US 7391858

I'll search for authoritative information on US patent 7391858, including any 2026 CAFC activity.

Let me run more targeted searches for the patent and any related litigation.

Let me try a couple more targeted searches to confirm litigation/docket status.

US Patent 7,391,858 B1 — Analyst Summary

Sources searched: Google Patents full-text record (authoritative, fetched 2026-09-29), USPTO/DocketAlarm/CourtListener/Justia dockets, and general web. Note: I could not access a live USPTO Patent Center record or a CAFC docket directly; the below relies on the Google Patents authoritative text plus docket aggregators, and I flag uncertainties where they exist.

---

Bibliographic Data

Continuation-in-part family (same title, priority 2004-11-02): US 8,483,102 B1 (app. 11/926,390), US 8,111,822 B1 (app. 12/022,830), US 9,413,895 B1 (app. 13/910,789).

---

Abstract (verbatim)

"A system and method for routing voice communication to an end user across multiple telephony networks are disclosed. In one embodiment of the present invention, when a caller dials a voice identity number of a user, a policy processor checks a database for information on that number. Depending on whether or not that voice identity number has an associated mapping policy attached to it, the policy processor will determine how and where the call should be routed. If there is no mapping policy associated with the number dialed, the call will be routed to that same number dialed, however, if a mapping policy does exist, the policy processor will determine to which target number the call should be routed based on a mapping of possible numbers and rules based on date and time."

---

Plain-Language Overview of Each Independent Claim

The patent has nine independent claims (1, 3, 9, 16, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28) — the remainder are dependent. All independent claims revolve around the same core: a voice identity (a phone number/extension a caller dials) is matched against a stored mapping policy that transitively re-points the call to a target voice identity, with time attributes controlling when each mapping rule is active.

Claim 1 — System (core, multi-network transitive mapping).
A system with multiple phone systems, at least one policy processor, and a stored voice identity mapping data structure. The data structure holds many search voice identities transitively mapped to target voice identities and is applicable to multiple users. A dialed voice identity matches a first search identity on a first phone system; the policy processor maps it to a first target identity on a second phone system under a first mapping policy; that first target matches a second search identity under a second mapping policy; and that is mapped to a second target identity on a third phone system under the second policy. The second target must differ from the first search identity, and at least two of the three phone systems provide different types of phone services. Time attributes state when the first and second policies are valid. Includes means for storing the data structure.

Claim 3 — Method (mirror of claim 1).
Same components and transitive/time-attribute structure as claim 1, recast as method steps: provide the phone systems, policy processor, and mapping data structure; store it; and have the policy processor access it and route a call based on it.

Claim 9 — Method (call-completion centric).
Receive a voice identity from a call → check for a stored mapping policy associated with it → the policy contains transitive mappings (first search identity on a first phone system → first target on a second phone system; that target matches a second search identity → second target on a third phone system, different from the first search identity; at least two of the three phone systems offer different service types) plus time attributes → complete the call to the second target voice identity of the third phone system.

Claim 16 — Policy processor apparatus.
A policy processor comprising functional "means" elements: means for inputting the voice identity; means for searching for a mapping policy containing the same transitive multi-network mapping structure and time attributes described above; means for analyzing the policy; and means for outputting the results.

Claim 24 — Method with forwarding-policy generation.
Same framework as claim 3, but adds that the policy processor may create multiple call-forwarding policies for the phone systems based on the voice identities owned by each phone system, and updates the forwarding policies to those phone systems.

Claim 25 — System (time-validation variant).
A system with one or more phone systems, a policy processor, and a mapping data structure with transitive mappings (search identity → first target → matches second search identity → second target, the second target being different from the first search identity). The distinguishing feature: validation of the time attributes occurs during processing of a call, where the first policy is applied only if its time attribute validates against the current time, and likewise for the second policy.

Claim 26 — Method (time-validation variant).
Method counterpart of claim 25, with the same runtime time-attribute validation requirement during call processing, plus storing the data structure and routing the call based on it.

Claim 27 — Method (call forwarding variant).
Receive a voice identity from a call → check for a stored mapping policy (transitive mappings + time attributes validated during call processing, first/second policies applied only if their time attributes validate against current time) → forward the call to a resulting voice identity based on the policy.

Claim 28 — Policy processor apparatus (time-validation variant).
Means for inputting a voice identity; means for searching for a mapping policy with the transitive mapping structure and runtime time-attribute validation; means for analyzing the policy; and means for outputting results.

Key dependent-claim themes: claim 2/20/22 specify phone-system types (PBX, PSTN, VOIP, wireless); claims 4–6 cover a time-keeping component and per-phone-system forwarding policies; claims 7–8 and 10–15 cover error handling for transitive mappings (reject call, route to default, route to original number, or map to most-recent/most-frequent/original voice identity); claims 18–19, 21, 23 cover implementation of the policy processor (software on a phone-system application server, stand-alone computer, or ASIC).

---

Litigation / CAFC 2026 Search Result

• No CAFC 2026 docket naming US 7,391,858 was found. My searches did not surface any Federal Circuit appeal, PTAB proceeding, or district-court complaint that expressly identifies patent 7,391,858. I cannot confirm one exists or doesn't — I simply lack an authoritative hit.
• Assignees/related entity activity: The current assignee, Lab Technology LLC, is a prolific 2024–2026 patent plaintiff. 2026 dockets surfaced include Lab Technology LLC v. Solera Holdings, LLC (N.D. Tex. 4:2026cv00297, filed 2026‑03‑12, voluntarily dismissed ~2026‑04‑23), Lab Technology LLC v. MSS Electronics, Inc. (S.D.N.Y. 7:2026cv00374, dismissed with prejudice 2026‑03‑19), Lab Technology LLC v. Telus International (D. Nev. 2:26‑cv‑00284), and Lab Technology LLC v. Yeastar Digital Technology Co., Ltd. (E.D. Tex. 2:26‑cv‑00709, filed 2026‑08‑18). None of these docket excerpts list the asserted patent numbers, so I cannot state that 7,391,858 is (or is not) among the patents asserted. Earlier 2024–2025 suits (e.g., v. Verizon 2:24‑cv‑00323; v. Lumen 7:25‑cv‑00172; v. Zoom 1:24‑cv‑01711) likewise did not identify the patent numbers in the results returned.

Uncertainty flag: I do not have authoritative confirmation of any 2026 CAFC docket entry for 7,391,858. Given the patent expired for failure to meet its 2024‑11‑02 maintenance/term date (status "Expired – Lifetime"), an active 2026 appeal would be unusual, but I cannot rule out legacy or collateral proceedings. Treat the litigation section as unverified.

---

Note on the given "current date": the prompt states April 26, 2026, while the Google Patents record I relied on was fetched 2026‑09‑29; I have reported the record as fetched and flagged dates accordingly.

I'll search for litigation specifically naming US patent 7,391,858.

Now let me search for the current assignee's litigation and docket databases directly.

Let me try more targeted queries on litigation databases and the original assignee.

Litigation Search — US Patent 7,391,858 B1

Bottom line

No litigation, PTAB proceeding, or CAFC appeal specifically naming US Patent 7,391,858 was found in any of the sources I searched. I am affirmatively reporting a negative result rather than listing adjacent cases as if they were hits.

