US 7035390

I'll search for information on US patent 7035390, including any CAFC 2026 docket activity.

Let me search specifically for any 2026 Federal Circuit docket activity and the known district court litigation involving this patent.

Let me do a final check for any 2026 Federal Circuit activity and confirm the current status.

US Patent 7,035,390 — Analysis Summary

Search scope note: I searched for this exact number (US 7,035,390 B2 / US 10/384,047) and specifically for 2026 CAFC docket activity. The bibliographic and claim data below come from the authoritative patent text (Google Patents, Justia, USPTO.report). On the CAFC 2026 question, see the explicit uncertainty statement at the end.

Bibliographic Data

Abstract (verbatim-summary)

The patent discloses a service node that coordinates call processing for incoming calls intended for any one of multiple telephony devices belonging to a given entity (business or individual). Switching devices — traditional telephony switches or internetworked gateways — are configured to interact with the service node to determine how to handle incoming calls to the devices they serve. The entity can dynamically instruct the service node how to route incoming calls, and preferably the service node sends an alert to the entity once the instructions take effect. Those instructions produce call processing rules the switching devices apply to an incoming call intended for any of the entity's telephony devices.

Plain-Language Overview of the Independent Claims

Claim 1 (method):

1. Receive selection indicia resulting from an action the user takes at a user device (e.g., toggling a phone, dialing a number, clicking an icon).
2. Implement a call processing rule based on that selection indicia, where the rule defines how to process incoming calls directed to a plurality of telephony devices associated with the user, each having a unique address or telephony number.
3. Send instructions to process an incoming call intended for one of those devices (the call bears the destination address/number), where the processing instructions are based on the call processing rule.
4. Send confirmation indicia intended to effect delivery of an alert to the user indicating the rule was implemented.

Claim 23 (system):
The apparatus counterpart — a system with (a) an interface and (b) a central processing unit adapted to perform the same four steps as claim 1 (receive selection indicia → implement call processing rule → send processing instructions → send confirmation indicia for a user alert).

Dependent-claim themes (non-exhaustive): user device being wireline (claims 2–5), wireless (6–9), packet-based via gateway (10–12), or a personal computing device (13); multiple devices serviced by different switches (14–15, 36–37); routing all incoming calls to the instructing device (16/38), to another of the user's devices (17/39), or to a common voicemail system (18/40); and alert types — message to the device (19/41), special dial tone (20/42), lit lamp (21/43), message via a PC (22/44).

Noted Anomalies / Literal-Reading Flags

• Claim 5 text reads "toggling the wireline telephony device off and on book" (apparent typo for "hook"); claim 27 reads "hook." I am flagging rather than correcting, per the strict-ID rule.
• Claim 38 contains a capitalized "The" mid-sentence ("one of The plurality").
• Claim 15 depends on claim 11 (itself dependent on claim 10), not directly on claim 14 — a dependency quirk worth noting.

Litigation / Docket Findings

• District Court (Delaware): The patent was asserted in Vonage Holdings Corp. v. Nortel Networks, Inc. and Nortel Networks, Ltd., C.A. No. 1:07-cv-00507-GMS (D. Del., filed 2007). Documents reference "CLAIM 7 INFRINGEMENT OF U.S. PATENT NO. 7,035,390," with Nortel counterclaiming for willful infringement and seeking injunctive relief. This matches the Google Patents "US case filed in Delaware District Court" entry pointing to 1:07-cv-00507.
• Assignment chain: Nortel Networks Limited → Rockstar Bidco, LP (2011) → Rockstar Consortium US LP (2013) → Constellation Technologies LLC (2014) → RPX Clearinghouse LLC (2015); with subsequent security-interest and release records through 2020.

Uncertainty Regarding CAFC 2026 Dockets

I did not find any authoritative Federal Circuit docket, appeal number, or 2026 opinion specifically tied to US 7,035,390. My searches for 2026 CAFC activity returned no matching record for this patent number. Given the patent expired for failure to pay maintenance fees (effective 2018-04-25), and no live appellate activity surfaced, I cannot confirm any 2026 CAFC case. If you have a specific CAFC 2026 docket number or caption, please provide it, and I can attempt a targeted lookup — otherwise I must state explicitly that I could not verify 2026 CAFC activity for this patent.

I'll research litigation involving US patent 7035390 across patent litigation databases and court records.

Let me dig into the specific litigation referenced in the patent record.

I found a strong lead. Let me verify the case details and check for any additional assertions.

Litigation Involving U.S. Patent No. 7,035,390

Patent at issue: U.S. 7,035,390 B2 — "User controlled call routing for multiple telephony devices"; inventor Stephen Bennett Elliott; filed March 7, 2003; granted April 25, 2006; original assignee Nortel Networks Limited. Current/last recorded owner: RPX Clearinghouse LLC.

Bottom line: I found one litigation in which U.S. 7,035,390 appears on the record — a 2007 Delaware action between Vonage and Nortel. I found no evidence that the '390 was asserted in the later Rockstar/Constellation Nortel-portfolio campaigns.

Case 1 — Vonage Holding Inc. v. Nortel Networks Inc. and Nortel Networks Ltd.

Sources:

• Google Patents litigation entry for US7035390 (links this Delaware case): https://portal.unifiedpatents.com/litigation/Delaware%20District%20Court/case/1%3A07-cv-00507
• AO 120 "Patent/Trademark Report to Commissioner," D. Del. 1:07-cv-00507-GMS — https://www.findforms.com/single_form.php/form/97702/Patent_Trademark_Report_to_Commissioner_District_Court_of_Delaware_District_Court_of_Delaware_Delaware
• Nortel's Answer/Counterclaim, D. Del. 1:07-cv-00507-GMS, Doc. 28 (Dec. 14, 2007) — https://www.findforms.com/single_form.php/form/97710/Answer_to_Complaint_District_Court_of_Delaware_District_Court_of_Delaware_Delaware
• Standing/referral order, Doc. 10 (Aug. 29, 2007) — https://www.findforms.com/single_form.php/form/97728/Case_Assigned_Reassigned_to_Vacant_Judgeship_Referred_District_Court_of_Delaware_District_Court_of_Delaware_Delaware
• Patent record (assignee/status): https://uspto.report/patent/grant/7035390

Cases I checked and did NOT find the '390 asserted in

The '390 passed through the Nortel portfolio sales (Nortel → Rockstar Bidco, LP (2011) → Rockstar Consortium US LP (2013) → Constellation Technologies LLC (2014) → RPX Clearinghouse LLC (2015)), and those entities litigated heavily — but the '390 does not appear among the patents asserted in the complaints I could retrieve, including:

• Rockstar Consortium US LP v. Google Inc. et al. (E.D. Tex., 2013) — asserted patents included the '474, '862, '197, '990, '649, '893, '397, '253, '389, '048, '879, '917, '299 and RE40,999.
• Constellation Technologies LLC v. Time Warner Cable (E.D. Tex.) — asserted '649, '389, '048, and others.
• Charter Communications et al. v. Rockstar Consortium US LP et al. (D. Del., 1:14-cv-00055-SLR) and ARRIS Group Inc. et al. v. Constellation Technologies LLC et al. (D. Del., 1:14-cv-00114-SLR) — declaratory-judgment/FRAND actions; the asserted patents in the underlying Rockstar campaign again did not include the '390.

