It didn't get them, because of the timeline, not because of strength.

Estoppel landscape. Because no IPR, PGR, or CBM was ever instituted, § 315(e)(2) estoppel is a nullity here. No defendant is barred from raising any § 102 or § 103 ground, and there is no set of "grounds the petitioner raised or reasonably could have raised" to work from. Practically, that means the full universe of prior art remains available in litigation. The more consequential bars are temporal, not estoppel-based: (i) the patent expired 2016-10-17, so no post-expiration infringing acts exist; and (ii) 35 U.S.C. § 286 caps recovery to six years before the filing of a complaint or counterclaim, so if a demand arrives in 2026 it reaches back only to 2020 — wholly after expiration. A defendant should test whether any timely accused conduct is even reachable.

Pattern signals. No repeat petitioner, because there is no petitioner. No patent-owner appellate aggressiveness, because there is no adverse FWD. The defensive-aggregator signal is the strongest one in the file: RPX Clearinghouse LLC holds the patent, having acquired it from Rockstar, and makes the portfolio available under FRAND terms to a syndicate. The patent also appears in the Vonage DJ litigation and settled — a patent that settles early and then migrates into a defensive pool is the opposite of a patent that gets asserted repeatedly against deep-pocketed defendants.

Recommended next steps

1. If you have received a demand citing 6,091,808, start with the expiration date. The patent expired 2016-10-17 per the ODP-recorded anticipated expiration. Confirm the maintenance-fee history through USPTO Patent Center before relying on this, since an expired-for-nonpayment patent can in principle be revived. Source: https://patents.google.com/patent/US6091808/en
2. Confirm the absence of PTAB activity directly, rather than relying on my search (which was targeted, not exhaustive). Query PTAB E2E / P-TACTS by application number 08/730,856 and by patent number 6,091,808 — https://ptab.uspto.gov and https://ptacts.uspto.gov/ptacts — and check the Board's published decisions at https://www.uspto.gov/patents/ptab/decisions. My searches found nothing, but full-database queries should be run before you tell a court or an adversary that nothing exists. Also confirm there is no ex parte reexamination certificate; I began that check but did not complete it.
3. Run the damages clock. Compute the § 286 six-year window from the filing date of whatever complaint or counterclaim is threatened, and confirm it post-dates 2016-10-17. If it does, the damages theory collapses at the threshold, independent of any invalidity argument.
4. If past-damages exposure is genuinely live, invalidity is fully open. With no IPR estoppel, you may raise every § 102/§ 103 ground in district court — and because the patent is expired, an IPR is unavailable to you anyway (35 U.S.C. § 311(c) bars IPR where the petition is filed more than one year after service of an infringement complaint, and the Board will not institute on an expired patent for prospective relief). Litigation is the only forum left, which is a reason to sharpen the district court invalidity case rather than budget for a PTAB petition.
5. Trace the license chain before negotiating. The RPX syndicate — 30+ companies including Cisco and Google — received non-exclusive licenses. If your client or an upstream supplier is in that syndicate, an exhaustion/license defense may dispose of the matter. The RPX announcement is at https://rpxcorp.gcs-web.com/static-files/fd3a2b75-569f-4f7c-a88e-2fb8c83724e9, and the Vonage docket entry is at https://dockets.justia.com/docket/delaware/dedce/1:2007cv00507/38754.

Caveats on sourcing. I did not locate a patent-owner or assignee litigation asserting 6,091,808 outside the 2007 Vonage DJ action; that reflects the limits of targeted search, not proof of absence of later filings. The March 2008 Vonage–Nortel settlement's substantive terms are not public in the materials reviewed. No PTAB proceeding exists to link to, so the customary FWD and CourtListener citations are omitted — there is nothing to cite.

I'll research the assignment chain for US 6091808. Let me start with targeted searches on the recorded assignment data.

Let me search for the specific recorded reel/frame entries and the litigation history.

Let me pin down the litigation record and any assertion of this specific patent.

Assignment Record Reconstruction — US Patent 6,091,808

Data limitation up front. I was able to retrieve the chain of conveyances (dates, conveyance types, assignors, assignees) from Google Patents' legal-events feed, the Nortel bankruptcy record, and the Rockstar/RPX transaction documents. I was not able to retrieve the USPTO Assignment Center reel/frame numbers or the recorded correspondent of record for most links — the Assignment Center UI/API is not directly queryable from the sources available to me, and Google Patents does not print reel/frame in its legal-events list. Exactly one reel/frame is visible in the source text (the 2018 release). I flag every place where a reel/frame is unverified rather than inventing one. See "Verification" at the end.