Because this is a negative finding, the honest answer is: as far as the accessible public record shows, there is no known litigation involving US 7,391,858. I flag below the limits of that search so you can weigh how much to rely on it.

---

What I searched and what came back

Important false-positive to disregard

Several search hits contained the string "'858 patent" — but in a molecular-diagnostics / cfDNA ligation context (IPR briefing involving Natera-type sequencing art, "ligation efficiency," "tagging efficiency in cfDNA"). That is a different patent that merely happens to share the "858" shorthand. It is not US 7,391,858. I am flagging this explicitly so it is not conflated with the telephony patent you asked about. (Also disregard unrelated hits such as Brazilian municipal registration lists containing "7391858" and a UTM coordinate "N = 7391858.49" — pure numeric coincidences.)

---

Related context: the current assignee IS an active litigant (but none confirmed on this patent)

US 7,391,858 was assigned to Lab Technology LLC (New Mexico) effective 2024-01-15, recorded 2024-06-25, from TP Lab, Inc. Lab Technology LLC is a prolific 2025–2026 patent plaintiff. Cases surfaced include:

Critical caveat: In none of the docket excerpts returned did the record list the asserted patent numbers, so I cannot state that 7,391,858 is among the patents asserted in any of them. Notably, the Everbridge case (where patent numbers were disclosed) asserted US 8,503,973 and US 9,219,982 — not 7,391,858. These cases are provided only as assignee context; do not treat them as 7,391,858 litigation.

The telephony-defendant profile (Yeastar = VoIP/PBX vendor; TELUS, Lumen = telecom) is at least thematically consistent with this patent's subject matter, but theme is not evidence of assertion.

---

No PTAB / CAFC activity found

• No IPR/PGR/CBM naming 7,391,858 surfaced in Unified Patents' PTAB lists or general PTAB searches.
• No CAFC appeal naming 7,391,858 surfaced. Given the patent carries status "Expired – Lifetime" (anticipated expiration 2024-11-02, with the 12th-year maintenance fee paid 2019-10-18), an active 2026 appeal would be unusual, though collateral/legacy proceedings cannot be entirely ruled out.

---

Confidence and limitations (please read)

• I could not access live PACER or a live CAFC docket directly. My conclusion rests on Google Patents' authoritative record plus docket aggregators, PTAB/PACER mirrors, and general web results.
• Aggregator coverage is incomplete in both directions. A patent number may be omitted from a docket summary even when asserted (the docket text often lists only "the '858 patent" or nothing at all). A filed complaint unknown to the crawlers would not appear.
• Date discrepancy flag (carried forward from the prior section): the task states the current date is April 26, 2026, while the authoritative Google Patents record I relied on was fetched 2026-09-29. I report the record as fetched and flag that any case filed or terminated between those dates may not be fully reflected. (This is the same inconsistency noted in the previously generated summary.)

Recommendation for certainty: run a patentnumber search directly in PACER's Docket Query, Docket Navigator / Lex Machina, and the Unified Patents Portal caselist, plus a USPTO PTAB API (PTABAPI) search on patent number 7,391,858. Those paywalled/authoritative sources would confirm or exclude assertions that the open web did not surface.

I'll verify the structured "no proceedings" result against public sources before writing the memo.

No hits on those. Let me try the patent owner / family angle and a direct PTAB docket query.

One more pass to check for any proceeding tied to the family or the 2024–2026 assertion campaign.

PTAB / AIA Trial Analysis — US 7,391,858 B1

Patent: US 7,391,858 B1 ("System and method for mapping a voice identity across multiple telephony networks with time attributes")
Inventor: Chi Fai Ho | Original assignee: TP Lab (California) | Current assignee: Lab Technology LLC (New Mexico), recorded 2024-06-25
Priority/filing: 2004-11-02 | Issued: 2008-06-24 | Anticipated expiration: 2024-11-02 (Google Patents status: Expired – Lifetime)
Analysis date: 2026-09-29

---

Proceedings overview

Total AIA trial proceedings on US 7,391,858: zero. The canonical USPTO Open Data Portal "PTAB proceedings on file" block returns no IPR, PGR, or CBM naming this patent — no institutions, no denials, no FWDs, no settlements, no appeals. Accordingly, the bottom-line defensive posture is not "the patent has survived two IPRs and is hardened"; it is the inverse and, for a defendant, the more favorable one: the claims are wholly untested at the PTAB, but the patent is expired and is now an extremely poor candidate for institution — any IPR you file would run straight into the Office's 2025-era "settled expectations" discretionary-denial practice against a 2008-issued, 2024-expired patent. The practical defense is therefore invalidity in district court (plus § 101 and the patent's expired status), not an AIA petition.

---

Proceedings on file

None. No proceeding number exists to report, and I will not construct one. The structured ODP block is the source of record here, and my independent web searches (Google Patents full text; PTAB petition documents surfacing in public search; Lab Technology / TP Labs entity searches; IPR2025/IPR2026 docket round-ups) returned no petition, institution decision, final written decision, or appeal identifying US 7,391,858 or its application number 10/980,046.

Two adjacent findings that are not AIA trials on this patent — but are strategically relevant

1. Unified Patents ex parte reexamination of US 8,498,388. Unified Patents filed an ex parte reexamination request on a different Lab Technology patent, US 8,498,388 ("audio announcements"), and on 2025-01-15 the Central Reexamination Unit granted it, finding substantial new questions of patentability on all challenged claims (control no. 90/019,749). — https://www.unifiedpatents.com/insights/2025/1/15/lab-technology-audio-announcement-patent-challenge-instituted
   This is not an AIA trial and not this patent. But it is the clearest evidence that Unified Patents has targeted the Lab Technology portfolio, and it shows the portfolio owner is willing to litigate/settle rather than fight validity to the end. Do not cite it as a proceeding on the '858 patent; cite it as a pattern signal (see Strategic Summary).

2. Lab Technology's 2024–2026 assertion campaign. Dockets surfaced include Lab Technology LLC v. AT&T, Inc. (2:24-cv-00412, E.D. Tex., voluntarily dismissed 2024-07-03), v. Google LLC (6:24-cv-00334, W.D. Tex., voluntarily dismissed 2024-06-28), v. Verizon (2:24-cv-00323), v. Zoom (1:24-cv-01711), v. Greenlight Financial Technology, Inc. (1:25-cv-01356, D. Del.), v. Lumen Technologies, Inc. (7:25-cv-00172, dismissed 2025-06-25), v. TELUS International (U.S.) Corp. (2:26-cv-00284, D. Nev., voluntarily dismissed 2026-03-17/19), v. Solera Holdings, LLC (4:26-cv-00297, N.D. Tex., jointly dismissed 2026-04-23), v. MSS Electronics, Inc. (7:26-cv-00374, S.D.N.Y., dismissed with prejudice 2026-03-19), and v. Yeastar Digital Technology Co., Ltd. (2:26-cv-00709, E.D. Tex., filed 2026-08-18).
   Uncertainty flag carried forward from the earlier section: none of the docket excerpts I retrieved enumerate the asserted patent numbers. I therefore cannot confirm that 7,391,858 is among the asserted patents in any of these suits, and I cannot confirm it isn't. The rapid voluntary-dismissal pattern (multiple complaints dismissed within weeks, one with prejudice) is itself notable — it is consistent with a low-cost demand-letter/licensing program in which defendants either settle quietly or the case is dropped, which is why no IPR ever attaches.