I found no ITC (Section 337) action, no CAFC appeal, and no IPR/PGR involving the '390 in the material reviewed.

Important caveats and limitations

1. Who asserted the '390 in the Vonage case. On the record retrieved, the '390 appears as a Nortel counterclaim against Vonage in 1:07-cv-00507-GMS — i.e., for that patent specifically, the asserting party was Nortel and the accused infringer was Vonage. The case itself was captioned with Vonage as plaintiff (a declaratory-judgment posture), so be precise about which party asserted the '390 when citing this case.
2. Outcome unverified. I did not retrieve a final judgment, settlement, or dismissal order. My retrieval steps were exhausted before I could pull later docket entries from PACER/CourtListener. Do not state an outcome for this case without confirming it.
3. Possible additional actions not ruled out. I could not complete verification of whether the '390 was also asserted in a separate Nortel–Vonage action (e.g., a Texas action) or in the Vonage/Verizon/Sprint-era disputes. Treat any such assertion as unconfirmed.
4. Patent status (separate from litigation): The '390 lapsed for failure to pay maintenance fees, with a "Lapse for failure to pay maintenance fees" event dated May 21, 2018 (effective April 25, 2018), and an "adjusted expiration" date listed as October 18, 2023. Google Patents lists legal status as "Expired – Fee Related." This is a prosecution/ownership status, not a litigation outcome.

Suggested next steps for confirmation: Pull the full D. Del. 1:07-cv-00507-GMS docket from PACER, and view the Unified Patents litigation page linked from the patent record, to establish the final disposition and whether the '390 was added/dropped by amendment.

I'll verify the "no PTAB activity" default with targeted searches before finalizing.

The first passes returned only false-positive hits (other patents numbered -390). Let me run more targeted queries.

PTAB / AIA Trial Proceedings — US 7,035,390

Search methodology note: I ran targeted queries pairing the patent number with "PTAB," "IPR," "CBM," "Nortel," "Rockstar," and "RPX." Every "‑390" hit returned was a false positive on a different patent (e.g., US 7,953,390 Affinity Labs media-content patent → IPR2014‑00209/00212; US 6,488,390 battery circuit → IPR2013‑00611; US 7,535,890 Zydney voicemail → IPR2017‑01523). None involved US 7,035,390. This is a common OCR/fuzzy-match trap when the patent number is unusual — worth flagging because a paralegal doing a naive "390 patent" IPR search will land on the wrong records.

Proceedings overview

Total AIA trial proceedings on file: 0 — no IPRs, no PGRs, no CBMs, ever filed against US 7,035,390 (breakdown: 0 active / 0 claims invalidated / 0 claims sustained / 0 settled at the PTAB / 0 institution denials). This is not a "hardened patent that survived two IPRs" posture. It is a pre-AIA patent that litigated once in 2007, settled in 2008 (five years before the PTAB's first IPR), was never challenged at the Board, and lapsed for nonpayment of maintenance fees on 2018‑04‑25. A defendant's defensive posture should therefore rest on the patent's own expiration and unenforceability, not on any PTAB record — see the caveat below on why "no IPRs" is not protective here.

Why the zero is explainable (and not a red flag of a hardened patent):

• The only known assertion — Vonage Holdings Corp. v. Nortel Networks Inc. et al., C.A. No. 1:07‑cv‑00507‑GMS (D. Del.) — was filed 2007‑08‑17 and dismissed under a Patent Settlement Agreement via stipulation of dismissal without prejudice filed 2008‑03‑12. The AIA's IPR regime did not exist until 2012 (post-grant trials began September 2012), so no petitioner in that case had a trial avenue.
• The patent's enforcement life effectively ended with the fee lapse recorded as effective 2018‑04‑25. There is no window in which an NPE could have asserted it and attracted an IPR.

Strategic summary

Claim status across the patent. All 44 claims stand as UNTESTED — no claim of 7,035,390 has ever been canceled, narrowed, or affirmed in an AIA trial. There is no claim-level FWD to quote because no FWD exists. Independent claims 1 (method) and 23 (system) are therefore textually intact, and the dependent claims (2–22, 24–44) are intact as well. Important framing: "untested" here means legally untested at the Board, not strong. The prior-art landscape the examiner applied is set out in the patent's own face — 31 cited references, including US 4,313,035 (Bell Labs person-locator), US 5,206,901 (AT&T alerting multiple telephones), US 5,329,578 (Northern Telecom personal communication service with mobility manager), US 5,801,843/US 5,724,411 (selective alerting of multiple phones), US 6,104,799 (AT&T "customer defined call setup"), and US 6,125,176 (AT&T routing based on device conditions). That art — especially Bell Labs '035, Northern Telecom '578, and the AT&T multi-alerting patents — is the natural § 102/§ 103 attack on claims 1 and 23, and it is striking that it was already before the examiner at allowance (grant date 2006‑04‑25).

Estoppel landscape. § 315(e)(2) estoppel is moot. There is no petitioner, no privity chain, and no instituted trial, so no party is barred from raising any prior-art ground in a district court or ITC action. Vonage, the only prior challenger, never petitioned; its 2008 dismissal under a settlement agreement means any estoppel-type constraint would flow from the settlement contract (whose terms are not public), not from the AIA. A defendant today faces no § 315(e)(2) bar whatsoever — the entire prior-art universe remains available.

Pattern signals. No serial-petition pattern (zero petitions). No patent-owner PTAB appeal practice (zero appeals). The chain does include a defensive aggregator: the patent was swept into the Nortel bankruptcy estate, purchased by the Rockstar consortium in 2011, then transferred to RPX Clearinghouse LLC in the 2014–2015 Rockstar "clearinghouse" transaction in which RPX bought ~4,000 Rockstar assets on behalf of a syndicate of 30+ companies (announced 2014‑12‑23). RPX has publicly pledged never to assert its patents offensively and to license them on FRAND terms — which is consistent with the absence of any assertion of this patent after 2008. This is the opposite of the "NPE that asserts an old patent and gets IPR'd" pattern.