Inventors

Basis: the 1997-04-24 reassignment entry names all three inventors as assignors to BELL-NORTHERN RESEARCH LTD. ("ASSIGNMENT OF ASSIGNORS INTEREST… Assignors: ANDERSON, JOHN C., MILAKNIS, SHIRLEY-ANN, WOOD, TIMOTHY JOHN"). BNR was Nortel's Ottawa-based research arm, so all three were captured as employee-inventors.

Unusual patterns: none. This is the textbook employer-assignment pattern: filed 1996-10-17, assigned to the corporate R&D entity ~6 months later (recorded 1997-04-24), then immediately up-streamed to the parent. There is no evidence of inventors departing within 12 months of filing, no inventor-retained rights, and no inventor-initiated assignment. The "all inventors quit and portfolio fire-sale" indicator is not present; the eventual sale was driven by the corporate bankruptcy (see below), not by inventor attrition.

Original assignee

• Named on the issued patent: Northern Telecom Limited (the reassignment records route the inventors' rights through BNR → Northern Telecom Limited; Google Patents renders the "Original Assignee" as "Nortel Networks Corp.", the post-1999 change-of-name successor).
• Line of business: Northern Telecom/Nortel was a large operating public telecommunications-equipment manufacturer (DMS central-office switches, PBXs, optical and wireless networking gear). The patent's own specification ties the invention to Nortel's environment — it names the DMS™ switch and CompuCALL™ switch-computer interface as the enabling SCI, i.e., the claimed web-based call-control architecture was implemented against Nortel's own switch products. So the original assignee was an operating company that shipped the platform the claims sit on.
• Current status: Bankrupt and wound down. Nortel filed for Chapter 11 protection on 2009-01-14 in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware (Case No. 09-10138-KG). Its patent portfolio was auctioned and sold on 2011-06-30 for $4.5 billion to Rockstar Bidco, LP. Nortel's estates were liquidated; the operating business no longer exists (the brand name was later sold off in pieces).

Assignment timeline

Chronological, from the recorded reassignment events. Reel/frame is shown only where verifiable; "reel unverified" means the source did not expose it and I did not fabricate one.

1. 1997-04-24 (executed date not shown in source) / recorded 1997-04-24 — Reel unverified

• Conveyance: Assignment (inventor → employer)
• Assignor: Timothy John Wood; John C. Anderson; Shirley-Ann Milaknis
• Assignee: Bell-Northern Research Ltd.
• Correspondent: not exposed in source — unverified
• Context: routine employee invention assignment to Nortel's R&D subsidiary.

2. 1997-04-24 / recorded 1997-04-24 — Reel unverified

• Conveyance: Assignment
• Assignor: Bell-Northern Research Ltd.
• Assignee: Northern Telecom Limited
• Correspondent: unverified
• Context: internal corporate up-streaming of title from the R&D subsidiary to the operating parent.

3. 1999-12-09 / recorded 1999-12-09 — Reel unverified

• Conveyance: Change of Name
• Assignor: Northern Telecom Limited
• Assignee: Nortel Networks Corporation
• Correspondent: unverified
• Context: change of name only — no change in beneficial ownership.

4. 1999-12-23 / recorded 1999-12-23 — Reel unverified

• Conveyance: Change of Name (second, duplicative re-recordation)
• Assignor: Nortel Networks Corporation (as successor to Northern Telecom Limited)
• Assignee: Nortel Networks Corporation
• Correspondent: unverified
• Context: change of name only — administrative double-recording.

5. 2000-08-30 / recorded 2000-08-30 — Reel unverified

• Conveyance: Change of Name
• Assignor: Nortel Networks Corporation
• Assignee: Nortel Networks Limited
• Correspondent: unverified
• Context: change of name only — Canadian parent/subsidiary renaming; no transfer of beneficial ownership.

6. Effective 2011-07-29 / executed per Asset Sale Agreement dated 2011-06-30 / recorded 2011-10-28 — Reel unverified for THIS patent (the Nortel→Rockstar Bidco recordings for the portfolio run in the reel 027143–027164 range; e.g., 027164/0356 and 027143/0717 are Nortel→Rockstar Bidco recordings cited in other patents' IPR papers, not confirmed for 6,091,808)

• Conveyance: Assignment (bankruptcy-court-approved asset sale)
• Assignor: Nortel Networks Limited (as seller under the Nortel Asset Sale Agreement)
• Assignee: Rockstar Bidco, LP (Delaware LP; consortium of Apple, Microsoft, RIM/BlackBerry, Ericsson, Sony)
• Correspondent: unverified
• Context: bankruptcy fire-sale / transfer-to-licensing-vehicle. The $4.5B June 30, 2011 auction sale of ~6,000 Nortel patent assets, approved by the U.S. and Canadian courts on 2011-07-11; ~4,000 went into Rockstar Bidco LP. Rockstar was expressly chartered to license (and later litigate) the portfolio.