---

Strategic summary

1. Claim status: everything is UNTESTED; nothing is canceled and nothing is sustained by the PTAB.
All 28 claims — independents 1, 3, 9, 16, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28 and their dependents — stand as issued (subject to whatever amendments, if any, appear in the file wrapper; see the flag below). There is no IPR estoppel working for or against anyone, because no trial was ever instituted. This cuts both ways: the patent owner cannot point to any PTAB decision upholding a claim, but a defendant also cannot point to a PTAB decision canceling one. Any validity fight must be had from scratch, with the district court as the only forum. Practically, that means the examiner's cited art of record — US 3,626,109 (Stromberg Carlson, call-forwarding process), US 4,436,962 (Bell Labs, call coverage), US 5,018,194 (Fujitsu, call-forwarding in an electronic switching system), US 5,329,578 (Northern Telecom, personal communication service with mobility manager), US 5,737,403 (AT&T, interaction of routing features), US 5,982,870 (Bell Atlantic), US 6,385,446 (Nokia, call forwarding), US 6,535,596 (Lucent, subscriber services/preferences), US 6,898,274 (Nortel, adaptive time-based call routing), and published app. US 2003/0059018 (Mello), US 2004/0062376 (Woodson), US 2005/0111649 (Motorola), plus US 2002/0051519 (Parra) — is available to you as § 102/§ 103 art, unconstrained by any § 315(e)(2) estoppel.

2. Estoppel landscape — clean slate, but the window is effectively closed.
Because no petitioner ever filed and instituted, no party is estopped under 35 U.S.C. § 315(e)(2). That is a purely theoretical advantage. The real constraint is discretionary: under the Director's 2025-03-26 memorandum and the "settled expectations" line of decisions (e.g., iRhythm Tech., Inc. v. Welch Allyn, Inc., IPR2025-00363, Paper 10 (2025-06-06) — ~13-year-old patent; Apotex Inc. v. Alkermes Pharma Ireland Ltd., IPR2025-00514, Paper 10 (2025-07-02) — >14 years in force; Samsung Elecs. Co. v. Sinotechnix LLC, IPR2025-00331/333/335/336, Paper 13 (2025-07-02) — >10 years), a 2008-issued patent that expired 2024-11-02 is the paradigm case for discretionary denial. The patent is in force for zero further days; there is no ongoing injunction or royalty tail to enjoin. Filing an IPR on it is, with high confidence, a waste of the petition fee and the § 315(b) one-year clock, and it will not estop you from anything useful. Note also the parallel-litigation restriction (Director's March 2025 guidance requiring stipulation when art overlaps a co-pending case) — if you are a live defendant, a petition on this expired patent is doubly unattractive.

3. Pattern signals.

• No serial petitioners on this patent — there is no petitioner with more than zero IPRs against 7,391,858.
• The patent owner has not pursued PTAB appeals on this patent, because there was never a PTAB trial to appeal. There is likewise no Federal Circuit appeal naming 7,391,858 that I could find (consistent with the earlier section's finding of no 2026 CAFC docket).
• Defensive aggregator activity exists, but off-target. Unified Patents is in the chain against the Lab Technology portfolio — but via an ex parte reexamination of US 8,498,388 (control no. 90/019,749, granted 2025-01-15), not via an IPR and not on this patent. Ex parte reexamination is not an AIA trial, carries no § 315(e) estoppel, and is not a proceeding to cite as "PTAB activity on 7391858."
• Family note. The 2004-11-02 priority family includes three continuations-in-part sharing this exact title: US 8,483,102 B1 (app. 11/926,390, filed 2007-10-29), US 8,111,822 B1 (app. 12/022,830, filed 2008-01-30), and US 9,413,895 B1 (app. 13/910,789, filed 2013-06-05). All are assigned to Lab Technology LLC and none surfaced any PTAB proceeding in my searches. If a demand letter cites "the mapping-a-voice-identity patents," your invalidity work must cover the CIP family, not just '858 — but note that the CIPs carry the same 2004-11-02 priority for the common disclosure and each has its own, potentially different, claim scope and expiration.

4. Flagged inconsistency / unverified item (carry forward, don't paper over).
The posted Google Patents claim set lists 28 claims, including claims 25–28, which are drafted as "time-attribute validation during call processing" variants that read like later-drafted claims (their language closely tracks the 2013-filed CIP, US 9,413,895). For a patent that issued 2008-06-24, that is anomalous and is a possible indication of post-grant amendment (e.g., a reexamination certificate) altering the claim set. I could not confirm this on the live record and I am not asserting it. Before relying on any claim number in litigation, pull the USPTO Patent Center file wrapper and any reexamination certificate for 10/980,046 and confirm the operative claim text.

---

Recommended next steps

1. Do not file an IPR or PGR on 7,391,858. There is no institution path worth the fee: the patent issued 2008-06-24 and expired 2024-11-02, squarely inside the Director's "settled expectations" discretionary-denial zone, and it is past any forward-looking enforcement value. If you nonetheless need a trial, the only defensible fact pattern is a live, substantial infringement claim where you also want a stay — and you should expect denial.

2. Verify the operative claim set before anything else. Retrieve the file wrapper for application 10/980,046 via USPTO Patent Center and check for a reexamination certificate affecting claims 25–28 (see flag above). Link: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov (search application 10/980,046). The earlier section's note that the record could not be confirmed on a live Patent Center pull remains true.

3. Move the validity fight to district court, on § 102/§ 103 using the examiner's own of-record art — the 14 references listed in the "Citations" table of the Google Patents record (Stromberg Carlson '109; Bell Labs '962; Fujitsu '194; Northern Telecom '578; AT&T '403; Bell Atlantic '870; Nokia '446; Lucent '596; Nortel '274; Mello US 2003/0059018; Woodson US 2004/0062376; Motorola US 2005/0111649; Parra US 2002/0051519). No estoppel bars these, and no PTAB panel has ever construed a term in this patent, so you are free to argue claim construction ab initio.

4. Press § 101 and expiration-based defenses. Claims 1, 3, 9, 16, 24–28 are, at bottom, "route a phone call to a different number according to a schedule" — a strong Alice step-one/step-two candidate given the generic-recitation of "policy processor" and "means for storing." Combine with the fact that the patent expired 2024-11-02, which caps damages to pre-expiration accrual on any pre-expiration conduct and eliminates any injunctive theory.

5. If you are one of the currently-sued Lab Technology defendants (e.g., the 2026-08-18 E.D. Tex. action against Yeastar Digital Technology, 2:26-cv-00709), confirm which patent numbers are actually asserted — the dockets I retrieved do not list them. If 7,391,858 is not asserted, this memo is background only. If it is, your motion practice should lead with expiration and § 101, not with a contemplated IPR.

6. Monitor, but do not expect, PTAB activity. For a live check at any time: PTAB E2E — https://ptacts.uspto.gov/ptacts/ (search by patent number 7391858) and the USPTO Open Data Portal PTAB API. A patent this old and this expired is very unlikely to acquire a first-ever IPR, but an ex parte reexamination filed by a defensive aggregator (as Unified did against the sibling '388 patent) is the more plausible development and would not appear in the AIA-trial count.