Recommended next steps

If you are a defendant receiving a demand letter citing US 7,035,390:

1. Check whether the assertion is even live. Per the structured USPTO/Google Patents record, the patent expired due to nonpayment of maintenance fees, effective 2018‑04‑25 ("PATENT EXPIRED FOR FAILURE TO PAY MAINTENANCE FEES," original event code EXP; lapse event recorded 2018‑05‑21). Combined with the six-year pre-suit damages bar under 35 U.S.C. § 286, there is no realistic damages window for a suit filed in 2026. The demand may be a portfolio-licensing bluff or a mistake.
2. There is no PTAB record to leverage — and none to fear. No proceeding number can be cited because none exists. Do not let opposing counsel characterize the absence of IPRs as evidence the patent is "strong"; the correct explanation is the 2008 settlement and 2018 lapse.
3. If validity must be briefed, the examiner-cited art is the starting point. The strongest candidates on the face of the patent for a § 103 combination against claim 1 are US 4,313,035 / US 5,329,578 / US 6,104,799 / US 6,125,176, all of which address multi-device routing or user-defined call setup. Note that the specification itself cross-references a sibling application — U.S. App. Ser. No. 10/382,247 ("Common call routing for multiple telephony devices," filed 2003‑03‑05), published as US 2004/0174975 A1 — which is same-inventor/same-family and may bear on claim scope or obviousness-type double patenting.
4. Do not conflate the pleading label with a patent claim. Nortel's December 2007 counterclaim in the Delaware case contains a caption "CLAIM 7 INFRINGEMENT OF U.S. PATENT NO. 7,035,390" — that is count 7 of a pleading, not patent claim 7. Patent claim 7 is a dependent claim directed to sending confirmation indicia to a wireless switch (depending on claim 6). This distinction matters if anyone tries to say "claim 7 was asserted and survived."

If you are evaluating whether a new IPR is possible: it is not practical. You cannot IPR an expired patent to meaningful effect where the estate has been closed since 2018, and the AIA's 1‑year § 315(b) bar runs from service of a complaint. With no served complaint and a lapsed patent, there is no proceeding to file.

Bottom line

There is no PTAB activity on US 7,035,390 — zero AIA trials, zero institution decisions, zero FWDs, zero appeals. The patent's only litigation ended in a 2008 settlement, and the patent itself lapsed for non-payment of maintenance fees effective 2018‑04‑25. The defensive posture is not "hardened by IPR survival" and not "narrowed by IPR cancellation" — it is "an unenforced, expired pre-AIA patent whose claims are untested at the Board and whose only post-2008 relevance is as portfolio filler." No proceeding numbers are cited because none exist; I confirmed this via targeted web search rather than relying solely on the structured ODP block, and I flag the ‑390 false-positive trap (7,953,390 / 6,488,390 / 7,535,890) so it is not mistaken for this patent.

Caveat on sourcing: the structured block is authoritative as of its ingest, and my web searches surfaced no contrary PTAB record. If you have a specific IPR/CBM number you believe belongs to this patent, provide it and I will verify against the public docket — I will not speculate a number, and I found none to report.

I'll research the assignment chain, sourcing reel/frame data and correspondent-of-record information where available.

Let me try to surface the correspondents of record and verify reel/frame entries.

Assignment / Chain-of-Title Reconstruction — US 7,035,390 B2

Source note (read first). The authoritative text I was given (Google Patents "Legal Events" block) does expose reel/frame for every recorded reassignment, and I use those figures below. However, it does not expose the correspondent-of-record field (the attorney/agent who filed each recordation cover sheet), and my searches for that field by reel/frame returned no usable hits before I hit my tool-step limit. I therefore report correspondent as "not exposed in available sources" rather than guess. Publicly reported deal counsel (Skadden for RPX; LaBarge Weinstein for Rockstar) is not the same thing as correspondent of record and I have deliberately not substituted one for the other.

Verify at: https://assignmentcenter.uspto.gov/ — search by patent number 7035390 (the parallel legacy index is https://assignment.uspto.gov/patent/index.html).

Inventors

Pattern check — no anomaly found. This is a single-inventor patent, and the inventor→employer assignment was executed three days before the 2003‑03‑07 filing date and recorded the same day the application was filed — i.e., the standard employee-invention assignment captured contemporaneously with filing, not a late-arising "fire-sale" assignment. There is no evidence in the record of the inventor departing Nortel within 12 months of filing, nor of any inventor-side reversion or rescission, and I found nothing suggesting a "all inventors gone → portfolio dump" precursor. I cannot independently verify Elliott's continued employment beyond the 2003 assignment, and I am not inferring it.

Original assignee

Entity named on the issued patent: Nortel Networks Limited (Canada) — listed on the face as original assignee; some third-party mirrors render it as "Nortel Networks Ltd." The 2003 recordation names NORTEL NETWORKS LIMITED, CANADA (Reel 013871/0461). Nortel Networks Limited was the IP-holding affiliate within the Nortel Networks Corporation group.

Primary line of business: Carrier-grade telecommunications and networking equipment and systems (switching, optical, wireless, enterprise voice) — a 100+-year-old telecom/networking vendor that funded the portfolio through what the Rockstar announcement characterized as "tens of billions of dollars of R&D."

Did they ship a product embodying the claims? — Not established. I found no evidence of a commercial Nortel offering that practices claims 1/23 (a service node that accepts a user's selection indicia and drives switching-device call-processing instructions across multiple DNs). The specification is written as a service-node architecture using SS7 TCAP-style triggers (O_A TRIG., T_A TRIG.) and AIN/IN-style interactions; and it explicitly cross-references a sibling same-family application — U.S. App. Ser. No. 10/382,247, "Common call routing for multiple telephony devices," filed 2003‑03‑05, published as US 2004/0174975 A1. Functional overlap with Nortel's real voice products (e.g., DMS/Central-Office switching, Succession, CallPilot voicemail) is plausible but I have no evidence, so I mark this unclear / no evidence rather than assert a product embodiment. Note this matters: the "operating-company assertion" verdict option requires the current assignee to ship products and sue actual competitors, which is factually impossible here (see Verdict).

Current status: Dissolved/wound down via insolvency. Nortel filed for creditor protection in January 2009 (Nortel Networks Inc. Chapter 11, Bankr. D. Del. No. 09‑10138; Nortel Networks Limited under Canadian CCAA proceedings). The estate sold the patent portfolio under an Asset Sale Agreement dated June 30, 2011 to Rockstar Bidco, LP for $4.5 billion (a record auction; see also the Seller Disclosure Schedules and Commercial License Acknowledgement filed at D.I. 5935‑7 in the bankruptcy docket). Nortel Networks Limited did not survive as a going concern.

Assignment timeline

Chronology per the record. Format: execution/effective date → recorded date — Reel. Every conveyance below is a recorded USPTO assignment event (AS) except where noted (FPAY/FEPP/LAPS are fee/lapse administrative events, listed for completeness because they bear on enforceability).

2003‑03‑04 / recorded 2003‑03‑07 — Reel 013871/0461

• Conveyance: Assignment (Assignment of Assignors' Interest)
• Assignor: Stephen Bennett Elliott
• Assignee: Nortel Networks Limited (Canada)
• Correspondent: not exposed in available sources.
• Context: Standard employee-invention assignment captured at filing (3 days pre-filing).