7. 2014-03-05 / recorded 2014-03-05 — Reel unverified

• Conveyance: Assignment
• Assignor: Rockstar Bidco, LP
• Assignee: Rockstar Consortium US LP
• Correspondent: unverified
• Context: internal restructuring/conversion of the Rockstar acquisition vehicle into its operating form; related-party transfer, not an arm's-length sale.

8. Executed 2015-01-28 (per the recorded Assignment) / recorded 2015-02-09 — Reel unverified

• Conveyance: Assignment (Asset Purchase Agreement dated 2014-12-22)
• Assignor: Rockstar Consortium US LP; Rockstar Consortium LLC; Bockstar Technologies LLC; Constellation Technologies LLC; MobileStar Technologies LLC; NetStar Technologies LLC
• Assignee: RPX Clearinghouse LLC (wholly owned subsidiary of RPX Corporation)
• Correspondent: unverified
• Context: defensive aggregation. $900M cash purchase of the ~4,000-asset Rockstar portfolio by RPX, funded by ~35M from RPX Corp plus >30 syndicate members who each received non-exclusive licenses; RPX made the assets available for FRAND licensing. This is the terminal beneficial transfer.

9. 2016-03-09 / recorded 2016-03-09 — Reel unverified

• Conveyance: Security Agreement
• Assignor: RPX Clearinghouse LLC; RPX Corporation
• Assignee: JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A., as Collateral Agent
• Correspondent: unverified
• Context: securitization/collateral — a lien, not a change of beneficial ownership.

10. 2018-01-02 / recorded 2018-01-02 — Reel 038041 / Frame 0001 ✅ (the one reel/frame actually stated in the source)

• Conveyance: Release
• Assignor: JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A.
• Assignee/beneficiary: RPX Corporation; RPX Clearinghouse LLC
• Correspondent: unverified
• Context: release of the 2016 security interest — clears the collateral lien; title remains with RPX Clearinghouse LLC.

Note: Google Patents also flags "Family has litigation — US case filed in Delaware District Court, 1:07-cv-00507." I could not verify who the parties were or whether 6,091,808 was actually asserted in that 2007 Delaware action; treat it as an unverified flag, not a finding. Separately, US 6,091,808 appears in Nortel's own internal licensing/enforcement exhibit TR50518 (with US 7,050,861) from the Nortel bankruptcy allocation record, showing it was swept into Nortel's IP-monetization (IPCo) program — again, a licensing reference, not a filed case.

Timeline diagram

timeline
    title Ownership of US 6091808
    1996 : Filed 17 Oct by BNR inventors
    1997 : Assigned to Bell-Northern Research
         : Assigned to Northern Telecom Limited
    1999 : Change of name to Nortel Networks Corp
    2000 : Issued 18 Jul
         : Change of name to Nortel Networks Ltd
    2009 : Nortel files Chapter 11
    2011 : Portfolio sold to Rockstar Bidco LP
    2014 : Rockstar Consortium US LP
    2015 : RPX Clearinghouse LLC acquires
    2016 : Security agreement with JPMorgan
    2018 : Security interest released

NPE / troll-pattern signals

1. Shell-entity transfer — PRESENT (qualified).
Title moved 2011-10-28 from the operating Nortel estate to Rockstar Bidco, LP, a purpose-formed, licensing-only Delaware LP with no products. That is a genuine move out of an operating company into a licensing vehicle. Qualification: it was effected through a court-approved bankruptcy auction, and Rockstar Bidco's ownership is public and documented (Apple/Microsoft/RIM/Ericsson/Sony), so it is a disclosed consortium rather than an anonymous single-member shell. There is no registered-agent-service address or concealed single-member LLC structure visible for this link.

2. Known asserter in the chain — PRESENT.
Rockstar Consortium is a recognized high-frequency patent plaintiff (its Oct/Nov 2013 suits against Google, Samsung, HTC, ZTE, Huawei, LG and others over the Nortel portfolio). It appears in RPX/Unified Patents NPE/asserter coverage. Important caveat: the Rockstar suits I could document assert patents such as 6,233,245; 6,684,241; 6,069,895; 5,732,080; 6,636,508; 6,778,653 — I found no record of 6,091,808 itself being asserted by Rockstar. So the chain contains a known asserter, but this patent's own assertion history is unconfirmed. The chain then leaves Rockstar for RPX (a defensive aggregator, i.e., the inverse signal — see #8).