Confidence: High that there is no AIA trial proceeding on 7,391,858 as of 2026-09-29 — the structured ODP data and every web search agree. High that this patent is expired and a poor IPR candidate. Low / unverified on (a) which patents Lab Technology is asserting in its 2024–2026 suits, and (b) whether the claim set in the posted text reflects a post-grant amendment. Both are flagged above rather than resolved.

I'll research the assignment record for US 7,391,858, including the reel/frame details and correspondent of record.

Let me dig into the Lab Technology campaign details and whether the '858 patent was asserted, plus the correspondent of record.

Let me try to pin down the correspondent of record on both assignment records and confirm whether the '858 patent itself was ever asserted.

Ownership & Assignment Analysis — US 7,391,858 B1

Sources used: Google Patents full-text legal-events record (authoritative, fetched 2026‑09‑29), RPX Empower litigation coverage, Mondaq/RPX "former TP Lab portfolio" articles (2024), Stanford NPE Litigation Database, Unified Patents portal, UniCourt/PacerMonitor dockets, Lex Machina 2025 Patent Litigation Report. I could not open the USPTO Assignment Center (assignmentcenter.uspto.gov) record interactively — the correspondent-of-record field is therefore reported below as not retrievable rather than guessed.

Date discrepancy flagged: the task header now reads 2026‑09‑29; the previously generated summary referenced an "April 26, 2026" prompt date. I have treated the patent record as fetched 2026‑09‑29 and flagged anything time-sensitive.

---

Inventors

Unusual-pattern check: Not present. The single inventor is the founder/CEO of the original assignee and remained associated with TP Lab at least through the January 2024 transfer (he is cited in the 2024 coverage as TP Lab's founder/CEO). There is no evidence of an inventor departure preceding a portfolio fire-sale; the ~20-year gap between filing and transfer reflects a long-held portfolio, not an abandonment-then-dump pattern.

---

Original assignee

TP Lab, Inc. ("TPLAB"), California — named on the issued patent (Application No. 10/980,046; REEL/FRAME 015952/0164).

• Primary line of business: research-and-development and patent monetization, not telephony services or equipment. TP Lab characterizes its "main invention areas" as Internet-telecommunication convergence, Web-oriented personal communication, and consumer digital media such as music and video, and has marketed itself as holding 100+ patents (RPX/Mondaq, 2024).
• Did it ship a product embodying the claims? No evidence found. I located no commercial telephony/PBX/VOIP product corresponding to the "voice identity mapping policy" claims. TP Lab's observable activity is patent development and large-scale patent transfer (to Dolby; to Local Intelligence, LLC, a Dominion Harbor affiliate, Aug 2017; to ZAMA Innovations LLC after a Nov 2019 Allied Security Trust transfer; to Fiver LLC, Sep 2017; to InnoBrilliance, LLC, Jul 2017; to Knapp Investment Company Limited, Dec 2015; and finally to Lab Technology LLC, Jan 2024).
• Current status: Unclear / operating as an IP holder. TP Lab was still acting as assignor as of the 2024‑01‑15 effective transfer, so it was not dissolved then. No bankruptcy or Chapter 7/11 filing was found for TP Lab. It has not been confirmed as a current product-shipping operating company in any source reached.

---

Assignment timeline

Two recorded assignments exist for US 7,391,858. Both are reflected in the Google Patents legal-events record; the underlying reel/frame numbers are stated there.

• 2004-11-01 (executed) / recorded 2004-11-02 — Reel 015952/0164

  • Conveyance: Assignment
  • Assignor: Chi Fai Ho (individual inventor)
  • Assignee: TP Lab (TP Lab, California)
  • Correspondent: Not retrievable from the sources reached; the Assignment Center correspondent field was not accessible to me. (If it recurs on other TP Lab reel entries, that is a verification step, not something I can assert.)
  • Context: Initial inventor-to-company assignment, executed one day before the 2004‑11‑02 filing date — standard pre-filing prosecution paperwork, not a monetization event.

• 2024-01-15 (executed/effective) / recorded 2024-06-25 — Reel 067830/0076

  • Conveyance: Assignment
  • Assignor: TP Lab, Inc.
  • Assignee: Lab Technology LLC, New Mexico
  • Correspondent: Not retrievable from the sources reached. Litigation-side repeat player (separate field, flagged for context only): Isaac (Isaac Phillip) Rabicoff, Rabicoff Law LLC, is plaintiff's counsel on the Lab Technology campaign; Lex Machina reports Rabicoff as the highest-volume plaintiff's patent attorney in both 2023 and 2024 and the first since 2022 to serve as counsel in over 1,000 patent cases. Do not conflate litigation counsel with the assignment-recording correspondent.
  • Context: Transfer-to-asserter. Lab Technology LLC was formed in New Mexico on 2024‑01‑08 (RPX/Mondaq) — seven days before the stated effective transfer date of 2024‑01‑15. The recording (2024‑06‑25) postdates the first Lab Technology infringement suits (May 2024), i.e., the transfer was executed before litigation but recorded after it began — a standing-cure recording. Note that as of mid‑2024 press coverage "USPTO records have yet to reflect the assignment … away from TP Lab, Inc.," which is consistent with the June 2024 recording date.

No further assignments (Security Agreement, Merger, Change of Name, License, Release, Correction) are recorded for this patent. The patent carried four maintenance events between the two assignments — 4th-year fee paid 2012‑02‑13 (with a late-payment surcharge), 8th-year fee 2015‑09‑24, 12th-year fee 2019‑10‑18 (small entity) — meaning TP Lab actively maintained the asset through year 12 before transferring it.

---

Timeline diagram

timeline
    title Ownership of US 7391858
    2004 : Inventor Chi Fai Ho assigns to TP Lab
    2008 : Patent issues to TP Lab
    2012 : Fourth year maintenance fee paid
    2015 : Eighth year maintenance fee paid
    2019 : Twelfth year maintenance fee paid
    2024 : TP Lab assigns to Lab Technology LLC
         : Suits filed against Samsung and Verizon
         : Patent expires at end of 20 year term

---

NPE / troll-pattern signals

1. Shell-entity transfer — PRESENT. Reel 067830/0076 (effective 2024‑01‑15, recorded 2024‑06‑25): operating-era assignee TP Lab, Inc. → Lab Technology LLC, a New Mexico entity formed 2024‑01‑08, seven days before the effective transfer. The transferee takes an "LLC" suffix, has no products in commerce, and functions as a single-purpose litigation vehicle (RPX and Mondaq both describe Lab Technology as "of uncertain management or personnel"). Caveat: I could not confirm the registered-agent address or single-membership from primary records, so this rests on formation date, absence of products, and litigation role rather than address evidence.

2. Known asserter in the chain — PRESENT. Lab Technology LLC is indexed as a patent asserter in the Stanford NPE Litigation Database (npe.law.stanford.edu/party/lab-technology-llc, listing cases against Anritsu, Quectel, Lyft, NVIDIA, LG, Zendesk, u‑blox, Mitel), is tracked by RPX Empower, and has been targeted by Unified Patents (ex parte reexamination of its US 8,498,388, filed 2024‑11‑27, instituted 2025‑01‑15). It does not appear on the classic lists (Acacia, Marathon, IV, Wi‑LAN, etc.), but it is a plainly recognized high-frequency asserter.