2011‑07‑29 / recorded 2011‑10‑28 — Reel 027164/0356

• Conveyance: Assignment
• Assignor: Nortel Networks Limited
• Assignee: Rockstar Bidco, LP (New York per the record entry)
• Correspondent: not exposed in available sources.
• Context: Bankruptcy fire-sale / portfolio sale — this is the recordation of the June 30, 2011 Asset Sale Agreement transferring the Nortel patent estate to the Rockstar bid vehicle.

2012‑05‑09 / recorded 2013‑07‑25 — Reel 030876/0902

• Conveyance: Assignment
• Assignor: Rockstar Bidco, LP
• Assignee: Rockstar Consortium US LP (listed "TEXAS" in the record entry; the 2015 assignment text instead calls the entity "a Delaware limited partnership" — flagged discrepancy, see caveats)
• Correspondent: not exposed in available sources.
• Context: Internal reorg of the consortium vehicle — Bidco → the Rockstar operating/consortium LP that began licensing (DOJ waiting period expired March 2012; Rockstar publicly announced it was "free to consummate" and would "pursue licensing agreements").

2013‑11‑13 / recorded 2014‑02‑05 — Reel 032162/0489

• Conveyance: Assignment
• Assignor: Rockstar Consortium US LP
• Assignee: Constellation Technologies LLC (listed "TEXAS" in the record entry; the 2015 assignment text calls Constellation "a Delaware limited liability company" — flagged discrepancy)
• Correspondent: not exposed in available sources.
• Context: Portfolio partitioning among the consortium's member-aligned LLCs — the Rockstar estate was split across Bockstar/Constellation/MobileStar/NetStar (plus Rockstar LP/LLC); Constellation became one of the asserting entities in 2013–2014.

2015‑01‑28 / recorded 2015‑02‑09 — Reel 034924/0779

• Conveyance: Assignment
• Assignor(s): Rockstar Consortium US LP; Rockstar Consortium LLC; Bockstar Technologies LLC; Constellation Technologies LLC; MobileStar Technologies LLC; NetStar Technologies LLC (collectively, "Sellers")
• Assignee: RPX Clearinghouse LLC (a Delaware LLC; principal place of business One Market Plaza, Steuart Tower, Suite 800, San Francisco, CA 94105) — a wholly-owned subsidiary of RPX Corporation
• Correspondent: not exposed in available sources. (Caution: the actual assignment instrument — quoted verbatim in PTAB Exhibit 2003 in IPR2014‑01192 for a different Rockstar patent — is the same instrument family: APA dated December 22, 2014; effective date January 28, 2015; assigns "all causes of action … for past, current and future infringement." That corroborates the effective date and counterparties, but does not supply the correspondent field for this reel.)
• Context: Defensive aggregation / clearinghouse acquisition — RPX bought ~4,000 Rockstar assets for $900M on behalf of a syndicate of 30+ companies (including Cisco and Google), who received non-exclusive licenses; RPX agreed to license to others on FRAND terms.

2016‑02‑26 / recorded 2016‑03‑09 — Reel 038041/0001

• Conveyance: Security Agreement (not a title transfer)
• Assignor: RPX Clearinghouse LLC (and RPX Corporation)
• Assignee: JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A., as Collateral Agent
• Correspondent: not exposed in available sources.
• Context: Securitization / secured financing of the RPX entity group.

2017‑12‑22 / recorded 2018‑01‑02 — Reel 044970/0030

• Conveyance: Release (release of security interest recorded at Reel 038041/Frame 0001)
• Assignor: JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A.
• Assignee/beneficiary: RPX Corporation; RPX Clearinghouse LLC
• Correspondent: not exposed in available sources.
• Context: Release of the 2016 collateral lien — internal financing housekeeping.

2018‑04‑25 (effective; lapse recorded 2018‑05‑21) — administrative, no reel

• Event: LAPS/STCH — "PATENT EXPIRED FOR FAILURE TO PAY MAINTENANCE FEES" (37 CFR 1.362). Not an assignment.
• Context: Estate lapse — note the patent lapsed while RPX Clearinghouse still held title.

2018‑06‑19 / recorded 2018‑06‑29 — Reel 046485/0644

• Conveyance: Security Interest
• Assignor: RPX Clearinghouse LLC
• Assignee: Jefferies Finance LLC
• Correspondent: not exposed in available sources.
• Context: Securitization / secured financing — recorded two months after the patent had already lapsed, i.e., this lien attached to the RPX entity/portfolio generally, not to a live exclusive right in this patent.

2020‑10‑23 / recorded 2020‑10‑26 — Reel 054305/0505

• Conveyance: Release by Secured Party
• Assignor: Jefferies Finance LLC
• Assignee: RPX Clearinghouse LLC
• Correspondent: not exposed in available sources.
• Context: Release of the 2018 Jefferies lien — financing housekeeping; terminal recorded event on the chain.

Cross-check caution (do not conflate reels across patents). In PTAB papers for other Nortel/Rockstar patents, the Rockstar chain appears on different reel/frames — e.g., Nortel→Rockstar Bidco was 027164/0356 (shared, single omnibus reel), but Bidco→Rockstar Consortium US LP appears as 030094/0370 and Rockstar Consortium US LP→Constellation as 031761/0137 on other patents. For US 7,035,390 specifically the operative reels are 030876/0902 and 032162/0489. Anyone pulling "the Rockstar reels" from a different patent's power-of-attorney exhibit will get the wrong frame.

Timeline diagram

timeline
    title Ownership of US 7035390
    2003 : Inventor Elliott assigns to Nortel Networks Limited
         : Application filed 07 Mar 2003
    2006 : Patent US 7035390 issues 25 Apr 2006
    2009 : Nortel seeks creditor protection
    2011 : Bankruptcy asset sale to Rockstar Bidco LP
    2012 : Rockstar Bidco to Rockstar Consortium US LP
    2013 : Rockstar Consortium US LP to Constellation Technologies LLC
    2014 : Asset Purchase Agreement signed with RPX
    2015 : Assignment recorded to RPX Clearinghouse LLC
    2016 : Security agreement with JPMorgan Chase
    2018 : Security release to RPX entities
         : Patent lapses for unpaid maintenance fees
         : Security interest to Jefferies Finance
    2020 : Jefferies releases security interest

NPE / troll-pattern signals

Verdict

Defensive / non-asserting (chain terminates at a defensive aggregator)

Justification (2–3 sentences, citing reel/frame + dates). The chain's terminal recorded transfer is Reel 034924/0779, effective 2015‑01‑28, conveying US 7,035,390 from the six Rockstar sellers to RPX Clearinghouse LLC, a wholly-owned RPX Corporation subsidiary that financed the $900M purchase via a 30+ member syndicate, took the assets subject to FRAND licensing obligations, and whose closing caused eight litigations to be dismissed — the textbook defensive-aggregation outcome, reinforced by RPX's public non-assertion pledge. That terminal position is what drives the call, notwithstanding that the intermediate chain (Reels 027164/0356 in 2011, 030876/0902 in 2012, 032162/0489 in 2013) showed asserter-era characteristics — a no-product consortium vehicle and cascading related-party transfers — and that the origin was a bankruptcy fire-sale out of Nortel's 2009 proceedings. Importantly, this specific patent was never asserted by Rockstar or Constellation (its only suit is the settled 2007 Vonage Delaware case, 1:07‑cv‑00507), and it lapsed for non-payment of maintenance fees effective 2018‑04‑25 while still RPX-owned — so the practical posture is "neutralized and dead," not "NPE live and litigating."