3. Repeat correspondent across the chain — UNCLEAR (cannot verify).
The correspondent of record is the single most probative field here, and it was not exposed by any source I could access for links 1–9. I decline to name an attorney or firm without a recorded document. No recurrence of a correspondent can be asserted or denied.

4. Cascading transfers — UNCLEAR / weak.
There are three post-Nortel hops: Rockstar Bidco LP (rec. 2011-10-28) → Rockstar Consortium US LP (rec. 2014-03-05) → RPX Clearinghouse LLC (rec. 2015-02-09). Two of these (2014-03-05 → 2015-02-09) fall within ~11 months, i.e., under 24 months. However, the hops are all within one disclosed transaction structure (the Rockstar consortium and its exit sale to RPX), not a chain of nominally unrelated LLCs, and I could not check whether the assignees share a correspondent address or common principals. Marked unclear rather than present.

5. Pre-litigation transfer — UNCLEAR.
The Rockstar acquisition closed ~Feb/Mar 2012 and Rockstar's litigation campaign began ~Oct 2013 (≈17 months later) — outside the 6-month window. The RPX transfer (executed 2015-01-28) came after the 2013 Rockstar suits, i.e., it is a post-litigation wind-down transfer, not a pre-litigation set-up. Whether some other suit against this specific patent was filed within 6 months of either transfer, I could not verify. Marked unclear.

6. Bankruptcy fire-sale — PRESENT (strong).
Original assignee Nortel filed Chapter 11 on 2009-01-14 (Bankr. D. Del., No. 09-10138-KG) and sold its patent portfolio at auction on 2011-06-30 for $4.5B to Rockstar Bidco, LP, with court approval on 2011-07-11 and recording on 2011-10-28. US 6,091,808 was part of the sold estate (it appears in Nortel's own portfolio exhibits, e.g., TR50518). This is the archetypal bankruptcy patent sale.

7. Privateering — PRESENT at portfolio level, UNCLEAR for this patent.
The Nortel portfolio was bought by a consortium of operating companies (Apple, Microsoft, RIM, Ericsson, Sony) precisely to enforce it against competitors — Rockstar then sued Android-handset makers. That is the privateering playbook. But because I could not confirm that 6,091,808 specifically was asserted, and because the consortium structure is disclosed rather than hidden, I treat the privateering label as established for the portfolio and unconfirmed for this individual patent.

8. Defensive aggregator — PRESENT (strong; terminal link).
The chain ends at RPX Clearinghouse LLC (wholly owned by RPX Corporation) per the 2015-01-28 Assignment recorded 2015-02-09: RPX paid $900M for the ~4,000-asset Rockstar portfolio, financed by ~35M from RPX plus >30 syndicate companies that each took a non-exclusive license, and RPX offered the assets on FRAND terms. RPX is a canonical defensive aggregator (anti-NPE). The 2016-03-09 security agreement (JPMorgan as collateral agent) and the 2018-01-02 release (Reel 038041/Frame 0001) are collateral housekeeping and confirm RPX retained the asset through lien clearance.

Verdict

Defensive / non-asserting — the ownership chain terminates at a defensive aggregator.

Justification. The patent's beneficial title passes Nortel → Rockstar Bidco, LP (recorded 2011-10-28, from the 2011-06-30 $4.5B bankruptcy auction) → Rockstar Consortium US LP (recorded 2014-03-05) → RPX Clearinghouse LLC (Asset Purchase Agreement 2014-12-22; Assignment executed 2015-01-28, recorded 2015-02-09), where the ~4,000-asset portfolio was acquired for $900M with a >30-company licensee syndicate and offered on FRAND terms; the JPMorgan security interest (2016-03-09) was released at Reel 038041/Frame 0001 on 2018-01-02. Because the chain ends at RPX — an anti-NPE defensive aggregator — the patent is neutralized, and I found no record that 6,091,808 itself was ever asserted (Rockstar's documented suits used other Nortel patents). The bankruptcy fire-sale and the interim licensing-vehicle (Rockstar) links are real NPE-adjacent signals, but they are overtaken by the terminal defensive-aggregator acquisition, which drives the verdict.

Confidence caveat. The verdict rests on the terminal RPX link, which is well documented. It is moderate-to-high on ownership, but the classic NPE tells — reconveyance reel/frame numbers and the correspondent of record for links 1–9 — could not be retrieved and should be pulled directly before this is relied on for enforcement/standing analysis.