3. Repeat correspondent across the chain — UNCLEAR. I could not retrieve the USPTO Assignment Center correspondent-of-record field for either 015952/0164 or 067830/0076, so I cannot confirm or deny a recurring recording attorney. What is documented is a recurring litigation representative: Rabicoff Law LLC (Isaac Rabicoff) on the Lab Technology campaign — a repeat player across this NPE family's enforcement (and across 1,000+ district-court patent cases per Lex Machina). The signal is flagged as a cross-reference, not as a confirmed assignment-correspondent recurrence.

4. Cascading transfers — NOT PRESENT (for this patent). Only two recorded links, 2004 and 2024, ~20 years apart. No chained LLCs within 24 months on this patent's own chain. (Portfolio-level context: TP Lab's broader practice does show cascade behavior — e.g., Local Intelligence, LLC 2017 → back to TP Lab 2019 → Lab Technology 2024 — but that is not this patent's record.)

5. Pre-litigation transfer — PRESENT at portfolio level; UNCLEAR patent-specific. The assignment was effective 2024‑01‑15, and Lab Technology's first suits were filed 2024‑05‑16 (Lab Technology v. Samsung, E.D. Tex. 2:24‑cv‑00324; v. Verizon, 2:24‑cv‑00323) — roughly 4 months, within the 6-month window that indicates a chain arranged to enable assertion. However, I found no source identifying US 7,391,858 itself as a patent-in-suit in any Lab Technology complaint. The asserted patents identified in coverage are US 9,219,982; 8,498,388; 8,503,973; 8,515,032; 9,578,570; and 8,483,102 — the last of which is a continuation-in-part sharing this patent's 2004‑11‑02 priority and title, asserted against Zoom and AT&T. So the family was asserted; this specific patent was not confirmed asserted, and it expired 2024‑11‑02, four months after the assignment was recorded.

6. Bankruptcy fire-sale — NOT PRESENT. No Chapter 7/11 proceeding, trustee sale, or distressed sale was found for TP Lab or for this patent. The 2024 transfer is a negotiated portfolio transfer to an asserter, not a bankruptcy disposition.

7. Privateering — NOT PRESENT. Privateering requires an operating company that ships products to use an NPE to assert on its behalf. Here the original assignee (TP Lab) is itself a non-practicing R&D/patent entity, not an operating competitor of the defendants; there is no operating-company-turned-NPE-bankroller structure documented.

8. Defensive aggregator — NOT PRESENT. The chain terminates at Lab Technology LLC, an active plaintiff — not at RPX, AST, LOT Network, Unified Patents, or OIN. If anything, the defensive community runs against this chain: Unified Patents filed an ex parte reexamination against Lab Technology's US 8,498,388.

---

Verdict

NPE — high confidence.

Two strong signals are independently documented: (a) a shell-entity transfer — Reel 067830/0076, effective 2024‑01‑15, moving the patent from TP Lab, Inc. to Lab Technology LLC, a New Mexico LLC formed just seven days earlier (2024‑01‑08) that ships no products and exists to litigate; and (b) the current assignee is a recognized, high-frequency patent asserter (Stanford NPE Database, RPX Empower, and Unified Patents reexamination activity). The timing reinforces the call: the transfer predates Lab Technology's first suits by ~4 months, and the assignment was recorded on 2024‑06‑25 — after those suits were filed — a classic standing-cure recording. Caveats: I could not verify the assignment correspondent of record for either reel, and I could not confirm that US 7,391,858 itself was ever asserted (only its CIP sibling US 8,483,102 was, and the '858 expired 2024‑11‑02).

Verify at: https://assignment.uspto.gov/patent/index.html (search "7391858") and the Assignment Center at https://assignmentcenter.uspto.gov/ — pull the correspondent field on Reel 015952/0164 and Reel 067830/0076, which is the one open verification item in this analysis.

I'll research the cited prior-art references for US 7,391,858. Let me run targeted searches.

Prior-Art Analysis for US 7,391,858 B1

Note on search scope and limitations (please read first). I was asked to search the USPTO database for the specific number 7391858 and not to return similar numbers. The authoritative record I worked from is the full-text Google Patents entry for US 7,391,858 B1 (application 10/980,046, "System and method for mapping a voice identity across multiple telephony networks with time attributes"), which itself reproduces the USPTO front-page citation data. I corroborated individual references against USPTO-sourced full text (patentimages/Google Patents PDFs) and to uspto.report, but I was not able to open a live USPTO Patent Center / Patent Public Search record in this session, and my tool session hit a step limit before I could retrieve full text for three references (US 6,385,446; US 2002/0051519; US 5,982,870). Where I lack full text I say so explicitly rather than inferring content. I did not conflate any similarly-numbered patent (e.g., I did not substitute 7,391,885, 7,398,158, etc.).

Contradiction flag (per instructions). The prior section noted that the prompt-date was 2026-04-26 while the Google Patents fetch it relied on was stamped 2026-09-29. That discrepancy persists here; I report the record as fetched and do not attempt to reconcile the clock.

---

1. The patent under analysis (confirmed record)

Because the patent issued with these claims over the 14 references on its face, the examiner necessarily concluded that no single reference disclosed every element. The analysis below therefore distinguishes (a) references that could anticipate a dependent claim or a sub-set of independent-claim elements under § 102, from (b) references that are realistically § 103 combination material. That distinction is the honest answer; a blanket "X anticipates claim 1" statement would be unsupportable.

For § 102 date purposes (pre-AIA, since this applications' priority is 2004-11-02), a reference is prior art if it published or was filed before 2004-11-02. I flag each reference's status.

---

2. The 14 cited references — citations, dates, descriptions

The list below reproduces the "Patent Citations (14)" table from the authoritative US 7,391,858 record, plus descriptions verified where possible.

Tier 1 — Most relevant to the independent-claim concepts

1. US 5,329,578 A — Brennan & Mark — Northern Telecom Limited

• Title: Personal communication service with mobility manager
• Priority/filing: 1992-05-26 — Publication: 1994-07-12
• Description (verified): A PCS service node re-routes calls placed to a subscriber's single "personal number" according to a service profile in a database, "with appropriate consideration for who is calling, when the call is made, and the urgency of the call." Discloses a Subscriber Number List of network addresses/device types (by-pass allowed, sole-use, announce, shared), a Subscriber Schedule with multiple time slots (M–F 9–17 etc.), a Schedule Override, "Hunting" through a sequence of locations, and CLID-based treatment. Multi-subscriber (service node "manages the communications services for all subscribers").
• § 102 relevance: This is the closest single reference for the "time attributes" element and the "voice identity mapping data structure … applicable to a plurality of users" element of claims 1, 3, 9, 16, 24. It also touches dependent claims 4–6 (time keeping; forwarding policies) and claims 11–12 (most recently / most frequently used destination, via Hunting and its scheduling). However, it does not plainly disclose (i) a transitive chain in which the target of one mapping is the search identity of the next mapping policy, nor (ii) a requirement that at least two of the phone systems "provide different types of phone services." So it does not, on its face, anticipate the fully-loaded independent claims; it is the primary § 103 reference. URL: https://patents.google.com/patent/[US5329578A](/patent/US5329578A)/en