Why not "NPE — high confidence": the shell-transfer (#1) and cascading-transfer (#4) signals are real but are attributable to a documented consortium distribution → syndicated sale rather than an anonymous shell chain; the "known asserter" (#2) and "privateering" (#7) signals involve the Rockstar entities generally, with no evidence this patent was in their assertion sets; the repeat-correspondent signal (#3) is untestable on the data I could reach. Two-plus strong signals pointing at a live NPE are therefore absent, and the chain's terminus is a defensive aggregator.

Caveats / contradictions to flag

1. Entity-type discrepancy in the record. Google Patents renders Rockstar Consortium US LP and Constellation Technologies LLC with jurisdiction "TEXAS," while the verbatim 2015 assignment instrument describes both as Delaware entities. I am flagging rather than resolving this.
2. Correspondent data gap. The correspondent-of-record (the highest-value tell requested) is not exposed in the Google Patents legal-events block, and I could not retrieve it via search before my tool-step limit. I did not substitute deal counsel for it, and I did not fabricate names. Direct verification requires querying assignmentcenter.uspto.gov by patent number 7035390 and opening each reel/frame's cover sheet.
3. "Correspondent recurrence" is therefore not a finding here — it is an open item. If you can pull the nine cover sheets, compare the correspondent field on Reels 027164/0356, 030876/0902, 032162/0489 and 034924/0779; those four are the ones where a repeat recording attorney would be most diagnostic.
4. Two of the nine recorded events (Reels 038041/0001 and 046485/0644) are security interests, not title transfers, and the 2018 Jefferies lien was recorded after the patent had already lapsed — do not count them as ownership changes in any chain-of-title chart.

Verification link: https://assignmentcenter.uspto.gov/ (search patent number 7035390; legacy index: https://assignment.uspto.gov/patent/index.html).

I'll verify the patent record and key prior-art references before building the analysis.

Let me verify details on the remaining high-relevance references.

I've hit the tool-call limit, so I'll finalize using the authoritative patent text (which includes the full cited-reference list) plus the four references I verified directly. Here is the prior-art analysis.

Prior Art Analysis — US 7,035,390 B2

0. Target confirmation (literal)

• Patent number: US 7,035,390 B2 — "User controlled call routing for multiple telephony devices"
• Application: US 10/384,047; filed 2003-03-07; priority 2003-03-07; granted 2006-04-25
• Inventor: Stephen Bennett Elliott; original assignee Nortel Networks Limited
• Confirmed via Google Patents (patents.google.com/patent/US7035390), the granted-PDF images (patentimages.storage.googleapis.com/.../US7035390.pdf), and uspto.report (uspto.report/patent/grant/7035390). No similar-number substitution was used. (Note the already-flagged ‑390 false-positive trap: 7,953,390 / 6,488,390 / 7,535,890 are different patents.)

1. Methodology and an important framing caveat

The "prior art for 7035390" is the set of references cited on the face of the patent — the examiner/IDS citations that were of record when the claim set was allowed. I use the patent's own authoritative citation list (31 patent citations + 1 non-patent citation + 1 family citation). I verified the four highest-relevance references in full text (US 4,313,035; US 5,329,578; US 5,206,901; US 6,104,799); for the remainder I rely on the citation list's literal titles, dates, and assignees, which are authoritative in the fetched record.

§102 vs. §103 caveat (read this first). The task asks "which claim(s) it potentially anticipates under 35 U.S.C. § 102." Strictly, anticipation requires a single reference disclosing every element. Independent claim 1 requires the conjunctive set:

• (a) receiving selection indicia from an action taken by the user at a user device;
• (b) implementing a call processing rule for a plurality of the user's telephony devices, each with a unique address/number;
• (c) sending instructions to process an incoming call bearing the destination address of one of those devices; and
• (d) sending confirmation indicia to effect an alert to the user that the rule was implemented.

No single one of these references discloses all four elements, chiefly because element (d) — the rule-implementation confirmation alert — is largely absent from the pre-2003 art, and because most of the strongest references route calls through a single personal/front-end number rather than acting on a call that already bears one of the plurality of unique destination numbers (element (c)). Consequently, this art is best characterized as §103 obviousness material, with a small number of references approaching §102 on the narrower dependent claims. I mark each entry accordingly rather than overstating anticipation.

2. Tier 1 — Highest-relevance references (element-by-element closest)

2.1 US 6,104,799 A — "Customer defined call setup"

• Full citation: Jain et al., US 6,104,799 A; assignee AT&T Corp.; filed 1997-10-24; issued 2000-08-15.
• Description (verified full text): A Network Control Point (NCP) stores a customer profile with multiple network addresses — "day time number, evening number, wireless number, pager number, etc." The customer can change or update his call set-up algorithm "by using a touch tone or some other user friendly interface, e.g., a world wide web access to NCP." On an incoming call the originating switch queries the NCP, which returns call set-up instructions; the switch dials multiple terminating numbers simultaneously, and drops unused legs when answered. Includes an option to route to a voice mailbox or pager.
• Claims potentially at risk: 1, 13, 16, 17, 23, 35, 38, 39 (and the PC-interface claim 13/35 via web access). This is the single closest reference: it supplies (a) user-updatable routing rules, (b) multiple unique customer numbers, (c) switch instructions to route a call placed to the front-end, and voicemail diversion.
• §102 vs §103: Strong §103; only a weak §102 candidate, because the call arrives at an NCP front end and the file does not disclose the (d) confirmation alert to the user.

2.2 US 5,206,901 A — "Method and apparatus for alerting multiple telephones for an incoming call"

• Full citation: Harlow, Kolipakam, Polepalle, Wyatt; US 5,206,901 A; assignee AT&T Bell Laboratories; filed 1991-12-23; issued 1993-04-27.
• Description (verified full text): A handling switch queries a shared database, which returns the directory numbers of a plurality of telephones to be alerted for an incoming call to a destination directory number; busy/idle status is checked, alerting is applied to all idle telephones, and the call is connected to the first off-hook device. Expressly addresses devices on different switching systems/central offices ("different prefixes").
• Claims potentially at risk: 1(c), 14, 15, 23, 36, 37 — supplies the multi-device, multi-switch routing core and the "different switches" limitation.
• §102 vs §103: §103 (fails (a) user selection indicia and (d) confirmation alert).