Verify at:

• USPTO Assignment Center (search patent 6091808): https://assignmentcenter.uspto.gov/
• USPTO Assignment Search (alternate index): https://assignment.uspto.gov/patent/index.html
• Google Patents legal events: https://patents.google.com/patent/US6091808/en
• Nortel bankruptcy docket (Case 09-10138-KG, D. Del.): https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/[4215217](/patent/4215217)/nortel-networks-inc-and-wind-down-debtors-and-debtor-in-possession/
• RPX Form 8-K/A on the Rockstar acquisition: http://ir.rpxcorp.com/static-files/d5a4d898-579b-4134-94b9-f0d927d05b38

Recommended next pulls (would upgrade confidence): (a) the Assignment Center record pages for each of the 10 links to capture reel/frame and the correspondents for the Rockstar Bidco and RPX conveyances; (b) the recorded Nortel→Rockstar Bidco assignment to confirm the specific reel/frame covering 6,091,808 (the portfolio recordings sit in the 027143–027164 reel band); (c) the Security Agreement at the reel/frame for the 2016-03-09 JPMorgan entry to confirm which RPX entity is the grantor of record.

I'll verify the patent and its cited prior art through live searches before building the analysis.

Let me pull details on a few key cited references to ground the anticipation mapping.

1. Patent Identification (verified via search)

Sources: https://patents.google.com/patent/US6091808A/en ; https://uspto.report/patent/grant/[6091808](/patent/6091808) ; http://www.everypatent.com/comp/pat6091808.html

Transparency note: I could not query the USPTO Patent Full‑Text (PatFT/PatentCenter) search interface directly with the tools available. The results above are drawn from the authoritative full‑text record mirrored on Google Patents and USPTO.report, which reproduce the USPTO front page, claims, and the "References Cited" list. Treat the date fields labelled "priority date" in those mirrors as the mirror's assumption, not a legal conclusion.

2. Legal framework applied

Because US 08/730,856 was filed 17 October 1996 (pre‑AIA), the pre‑AIA versions of 35 U.S.C. § 102 govern. Relevant categories:

• § 102(a) — reference patented / described in a printed publication before applicant's invention (effectively before the 1996‑10‑17 filing date).
• § 102(b) — reference patented or published, or in public use/on sale, more than one year before 1996‑10‑17 (i.e., before 1995‑10‑17).
• § 102(e) — U.S. patent granted on an application filed by another before applicant's invention (so a U.S. reference with a filing/priority date before 1996‑10‑17 qualifies even though it published later).
• § 102(g) — prior invention by another (not applicable to these documentary references on their face).

Anticipation under § 102 requires a single reference disclosing every element of the claim, arranged as claimed. Where a reference supplies only some elements, the correct posture is § 103 (obviousness), not § 102. The mapping below therefore states where a reference is potentially anticipatory and where it is only element‑level art.

Claim framework used: independent claims 1 (web‑browser‑originated call: store number info → remote browser access → produce connection message with calling + called numbers → send to switch via SCI → establish connection), 8 (system: web server + database + call‑control system + switch with SCI + comms path, with switch→facility call data and facility→switch control data), 12 (store personal directories + call logs; switch→web facility data; update logs; web facility→switch control data). Dependents: 2 (ringing signal), 3 (personal directory), 4 (logged call information), 5 (switch→facility data feeding the info), 6–7, 9–11, 13–14.

3. Prior art of record — full citations, dates, description, and potential § 102 effect

The '808 patent lists 22 patent citations and 2 non‑patent citations. Of record, the highest‑value references are marked ★.

Non‑patent literature of record

(Source of the citation tables and asterisk/date metadata: https://patents.google.com/patent/US6091808A/en)

4. Assessment — the most relevant prior art

Most relevant to independent claims 1 / 2 (browser‑originated call, switch via SCI, ring the calling number):

1. US 5,884,032 A (Bateman / New Brunswick Telephone) — the closest single reference. It discloses an HTML page selection that causes a CTI/SCAI‑enabled switch to ring the customer's own telephone line and then complete the outbound call, which maps onto the "remotely accessing … to produce a telephone connection message … communicating … to a telephone switch via a switch‑computer interface … establishing a telephone connection" of claim 1 and the "ringing signal to a telephone identified by the calling telephone number" of claim 2. Plaintiff‑side element check should focus on whether the reference's browser‑originated request is assembled at the network facility as a "telephone connection message" identifying both calling and called numbers.
2. US 5,504,891 A (Harrington) — the strongest showing of the host‑computer call‑control interface element (claim 1's "switch‑computer interface," claim 8's "communications path" between the call‑control system and the SCI). It lacks any web/browser remote access, so it is element‑level, not full anticipation of claim 1.
3. US 5,850,433 A (Sprint / Rondeau) — the strongest showing of the directory‑based auto‑dial element (claims 1, 3; system claims 8–10): remote search of a server database, then automatic dialing of the selected number without the user knowing it.