2. US 6,898,274 B1 — Galt, Bartoszewicz & Sells — Nortel Networks Limited

• Title: Method and apparatus for adaptive time-based call routing in a communications system
• Filing: 1999-09-21 (app. 09/400,141) — Publication: 2005-05-24
• Description (verified): A communications system of SSPs/SCPs interconnected over SS7 with a cellular network also attached. Routes a call on a call routing schedule based on current time of day, overrides the schedule with a subscriber-selected "function" (in car / at work / at home / at gym), routes through an ordered sequence of destinations, and automatically adapts the sequence based on successful call completions. Claim 11 expressly recites "the sequence of destinations are associated with a time slot."
• § 102 relevance: Strong on the time-attribute and multiple-destination elements, and on routing across more than one network type (SSP/SCP wireline + cellular network 146). Potentially relevant to independent claims 25, 26, 27 (their distinctive limitation is "validation of the time attributes occurs during a processing of a call … validated with a current time") and to dependent claims 4–6. It does not disclose the transitive "first target = second search" structure or a multi-user mapping policy data structure, so it does not anticipate the independents as issued. URL: https://patents.google.com/patent/US6898274

3. US 6,535,596 B1 — Frey & Tripp — Lucent Technologies Inc.

• Title: Call processing system utilizing subscriber services and preferences
• Filing: 1997-09-29 (app. 08/939,353) — Publication: 2003-03-18
• Description (verified): A comprehensive subscriber profile system covering both calling and called parties, "organizable in an individual profile and/or a group profile"; a call-behavior module that processes the call per those profiles and resolves service conflicts (feature interactions). Background expressly discusses selective call forwarding (SCF) — forwarding to different locations depending on the calling number — and forwarding to "a specified succession" of destinations/messaging.
• § 102 relevance: The group profile teaches a mapping structure "applicable to a plurality of users," and the "specified succession" touches transitive/ordered forwarding — relevant to claims 1, 3, 16, 24. Filed/published well before 2004-11-02 (§ 102(b)). But it lacks explicit cross-network-type and time-attribute elements; § 103 material. URL: https://patents.google.com/patent/US6535596

Tier 2 — Loop / transitive-mapping handling (maps to dependent claims 7–8 and 10–15)

4. US 2005/0111649 A1 — Belkin, Hirsbrunner, Pierce & Dorenbosch — Motorola, Inc.

• Title: Prevention of call forwarding loops in communication networks
• Priority/filing: 2003-11-24 (app. 10/720,858) — Publication: 2005-05-26
• Description (verified): A dual-mode unit with a WLAN number (P1) and a WAN number (P2) — i.e., two different types of network/service. A call to the first number is forwarded to the second "when the communications unit is not operating in the first network"; the system detects a circular forwarding loop when a subsequently-received call's data matches the earlier/forwarded call, and then routes to the first network's voice mail instead of looping. The disclosure explicitly frames forwarding between a WLAN (e.g., 802.11) and a cellular WAN.
• § 102 relevance and status: Important nuance — although it published 2005-05-26 (after the 2004-11-02 priority date), its US filing date is 2003-11-24, i.e., before 2004-11-02. Under pre-AIA § 102(e), a US patent-application publication is prior art as of its filing date, so this is potentially § 102(e) prior art. It is the single most on-point reference for the "error checking to handle transitive mappings" limitation of dependent claim 7 and the reject / default-route / route-to-original-number options of dependent claim 8, and the "most recently / most frequently mapped" and "reject transitive calls" options of claims 11–15 — but not the independent claims, which require the affirmative transitive mapping chain plus time attributes (this reference addresses loop prevention, not policy chaining with time attributes). URL: https://patents.google.com/patent/US20050111649

5. US 2004/0062376 A1 — Woodson, Charles E.

• Title: Method and system for preventing call forward looping
• Priority/filing: 2002-09-27 — Publication: 2004-04-01
• Description: Detecting/preventing call-forward loops (the classic pathology of transitive forwarding). Both dates precede 2004-11-02 → § 102(b) prior art (published more than one year before filing).
• § 102 relevance: Directly relevant to dependent claims 7–8 (error checking for transitive mappings; reject or reroute) and to claims 10, 15 (checking for / rejecting transitive mapping policies). URL: https://patents.google.com/patent/US20040062376

6. US 2003/0059018 A1 — Mello, Eber

• Title: Method and system to preclude call loop among services on a call server
• Priority/filing: 2001-09-21 — Publication: 2003-03-27
• Description: Precluding call loops among services resident on a call server. Published 2003-03-27, more than one year before 2004-11-02 → § 102(b) prior art.
• § 102 relevance: Same dependent-claim cluster as above — claims 7, 8, 10, 15. URL: https://patents.google.com/patent/US20030059018

Tier 3 — Routing-feature interaction, multi-line redirection, call coverage (weaker § 102, general § 103 art)

7. US 5,982,870 A — Bell Atlantic Network Services, Inc.

• Title: Method for concurrently establishing switch redirection for multiple lines of the public telephone network
• Priority/filing: 1992-05-26 — Publication: 1999-11-09 (§ 102(b))
• Description (title-derived; full text not retrieved — flagged): Concurrent switch redirection across multiple lines in the PSTN. Relevant background for the "plurality of phone systems" and multiple-line redirection elements of claims 1, 3, 20, 22. I was unable to pull the specification text, so the mapping here is provisional.

8. US 5,737,403 A — AT&T Corp.

• Title: Interaction of routing features in a telephone system
• Priority/filing: 1995-09-15 — Publication: 1998-04-07 (§ 102(b))
• Description: Governs how separately-provisioned routing features interact in a switch — conceptually analogous to the patent's application of multiple mapping policies/attributes in sequence. Relevant to claims 1, 3, 7–8 (application and validation of chained policies) as § 103 art. URL: https://patents.google.com/patent/[US5737403A](/patent/US5737403A)

9. US 4,436,962 A — Bell Telephone Laboratories, Incorporated

• Title: Call coverage arrangement
• Priority/filing: 1982-03-30 — Publication: 1984-03-13 (§ 102(b))
• Description: Call-coverage — redirecting an unanswered call to a covering line. Early antecedent for "search voice identity → target voice identity" mapping (claims 1, 3, 9), but a single-hop concept without time attributes or transitivity.

10. US 5,018,194 A — Fujitsu Limited

• Title: Electronic switching system having call-forwarding function
• Priority/filing: 1988-07-13 — Publication: 1991-05-21 (§ 102(b))
• Description: Switch-based call forwarding. Basic antecedent art for the "mapping/forwarding" element of claims 1, 3, 9, 27. URL: https://patents.google.com/patent/[US5018194A](/patent/US5018194A)

11. US 3,626,109 A — Stromberg Carlson Corp

• Title: Call-forwarding process
• Priority/filing: 1969-11-26 — Publication: 1971-12-07 (§ 102(b))
• Description: The earliest call-forwarding reference in the list — foundational, single-hop forwarding with no policy/time-attribute structure. Background art only (claims 1, 3). URL: https://patents.google.com/patent/[US3626109A](/patent/US3626109A)

Tier 4 — Ancillary references (narrow § 102 relevance)

12. US 5,586,169 A — Mitel Corporation

• Title: Method of ringing a call responsive apparatus which answered an immediately preceding incoming call
• Priority/filing: 1994-09-21 — Publication: 1996-12-17 (§ 102(b))
• Description: Rings a device that answered the immediately preceding incoming call — i.e., selection of the most-recently-used destination. This maps to dependent claims 11 (map transitive policy to the most recently mapped identity) and 12 (most frequently mapped), and to the "recent-activity / follow-me" concepts discussed in US 6,898,274's background. URL: https://patents.google.com/patent/US5586169

13. US 6,385,446 B2 — Nokia Networks Oy

• Title: Call forwarding in a telecommunications network
• Priority/filing: 1998-09-29 — Publication: 2002-05-07 (§ 102(b))
• Description (from title/assignee only — full text NOT retrieved; flagged): Call forwarding in a telecommunications network, likely including mobile-network forwarding and loop handling. Given the title, it is potentially relevant to claims 1, 3, 9, 27 (forwarding-based mapping) and to the loop-handling dependents (7–8). I could not verify the specification, and I will not attribute specific disclosure to it.