2.3 US 5,329,578 A — "Personal communication service with mobility manager"

• Full citation: Brennan & Mark; US 5,329,578 A; assignee Northern Telecom Limited; filed 1992-05-26; issued 1994-07-12.
• Description (verified full text): A PCS service node reroutes calls according to a subscriber service profile (a Subscriber Number List, Caller List, and Subscriber's Schedule), with features including call-blocking, routing to paging/messaging, a "Special Callers List" (e.g., calls from the boss forced to Priority), and a Subscriber Service Interface via which the subscriber changes routing parameters (interactive voice response). This is a direct antecedent to the '390's profile/meeting scenarios.
• Claims potentially at risk: 1, 13, 14, 16, 17, 18, 23, 35, 38, 39, 40. The "boss/priority" and "meeting profile" subject matter in the '390 specification closely parallels this reference.
• §102 vs §103: §103. It routes via a single personal number (PN), so it does not literally meet element (c)'s "call bearing the destination address of the unique address or telephony number," and it lacks (d).

2.4 US 4,313,035 A — "Method of providing person locator service"

• Full citation: Jordan & Weber; US 4,313,035 A; assignee Bell Telephone Laboratories, Inc.; filed 1980-01-18; issued 1982-01-26 (Certificate of Correction noted).
• Description (verified full text): Nationwide person locator service using a centralized data base: a subscriber, "under direct control of a telephone subscriber," stores a call-completion number and status flags (in-transit, unavailable, paging) from any telephone via an update call; incoming calls to the subscriber's Person Locator Number are routed to the stored completion number. Foundational art for subscriber-controlled, network-database routing.
• Claims potentially at risk: 1, 16, 17, 23, 38, 39 — general "user controls routing via a network database" concept.
• §102 vs §103: §103 (single PLN front end; no multi-unique-number calling; no confirmation alert). Best used as the primary "user-controlled database routing" teaching.

3. Tier 2 — Secondary references (relevant to specific limitations)

4. Tier 3 — Background / peripheral (general telephony-forwarding context)

5. Tier 4 — Cited but not pertinent to the routing claims

These three are wireless resource/rate-management references and, on their face, are not directed to call routing or user-controlled device selection. They were likely of record for general wireless-environment context only:

Non-patent citation (of record): International Search Report for PCT/IB2004/000619, mailed 2004-09-01.

Related (not a face citation, but same-family): the specification cross-references U.S. App. Ser. No. 10/382,247, "Common call routing for multiple telephony devices," filed 2003-03-05 (published as US 2004/0174975 A1). It is same-inventor/same-family and is a likely obviousness-type double-patenting (ODP) reference, not §102 art.

6. Consolidated claim-exposure map

7. Bottom line and caveats

1. The most relevant prior art for US 7,035,390 is, in descending order: US 6,104,799 (customer-defined, user-updatable multi-address routing — closest), US 5,206,901 (multi-device/multi-switch alerting), US 5,329,578 (service-node rerouting per user-controlled profile), and US 4,313,035 (subscriber-controlled network-database routing). Secondary art adds US 5,946,386 / US 6,366,661 / US 6,104,799 for the PC/web-control limitations and US 6,208,854 / US 6,125,176 / US 6,141,556 for landline-wireless and device-condition routing.
2. Anticipation is not cleanly available. Because claim 1 conjunctively requires the confirmation-alert element (d) and a call that bears one of the plurality of unique destination numbers, no single cited reference anticipates claims 1/23 on a strict §102 reading; the art is properly an §103 combination anchored on US 6,104,799 + US 5,206,901 (or US 5,329,578), with US 4,313,035 and a PC-control reference (US 5,946,386 / US 6,366,661) supplying the remaining limitations. The alert-modality dependent claims (19–22, 41–44) are the least-anticipated.
3. All 31 references were of record at allowance (grant 2006-04-25); the patent issued over this art. Any new challenge must therefore improve on the examiner's combination — likely by pairing the routing references above with a distinct secondary teaching for the confirmation alert.
4. Transparency note on sources. I fully verified the text of US 4,313,035, US 5,329,578, US 5,206,901, and US 6,104,799. For the remaining citations (Tiers 2–4), the descriptions are drawn from the patent's own citation list (literal titles, dates, assignees), which is authoritative as fetched, but I did not individually pull each reference's full specification before reaching the tool-call limit; treat those brief descriptions as record-based rather than full-text-verified, and treat the "claims potentially at risk" column as analytical judgment, not a legal conclusion.

Cross-reference check: this analysis is consistent with the previously generated sections (bibliographic data, the 2007 Vonage Del. litigation with the "CLAIM 7" pleading-caption distinction, and the zero-PTAB-activity finding). One clarification worth restating because it recurs here: the filing-party of the Dec. 2007 Delaware counterclaim is Nortel (asserting against Vonage), and the "CLAIM 7" there is a pleading count number, not patent claim 7 — which, in the present section, is the dependent claim directed to sending confirmation indicia to a wireless switch (depending on claim 6).

I'll ground the obviousness analysis in the actual cited references before building claim charts.

Obviousness Analysis — U.S. Patent No. 7,035,390 under 35 U.S.C. § 103

Continuation note: This section builds on the prior summary, litigation, and PTAB sections. It does not repeat the bibliographic data, the claim-1/claim-23 plain-language overview, or the litigation findings. Where those sections flagged anomalies (the "off and on book" typo in claim 5, the "one of The plurality" capitalization in claim 38, the claim-15→claim-11 dependency quirk), those flags carry forward and are not restated here.

Governing law note: The '390 has a 2003-03-07 filing/priority date, so pre-AIA § 103(a) applies. KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007), supplies the controlling obviousness framework (it was decided against a pre-AIA patent and is routinely applied to pre-AIA claims).

1. Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art (POSITA)

A person having ordinary skill as of March 2003 would be an engineer with a bachelor's degree in electrical engineering, computer science, or equivalent, plus roughly 2–5 years of experience with intelligent-network (IN/AIN) call processing, SS7/ISUP signaling, and telephony feature design (call forwarding, PCS/"find-me" services, voicemail). Familiarity with a then-standard toolkit is presumed: triggers (origination/termination attempt triggers), SCP/service-node databases, DTMF/IVR interfaces, and web-based provisioning. This matters because every element of the '390 was, by 2003, a catalog item in that toolkit — as the specification's own background section concedes.

2. Element-by-Element Mapping of Independent Claims 1 and 23

Claim 23 tracks claim 1 word-for-word (interface + CPU adapted to perform the same four steps), so one mapping serves both; only the claim-23 recitation of an "interface" and a "CPU" needs the additional service-node/processor disclosure, which every reference below provides.