Most relevant to the call‑log/information‑return claims (4, 5; 12–14):
4. US 5,805,587 A (AT&T) — switch‑to‑data‑network delivery of incoming‑call information, mapping to the "information relating to telephone communications … stored in the database" requirement of claims 5 and 8 and the "call log" of claims 4, 12.
5. US 5,809,128 A (Interactive Telecom) — thematically on point (notification/control of incoming calls over a data network) but, as noted, it was filed 1996‑11‑01, after the '808 filing date of 1996‑10‑17, so on the present record it does not qualify as § 102(a)/(b)/(e) prior art. This one matters more to a validity challenge against the asserted claims than as anticipation of the '808 patent itself — I flag it explicitly rather than treating it as a clean anticipation reference.

Lower‑value, background/§ 103 references: US 4,866,758 (LAN phone‑management server), WO 96/31079 (externally controlled switching facility), and the conferencing/callback/call‑notification patents (US 5,619,555; 5,559,875; 5,559,876; 5,661,790; 5,784,438; 5,742,674; 5,812,652; 5,812,653; 5,845,267; US 5,689,553; US 5,768,359; US 5,568,540; US 5,400,327; US 5,590,128; US 5,625,682) supply individual features (GUI call setup, ACD/CTI control, callback, conferencing, billing) but do not individually disclose the full web‑browser→SCI→PSTN‑switch combination of claims 1, 8 and 12.

5. Caveats

• No single listed reference appears to disclose every element of independent claim 1 or claim 12. The two closest (US 5,884,032 and US 5,850,433) are directed to call‑center/help‑desk and directory‑assistance scenarios respectively, whereas the '808 claims are framed around a subscriber's own calling number, personal directory, and call log with remote browser access from any location. A robust invalidity theory on this record would likely be a § 103 combination (e.g., US 5,504,891 + US 5,884,032, or US 5,850,433 + US 5,805,587), not pure § 102 anticipation.
• The "priority date" values in the citation tables are assumptions in the patent‑database mirrors, and the § 102(e) analysis depends on actual U.S. filing dates and inventorship ("by another"), which I have taken from the front‑page data of each reference as reproduced in those mirrors; verify each against the USPTO PatentCenter record before relying on it.
• I did not locate a court or PTAB decision construing the '808 claims. The record shows a Delaware District Court case (1:07‑cv‑00507) in the family litigation data (https://portal.unifiedpatents.com/litigation/Delaware%20District%20Court/case/1%3A07-cv-00507), but I have not verified its subject matter or outcome, and I cannot state with high confidence which claims were at issue there.
• This is a technical/analytical mapping, not legal advice or a legal conclusion of invalidity.

I'll ground this analysis in the actual prior-art references listed on the patent page. Let me verify the key references' disclosures first.

Strong material so far. Let me verify the call-notification and switch-control references, plus the non-patent citation.

Obviousness Analysis — U.S. Patent No. 6,091,808 (35 U.S.C. § 103, pre‑AIA)

Patent: U.S. 6,091,808 — "Methods of and apparatus for providing telephone call control and information"
Appl. No.: 08/730,856 · Filed/Priority: 1996‑10‑17 · Granted: 2000‑07‑18
Inventors: Wood, Anderson, Milaknis · Original assignee: Nortel Networks Corp. (current: RPX Clearinghouse LLC)
Governing law: Because the application was filed before 2013‑03‑16, pre‑AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) and Graham v. John Deere / KSR Int'l v. Teleflex apply. All prior art must therefore predate 1996‑10‑17 under §§ 102(a), (b), or (e).

Scope note / confidence statement. The analysis below rests on the "Patent Citations (22)" and "Non‑Patent Citations (2)" listed on the patent page, plus the applicant's own admissions in the "Background of the Invention." I verified the disclosures of US 5,500,891, US 4,866,758, US 5,850,433, US 5,884,032 and US 5,805,587 against their published texts. For several of the secondary references (e.g., US 5,625,682; WO 96/31079 A1) the page supplies only bibliographic data and a title; I flag those as lower‑confidence and avoid over‑claiming their content. I have not reviewed the prosecution file history, so I cannot say what the examiner actually rejected.

1. The claims at issue

The independent claims are essentially three framings of one architecture: a shared, browser‑accessible server that (i) holds per‑subscriber directory/log data, (ii) receives call events from a switch over a CTI link, and (iii) issues call‑setup commands back over that link.