14. US 2002/0051519 A1 — Moyano, Francisco Parra

• Title: Personal communication system
• Priority/filing: 1999-04-12 — Publication: 2002-05-02 (§ 102(b))
• Description (from title only — full text NOT retrieved; flagged): A personal communication system — topically aligned with single-identity reachability across devices (claims 1, 3, 9, 16, 24). Content unverified; treat as background art only.

---

3. Bottom-line § 102 assessment

1. No single cited reference anticipates any independent claim (1, 3, 9, 16, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28) as issued. The independent claims each require, in combination: (i) a plurality of phone systems of which at least two provide different types of phone services; (ii) a transitive mapping in which a first target identity becomes the search identity of a second policy leading to a third phone system, with the second target ≠ the first search identity; (iii) time attributes validating the first and second policies; and (iv) applicability to a plurality of users. No reference in the list discloses all four. This is consistent with the grant.

2. Closest single references (strongest § 102 / § 103 relevance):

• US 5,329,578 — best on time attributes + multi-user profiles + scheduled destination selection.
• US 6,898,274 — best on time-based routing to an ordered sequence of destinations across wireline + cellular networks, and the closest match to the "time attribute validated with a current time during call processing" limitation that distinguishes independent claims 25–28.
• US 6,535,596 — best on group/individual profiles and forwarding successions (multi-user mapping structure).

1. Strongest § 102 candidates for dependent claims: The loop-handling family — US 2005/0111649 A1 (Motorola; § 102(e) as of its 2003-11-24 filing), US 2004/0062376 A1 (Woodson), and US 2003/0059018 A1 (Mello) — squarely addresses claims 7–8 and 10–15 (error checking for transitive mappings; reject / default / route-to-original; most-recent / most-frequent identity). Of these, US 2005/0111649 A1 is additionally notable because it forwards between a WLAN number and a WAN number — i.e., it supplies the "different types of phone services" concept that the independent claims require, though it does so in a loop-prevention rather than policy-chaining context.

2. US 5,586,169 is the most credible § 102 reference for dependent claims 11–12 (most-recently-used/most-frequently-used destination selection).

3. Realistic posture: The examiner's allowance implies all 14 references were overcome, most plausibly as § 103 combinations (e.g., US 5,329,578 or US 6,898,274 for time-based multi-destination routing + US 2005/0111649 for cross-network-type forwarding + one of the loop references for transitive handling). None of the 14, standing alone, reads on the full independent-claim combination.

---

4. Explicit uncertainty disclosures

• US 6,385,446, US 2002/0051519, and US 5,982,870: I could not retrieve full specification text; descriptions are title/assignee-derived and mappings are provisional. Do not rely on these without a fresh USPTO full-text pull.
• Dates are given exactly as they appear on the US 7,391,858 citation face; Google Patents' table columns are "Priority date" and "Publication date," which I have relabeled "Priority/filing" and "Publication" for clarity — they are the front-page values, not independent verification of filing receipts.
• No live USPTO Patent Center record was accessed; the bibliographic data are from the authoritative Google Patents reproduction of the USPTO record plus uspto.report. If you need the certified USPTO record (e.g., for a validity opinion or IDS), pull it directly from Patent Public Search / Global Dossier.
• The prompt-date vs. fetch-date contradiction (2026-04-26 vs 2026-09-29) noted in the prior section remains unresolved and is flagged again here.

If it would help, I can next produce a claim-chart mapping each independent-claim element (a)–(d) above against US 5,329,578, US 6,898,274, and US 5,329,578+US 2005/0111649 in combination, so you can see exactly where each reference falls short.

I'll ground the analysis in the actual prior-art references listed on the patent's face. Let me verify the content of the key references before building the combinations.

Obviousness Analysis — US 7,391,858 B1 under 35 U.S.C. § 103

Grounding note. This analysis uses the prior-art references listed on the face of US 7,391,858 ("Citations (14)"), as instructed. Where I quote a reference's disclosure, I rely on the Google Patents / published documents returned by search; full texts of two references (US 6,535,596 and US 2002/0051519) were not retrieved and are flagged as lower-confidence. I also flag a date inconsistency carried over from the prior section: the task header says April 26, 2026, while the authoritative Google Patents record was fetched 2026‑09‑29. I treat the record as the ground truth and the header date as the analysis date.

---

I. Legal framework

The '858 patent has a priority/filing date of 2004‑11‑02 (pre‑AIA). All cited references either published/issued before that date or are US applications filed before it (qualifying under pre‑AIA §102(e)). Section 103 obviousness is assessed under Graham v. John Deere (scope/content; differences; PHOSITA level; secondary considerations) as refined by KSR Int'l v. Teleflex, which (a) permits combination of familiar elements according to known methods, (b) rejects a rigid "teaching, suggestion, or motivation" requirement where the combination is predictable, and (c) allows the asserted patent's own background to supply the problem and the motivation.

Threshold point: the '858 specification's "Description of Related Art" is itself an applicant admission of the problem (users carry multiple numbers across office/desk, cellular, branch office, foreign rental phone, home, VoIP) and of the desirability of presenting one number/identity that is mapped to whatever phone the user is near. That admission substantially reduces the "motivation to combine" burden for every independent claim.

---

II. Person having ordinary skill in the art (POSITA)

A POSITA as of late 2004 would have had a bachelor's degree in electrical engineering, computer science, or telecommunications, plus roughly 2–3 years of experience designing/deploying telephony call routing, PBX/switch features, or Intelligent Network (AIN/SS7) services—or equivalent experience. This is the level at which forwarding tables, subscriber profiles, time-of-day routing schedules, and AIN triggers were routine design elements.

---

III. Claim construction notes that shape the §103 analysis

1. "voice identity" is broad — the specification (col. describing voice identity) says a voice identity "is a telephone number or an extension number… a username… a voice mail number." Nothing limits it to a new data type; it is a dialable designation (optionally with a sub-number).
2. "means for storing" / "means for inputting/searching/analyzing/outputting" (claims 1, 16, 28) are presumed means‑plus‑function under 35 U.S.C. §112(f) (Williamson v. Citrix). The corresponding structures are the disclosed data storage 330/430, policy processor 320/410, and their equivalents. This makes those claims functionally broad and highly susceptible to a generic database/processor prior-art mapping (see §IV‑A, US 5,982,870 AIN database + SCP).
3. "transitively mapped" (all independent claims) means only that the target of one mapping can be the search identity of the next mapping — the specification says so expressly ("transitive chain"). No mathematical closure or fixpoint algorithm is required.
4. "at least two … provide different types of phone services" (claims 1, 3, 9, 16) — the specification's own examples are PBX/extension, PSTN/800 number, cellular, home line, VoIP. A PSTN/AIN node plus a wireless MSC (or a PBX plus a PSTN) satisfies this if the combination is otherwise met.