Result: Independent claims 1 and 23 read onto a combination of three to four pre-2003, same-field references. The only substantive question is motivation to combine and whether the "confirmation alert" is properly treated as an obvious design choice rather than a separately patentable feature. Both resolve against the patent for the reasons below.

3. Grounds of Rejection / Invalidity (§ 103)

Ground A (primary): US 5,329,578 (Brennan & Mark, Northern Telecom) in view of US 6,104,799 (AT&T Customer Defined Call Setup) and US 5,999,611 (Stentor)

This is the strongest single combination because the primary reference is same-assignee-adjacent prior art from the same technology lineage as the '390's own assignee (Nortel) and discloses virtually the entire architecture the '390 claims:

• '578 discloses "a PCS service node" connected to the PSTN hosting switch, containing an "application processor" and subscriber profile databases; "Calls to a personal number assigned to the subscriber are routed to a PCS service node which will re-route the call according to the subscriber's service profile stored in a database." That is the '390's "service node" (claim 23's interface + CPU). '578 further discloses that "the PCS provides the subscriber personal control over the way in which the resulting system will work for them," that the subscriber changes routing by calling in through the Subscriber Service Interface (IVR/DTMF), and that a "Schedule Override" lets the subscriber "adjust the schedule for current circumstances without having to permanently change the schedule" — i.e., dynamic rule selection via a user action, element 1.1.
• '799 supplies what '578 frames around a single personal number: routing rules keyed to multiple distinct network addresses of one customer and, critically, user re-provisioning of the routing algorithm — "the customer can access his routing algorithm via the World Wide Web on the Internet. Each customer has a Web site that is dedicated to the customer, and can only be accessed by specifying the correct password," and "The capability to change or update customer call set up algorithms, preferably by the customer using a touch tone or some other user friendly interface."
• '611 (Stentor, Subscriber Interface for Accessing and Operating Personal Communication Services) is the confirmation-alert teaching: a subscriber-facing interface for operating personal communication services that reports back to the subscriber which feature/state is in effect. Confidence note: I was unable to re-retrieve the '611 specification this session (search budget consumed by the higher-priority references above). I verified '611's identity, assignee, title, and 1999 issue date from the patent's own face; the specific confirmation-alert passage should be confirmed against the full text before this ground is relied on in a filing. If '611 does not carry it, '035's verification-message disclosure supplies element 1.4 independently, as quoted in the table.

Ground B: US 4,313,035 (Jordan & Weber, Bell Labs) in view of US 6,104,799 and US 5,802,160 (Kugell, Pilgrim)

• '035 is the seminal teaching of the exact inventive concept: a centralized database/service node that stores a subscriber-controlled "call completion number," is queried on an incoming call, and returns call-completion instructions to the serving office. It expressly teaches that the update is user-initiated from any station ("The status information may be modified at any time over a telephone and data communications network connection under direct control of the subscriber"; the worked example keys 0-700-583-1000 from station 10, then an access code and PIN), that after update "All calls nationwide now directed to subscriber A's PLN will automatically be routed to station 12," and that the system returns a verification message to the subscriber.
• '160 (Kugell) is the multi-device/plural-DN, screening-and-blocking, and remote-reconfiguration teaching. It associates a list of numbers (home, vacation home, in-laws', boat, cellular, voice mail) with a representative number; entries carry time windows, "ANI parameters," and explicit blocking tables ("a table of telephone numbers for which calls from at least one telephone number in said table to at least one telephone number on the list are blocked"); "the called party can establish a preference table which prevents specific parties from reaching the called party at certain places by using the automatic number identification system"; and "the list maker can change the list of numbers via a remote operation at any time."
• '799 again supplies the profile/rule engine and single-instruction reconfiguration.

Ground C (dependent-claim and secondary-element support)

• US 6,125,176 (AT&T, routing based on conditions of electronic devices) — the "rule may be a function of … line status … electronic calendar" breadth in the '390 specification, and the multi-device selection step: a selector "selects one of a plurality of communication devices" (on-site telephones, off-site telephone, pager, mobile telephone) from a database look-up table.
• US 5,206,901 (AT&T Bell Labs, Method and apparatus for alerting multiple telephones for an incoming call, 1993) and US 5,724,411 (AT&T, Method for selectively alerting multiple telephones, 1998) — the simultaneous/selective multi-device alerting backdrop. Confidence note: '901 and '411 are cited on the '390's face and their titles/assignees are confirmed from that face, but I did not re-retrieve their full texts this session; I rely here on their titles and my pre-existing knowledge of the family, and flag them as needing text-level verification before quoting.
• US 5,946,386 (Xantel, Call management system with call control from user workstation computers, 1999) — the PC/workstation selection and on-screen status/pop-up teaching for claims 13, 22, 35, 44. Confidence note: full text not retrieved this session; identity/title/assignee confirmed from the '390 face. Treat as probable, not verified.
• Sibling application: U.S. App. Ser. No. 10/382,247, "Common call routing for multiple telephony devices," filed 2003-03-05 (published per the record's "Similar Documents" list as US 2004/0174975 A1), which the '390 specification itself incorporates by reference in its entirety and cites for "establishing profiles and providing call processing rules." This is a § 102(e)/§ 103 one-two-punch candidate: if the inventive entities differ, its disclosure is prior art as of its filing date (two days before the '390) under pre-AIA § 102(e), and to the extent it discloses profile-based common routing for multiple telephony devices it is highly material. I was unable to complete a targeted retrieval of US 2004/0174975 A1's specification or inventorship this session — this is the single highest-value verification step outstanding, and I flag it rather than assert its content.

4. Motivation to Combine (KSR Rationales)

A POSITA reviewing the '390 as of March 2003 would have had multiple independent, explicit motivations:

1. Same field, same problem, known solution. All primary references are in call routing / personal communication services, and all address the identical problem the '390's background recites: multiple devices, unknown reach numbers, voicemail stranded across systems. The '390's own specification admits this motivation verbatim: "Attempts to minimize these complications have led to 'one number' services…. Unfortunately, these services are not widely available, and have proven difficult to implement across different communication technologies and different service providers." That sentence is a judicial admission that the problem and the goal were known — the remaining question is only whether the claimed implementation was nonobvious, and it is a routine combination of the references' teachings.
2. Predictable combination of known techniques. Combining (a) a centralized service-node database that stores user call-processing profiles ('035; '578; '799), with (b) user-initiated remote reconfiguration of that profile ('035; '578; '799; '160), with (c) routing across a list of the user's distinct device numbers ('160; '799; '578), with (d) a confirmation indication returned to the user ('035's verification message; '578's MWI), yields nothing more than the sum of the parts. KSR, 550 U.S. at 417 ("combination of familiar elements according to known methods is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results").
3. Design incentive / improvement in the prior art. '160 expressly criticizes the status quo ("While it is possible to subscribe to a call forwarding service, it is a nuisance to constantly call in to change the forwarding number if one is moving from number to number") and identifies the unmet need for "automatically, adaptively and dynamically" locating the called party. '035 criticizes classic call forwarding for requiring two independent connections and for restricting updates to the primary station. Both criticisms point directly at the '390's centralized, user-reconfigurable, multi-DN service node.
4. Explicit user-accessibility teaching across device types. '799 teaches touch-tone and World Wide Web reconfiguration; '578 teaches IVR via "personal number + *"; '035 and '160 teach reconfiguration "from any" station / "via a remote operation." Extending selection indicia to a wireless handset (dial + send) or a PC icon is the obvious application of these teachings to the then-emerging multi-device user — and the '390's own dependent claims frame these as mere device substitutions.
5. Simultaneous-alerting background makes "route to the instructing device" obvious. '160's simultaneous signalling of a list of numbers, with termination on off-hook at one, is the functional equivalent of "'390 claim 16/38: route all incoming calls to the device from which the instruction came" — selecting one member of a known list by a user action was already routine.
6. Common voicemail. '035 already teaches directing the completion number to a Voice Storage System ("The call completion number stored at the data base may direct the completion of a person locator call to a termination in a VSS"), and '578 teaches both an internal messaging service and an external messaging system with mailbox/password outpulsing, plus '799's "option to refer the call to a voice messaging system (i.e., a voice mailbox)." This squarely meets claims 18/40 (route to a common voicemail system) and supplies the motivation: eliminating multiple voicemail boxes (the '390 background's complaint about "leave multiple voicemails in different voicemail systems").

Counter-argument to anticipate (teaching away): The patent owner may argue '035 disparages conventional call forwarding's two-connection inefficiency and therefore "teaches away" from per-device forwarding. This is weak. '035's criticism is of switch-based, two-leg forwarding — precisely why '035 (and the '390) instead centralize control at a database/service node so calls are completed in a single routed leg. '035 and the '390 are architecturally aligned, not opposed; there is no "criticism, discredit, or discouragement" of the '390's approach (In re Fulton standard). The argument also collides with '160 and '799, which embrace list-based multi-device routing without any such caveat.

5. Where the Record Is Thin (Adversarial Honesty Section)

A rigorous § 103 analysis must identify the elements the retrieved art does not cleanly reach:

1. Packet-based telephony device serviced by a gateway (claims 10–12, 32–34). The retrieved primary references are all circuit-switched/IN-centric. '799's web interface reaches the NCP, not a packet-voice endpoint, and neither '578 nor '035 addresses a packet-based telephony device whose selection indicia is forwarded by a packet-based gateway (e.g., SIP/RTP via a VoP gateway) — even though the '390 specification itself invokes "SIP (Session Initiation Protocol, IETF standard RFC 3261)." To invalidate claims 10–12 the challenger would likely need an additional VoIP gateway/PSTN-interworking reference. The face of the '390 cites US 6,366,661 (Qwest, Online call routing apparatus and method) and US 6,377,668 (Command Communications, Internet priority call device) — both are candidate additional art for this gap, but I did not retrieve or verify either this session, so I cannot assert what they disclose.
2. Non-analogous citations on the face. Three examiner-cited references appear to be field-mismatched and of little § 103 value for call routing: WO 98/35514 (Qualcomm, forward link rate scheduling), WO 00/41542 (Qualcomm, resource allocation in a communication system), and EP 1 043 902 (Lucent, queue length based burst management). A paralegal or examiner drafting an obviousness chart who reaches for these will produce a non-analogous art objection rather than a rejection. Their presence suggests IDS/portfolio-level citation rather than substantive reliance — worth noting precisely so they are not mistaken for the strongest art.
3. Element 1.4 confirmation-alert specifics. The concept of confirming reconfiguration to the user is well supported ('035's verification message; '578's MWI). The particular alert modalities of claims 20–22/42–44 (special dial tone, lit lamp, pop-up via PC) are individually conventional, but the record I verified is thinnest on the PC pop-up variant ('386 not re-verified) and on SMS/IM/email alerts — the latter being a 2003-era design choice rather than a technical contribution, and one the '390 specification itself describes generically ("The messaging may also be an instant message, an email, a short message service (SMS) message, or the like").
4. Claim 15's odd dependency (depends on claim 11, not claim 14). Beyond the already-flagged quirk, this dependency structure means claim 15 imports the packet-based-gateway limitations of claims 10–11 — i.e., the same gap identified in point 1. Claims 14 and 36 stand on much firmer ground than claims 15 and 37.
5. Date metadata discrepancy (flagged, not resolved). The task header states the current date as April 26, 2026, while the operating environment timestamp is 2026-09-28. This does not affect the substance of the § 103 analysis (which is keyed to a 2003 priority date), but it is an inconsistency in the record and is noted per the flag-contradictions rule. It also means any statement in the earlier sections about "no 2026 CAFC activity" should be read against whichever date is authoritative.

6. Secondary Considerations (Graham Factor 4) and Overall Assessment

No secondary-consideration evidence is apparent from the record. There is no evidence of commercial success tied by nexus to the claimed service node, no evidence of a long-felt-but-unmet need that the prior art failed to address (the '390's own background concedes "one number" services already existed), and no evidence of copying or unexpected results. The patent's history undercuts rather than supports nonobviousness: it was allowed in 2006 with these very references of record, and its only litigation ended in a 2008 stipulated dismissal without prejudice under a settlement agreement, with the patent then lapsing for non-payment of maintenance fees effective 2018-04-25 — i.e., the claims were never subjected to adversarial validity testing in any forum (no IPR/PGR/CBM, no appeal), as detailed in the PTAB section above.

Bottom line (§ 103): Independent claims 1 and 23 are strongly vulnerable under § 103 over US 5,329,578 in view of US 6,104,799, with US 4,313,035 and US 5,802,160 as excellent alternative/additional primary references (and '035 alone supplying most of elements 1.1, 1.3, and 1.4). Dependent claims 2–9, 13–30, 35–44 largely ride on those teachings — off/on-hook and dial-and-send selection ('035, '578), cross-switch multi-device routing ('578 service node across the PSTN; '035 nationwide CCIS), routing to the instructing device or another device ('578 location change; '035 call-completion update), common voicemail ('035's VSS; '578's integrated/external messaging), and alert types ('035 verification message; '578 MWI). The claims most resistant to this specific art set are 10–12 and 15/32–34/37 (packet-based device/gateway), where additional VoIP-interworking art — candidate: US 6,366,661 and/or US 6,377,668, both on the face but unverified here — would be required. The highest-value outstanding verification steps are (a) the sibling application 10/382,247 / US 2004/0174975 A1 for a § 102(e) theory, (b) US 5,999,611 and US 5,946,386 full texts for the confirmation-alert and PC-control limitations, and (c) the packet-telephony references for the gateway-dependent claims.