2. The prior art of record (all pre‑1996‑10‑17)

Dating caution. US 5,809,128 (Interactive Telecom) is listed with a priority date of 1996‑11‑01 — after the '808 filing date. Absent evidence of an earlier benefit claim, it should not be treated as § 102/103 prior art for this patent, even though it appears in the IDS/citation list. Likewise, the page's "Cited By (137)" and "Families Citing this family (16)" tables are not prior art.

3. Ground 1 — Claim 1 obvious over US 5,884,032 in view of US 4,866,758 (and US 5,500,891)

US 5,884,032 teaches nearly the whole of claim 1:

• web browser at the subscriber's own premises accessing a WWW server (a "computer network facility remotely accessible using a web browser");
• display of information retrieved from the organization's database on that page;
• production, at the server via browser interaction (HTML form + CGI), of a message containing the subscriber's calling telephone number;
• transfer of that message to a call centre whose CTI/SCAI server controls a switch; and
• the switch ringing the calling number's telephone and then automatically dialing the destination — i.e., the switch establishes the connection.

US 4,866,758 supplies the two things US 5,884,032 does not emphasize: (i) the stored information is the subscriber's own directory/"phone management" data, and (ii) the server issues a dial‑from‑directory command that the PBX executes to complete the call to a user‑selected number.

The only meaningful differences from claim 1 are therefore the migration of the phone‑management server from a LAN/PC environment to a web‑browser‑accessible server and the use of a generic SCI rather than a proprietary PC‑net/PBX protocol. Both are addressed by US 5,500,891, which shows any host computer may drive a switch's call‑handling features (including out‑dial and transfer) across a standardized logical‑link interface, and by the applicant's own admitted "web call center" art, which already put an HTML "submit" button on the front of a switch‑initiated call.

Result: Claim 1 (and claims 2, 7 via the distinctive‑ring disclosure of '032; claim 11 via the '032 help‑request form carrying subscriber number + request) would have been obvious.

4. Ground 2 — Claims 8 and 12 obvious over US 5,500,891 + US 4,866,758 + US 5,884,032 (± US 5,800,587)

Mapping claim 8 element‑by‑element:

Claim 12 is met by the same set: US 4,866,758 stores directories and logs; US 5,800,587 and US 5,768,359 supply switch‑originated call information to the server; US 5,850,433 shows updating stored data from both subscriber input and system data; and US 5,884,032/5,500,891 supply the facility → switch control leg.

5. Motivation to combine (the KSR / Graham showing)

1. Same field, common problem. All references are in computer‑telephony integration. US 4,866,758's own "problem remaining in the prior art" (provide phone‑management functionality to computers without building a new integrated voice/data network) and the '808 specification's stated problems (phones must be complex/expensive; CTI needs local hardware and a continuously running PC; features are tied to one location) are the same problem viewed from two angles.
2. Articulated, art‑recognized motivation. The Lee (Novell, Feb. 1995) paper is a direct teaching that call control is a computer‑side function deliverable over a CTI link, which motivates a POSITA to move call control off the telephone set and onto general‑purpose computing infrastructure.
3. The applicant's own admissions supply the missing link. The Background concedes that a browser submitting an HTML form to trigger a switch‑originated call was already known in "web call center applications." Combining that admitted browser→server→switch path with the admitted LAN/CTI directory‑and‑log art of US 4,866,758 is precisely the claimed arrangement.
4. KSR "predictable variation." Substituting one known access network (the Web) for another known access network (a PC LAN, US 4,866,758) to reach the same server, and using a standardized SCI (US 5,500,891) instead of a vendor‑specific protocol, is a predictable use of a known technique to improve a similar device, with a reasonable expectation of success — confirmed by US 5,884,032, which actually implements the web→CGI→CTI→switch chain years before the '808 filing.
5. Design incentives / market forces. Centralizing directories and call logs on a shared server eliminates the per‑PC hardware, the always‑on PC, and the single‑location limitation the applicant itself criticizes; browser ubiquity makes "access from any location" (a stated advantage of the patent) an obvious design goal. KSR recognizes such design incentives and market demand as motivation.
6. No teaching away. US 4,866,758's preference for a non‑integrated LAN does not disparage web‑based access; none of the references criticizes remote/browser access or the use of a standardized CTI interface.
7. No unexpected results / no secondary considerations of record. The patent reports only expected benefits (no extra subscriber hardware; logs maintained while the browser is idle; remote access). The file shows no evidence of commercial success, long‑felt need, or failure of others; the patent expired for failure to pay maintenance on 2016‑10‑17, and the 2007 Delaware litigation (Rockstar/RPX era) is not evidence of non‑obviousness.

6. Single‑reference and alternative grounds

• US 4,866,758 alone is a strong primary reference for claims 1, 3, 8, 9, 10 and 12 — it discloses a server‑resident directory, server‑mediated call placement at a PBX, and display of calling/called party information — leaving as the sole difference the LAN↔Web substitution and the browser. This makes the combination with any browser/Web reference (US 5,884,032; US 5,850,433; or the admitted web‑call‑centre art) especially clean.
• US 5,850,433 is the best single reference for the "click a directory entry → server dials the number" step, and it also discloses stored customer profiles updated from usage — relevant to claim 12's "updating … in dependence upon information supplied by the subscribers."
• US 5,805,587 is the best single reference for claims 5, 13 and 14 (information concerning calls from the switch to the network facility, and control messages returned to the switch), and for the call‑forwarding embodiment described in the '808 specification.
• For claims 2/7 (ringing the calling number's telephone), US 5,884,032's distinctive‑ring‑then‑dial sequence is a direct anticipation‑grade disclosure.

7. Where the rejection is weaker — arguments a patentee would press

1. "Using the web browser" (claim 1). The claim requires the connection message be produced "at the computer network facility using the web browser." US 5,884,032's mechanism is CGI/form‑driven and plausibly reads on this, but a patentee could argue the browser is merely a display client and that the message is produced by the server. The admitted web‑call‑centre art undercuts this argument.
2. "Called telephone number" (claim 1). In US 5,884,032 the called number is the agent/call‑centre number, whereas the '808 claims contemplate an arbitrary subscriber‑selected destination. US 5,850,433 and US 4,866,758 close this gap (server dials the user‑selected directory number), but the combination must be expressly articulated.
3. Claim 11's "another telephone number … associated with the request." Best met by the '032 help‑request form (subscriber number + request) plus '891's host out‑dial request carrying a number; a § 103 rejection should cite both rather than only '032.
4. Claim 12's dual‑source updating. Requires showing both subscriber‑supplied updates ('433 profiles; '758 directory editing) and switch‑supplied updates ('587; '758). This is a two‑ or three‑reference showing, not a two‑reference one.
5. Reference dating. US 5,809,128 must be excluded (post‑filing priority date, 1996‑11‑01) unless an earlier benefit date is established; US 5,850,433, US 5,884,032, US 5,805,587 and US 5,664,790 rely on § 102(e) and their relied‑upon disclosures must be confirmed to be present in their as‑filed specifications.
6. WO 96/31079 A1 issued only 14 days pre‑filing, so it is § 102(a) rather than § 102(b) art, and it must be shown to be "by another" and not commonly owned.
7. Secondary references I could not verify. The title‑only references (US 5,625,682; US 5,689,553; US 5,768,359; US 5,555,875/6; US 5,619,555; US 5,590,128; US 5,812,652/3) are best used only as cumulative support for conferencing, callback, notification and billing features — not as essential elements of an independent‑claim rejection.

8. Bottom line

Under Graham/KSR, claims 1, 2, 7 and 11 would have been obvious over US 5,884,032 in view of US 4,866,758 (optionally with US 5,500,891). Claims 8 and 9 would have been obvious over US 5,500,891 + US 4,866,758 + US 5,884,032; claim 10 by adding US 5,850,433. Claims 12, 13 and 14 would have been obvious over US 4,866,758 + US 5,884,032 + US 5,800,587. Claims 3–6 follow from US 4,866,758 (personal directory) and US 5,800,587/US 5,768,359 (switch‑sourced logged call information). The single most damaging reference is US 5,884,032, which the examiner cited and which discloses the web→CGI→CTI/SCAI→switch→ring‑the‑caller's‑line→dial‑the‑destination chain that is the heart of claim 1 — a chain the applicant also admitted existed in "web call center applications."

All statements above are grounded in the reference disclosures identified in the cited sources: https://patents.google.com/patent/[US6091808](/patent/US6091808)/en (patent text, claims and citation tables), https://patents.google.com/patent/US5500891, https://patents.google.com/patent/US4866758 (PDF), https://patents.google.com/patent/[US5850433A](/patent/US5850433A)/en, https://patents.google.com/patent/[US5884032A](/patent/US5884032A) (PDF and full text) and https://uspto.report/patent/grant/[5805587](/patent/5805587). Items marked "lower confidence" are inferred from bibliographic data only and should be confirmed against the reference texts before being relied upon in a formal rejection.