---

IV. What the cited art teaches (element inventory)

A. US 5,982,870 A — Pershan et al., Bell Atlantic (filed 1992‑05‑26; issued 1999‑11‑09)

The strongest single reference. It discloses an AIN database (ISCP) in which a large number of telephone numbers are concurrently prespecified, each associated with one or more alternative destination numbers, with redirection information that "designates a time schedule for call redirection to each of said alternative destinations" (see claim 2 and the abstract). A subscriber enters a "template or table of designations" to redirect "all of the subscriber's lines" via one data entry; forwarding is triggered during call setup via common‑channel signaling before line seizure. The result is exactly a stored voice‑identity mapping data structure with search→target entries for multiple numbers and time attributes, applied by a network control node during call processing.

• https://patents.google.com/patent/[US5982870A](/patent/US5982870A)
• Claim text corroboration: https://insight.rpxcorp.com/patent/US5982870A ; https://patents.justia.com/patent/[5982870](/patent/5982870)

B. US 5,329,578 A — Northern Telecom, "Personal communication service with mobility manager" (filed 1992‑05‑26; issued 1994‑07‑12)

Discloses a personal number ("PN … the single number used to access someone regardless of their physical location") that a service node re‑routes per the subscriber's stored profile. The database stores "a subscriber schedule indicative of which one of said telephone devices an incoming call should be routed to, on the time and day the incoming call is received," plus lists of addresses/devices and caller lists, and an application server the subscriber can access to edit the lists. It also discloses hunting across a sequence of devices and a "Call Completion Treatment Schedule."

• https://patents.google.com/patent/[US5329578A](/patent/US5329578A)
• https://insight.rpxcorp.com/patent/US5329578A

C. US 6,898,274 B1 — Nortel, "adaptive time‑based call routing" (filed 1999‑09‑21; issued 2005‑05‑24)

Discloses an SCP (a control point / policy processor) routing a call using a call routing schedule based on time, with a sequence of destinations, a GUI for subscribers to set/modify the schedule, and adaptation of the destination sequence based on observed call completions. This is a direct teaching of time attributes validated at call time by a network processor.

• https://patents.google.com/patent/US6898274

D. US 5,737,403 A — AT&T, "Interaction of routing features in a telephone system" (filed 1995‑09‑15; issued 1998‑04‑07)

Directly addresses the transitive/chained forwarding problem the '858 claims to solve: "Example 1 — Directory number (DN) d1 is forwarded to DN d2, and d2 is forwarded to d3. Should a call to d1 be routed to d2 or d3?" It teaches resolving feature interactions in a forwarding chain and distinguishing whether the next hop's forwarding features apply (telephone feature vs. subscriber feature), so a call can be forwarded through an intermediate number to a further target.

• https://patents.google.com/patent/[US5737403A](/patent/US5737403A)

E. Loop-prevention family — US 2004/0062376 A1 (Woodson, 2002‑09‑27; granted US 7,142,657); US 2003/0059018 A1 (Mello Eber, 2001‑09‑21); US 2005/0111649 A1 (Motorola, filed 2003‑11‑24); US 2003/0031308 A1 (LG).

Woodson discloses a switching point (MSC/SSP) signaling a control point (SCP) which determines whether a loop condition exists when processing a call to a station having a forward‑to number, and if so instructs the switch not to forward, e.g., sending "new destination digits, which may correspond to the called station's voice mail system," playing an announcement, or routing to a service node. Mello Eber is titled "to preclude call loop among services on a call server"; Motorola's is "Prevention of call forwarding loops in communication networks."

• https://patents.google.com/patent/US20040062376
• https://patents.google.com/patent/[US6385446](/patent/US6385446) (cites Woodson)

These map onto the '858's dependent error-handling claims (7–8, 10–15, 17): reject, route to default, route to original number, route to voice mail.

F. Network-type/heterogeneity references

• US 6,385,446 B2 (Nokia, 1998‑09‑29) — call forwarding in a wireless telecommunications network.
• US 5,018,194 A (Fujitsu, 1988) and US 4,436,962 A (Bell Labs, 1982) — electronic switching system with call forwarding / call coverage arrangements.
• US 3,626,109 A (Stromberg‑Carlson, 1969) — foundational call‑forwarding process.
• US 5,586,169 A (Mitel, 1994) — ringing a device that answered a preceding call (mobility/availability).
• US 6,535,596 B1 (Lucent, 1997‑09‑29) — call processing using subscriber services and preferences (profile‑driven AIN control). (Full text not retrieved — lower confidence.)
• US 2002/0051519 A1 (Moyano, 1999‑04‑12) — personal communication system. (Full text not retrieved — lower confidence.)

Taken together, the cited art spans PBX/centrex, PSTN/AIN, wireless, and (in the general knowledge of the art) VoIP, satisfying the "different types of phone services" limitation whenever two of these are chained.

---

V. Claim 1 — the primary obviousness combination

The strongest prima facie case is a three‑reference combination: US 5,982,870 (Pershan) as primary, in view of US 5,329,578 (mobility manager) and US 5,737,403 (AT&T routing‑feature interaction), optionally with US 6,898,274 for the time‑validation mechanics.

Why the combination is proper. Pershan and '578 are both directed to the same field (network‑controlled, profile‑based redirection of calls to one of several subscriber destinations) and are combinable by simple substitution/overlap of known elements. Pershan already supplies multi‑number address tables with time schedules; '578 supplies the single‑identity/subscriber‑schedule abstraction and the multi‑user service node; '403 supplies the missing express teaching that a forward target can itself be a forward source (the "transitive" limitation) and how to resolve it. There is no new interoperability problem created by the combination — the '858 itself resolves chained mappings with conventional iteration and loop checks, exactly what '403 discusses.

---

VI. Application to the other independent claims

• Claim 3 (method) — Same limitations recast as steps ("providing… storing… accessing… routing"). Obvious for the same reasons; the method steps are the routine implementation of the Pershan/'578 system.
• Claim 9 (call‑completion method) — Receive identity → check stored policy (transitive, multi‑network, time‑attribute) → complete to the second target on the third phone system. Rendered obvious by Pershan + '403 (chain resolution terminating at the final destination) + '578/'274 (time attributes). The claim's novelty over the others is essentially the "completing the call to the second target" step, which is the normal outcome of chain resolution.
• Claim 16 (policy‑processor apparatus, means‑plus‑function) — "Means for inputting/searching/analyzing/outputting" reads on any SCP/service‑node executing table lookup against a stored profile: Pershan's ISCP, '274's SCP, '578's application server, Woodson's SCP. Under §112(f) the corresponding structure is a programmed processor+database, which is generic and fully met. This is the most vulnerable independent claim.
• Claim 24 (method with forwarding‑policy generation) — Adds "policy processor may create multiple call forwarding policies … based on voice identity owned by each phone system and updates said forwarding policies to said phone systems." This is the distributed embodiment of the '858 (FIG. 4b) and is squarely taught by Pershan (redirect set‑up "for all of the subscriber's lines … by a single data entry operation," with the network controlling multiple CO/SSP nodes) and by US 6,898,274 (SCP pushes/modifies routing to switches; GUI to change routing) and US 6,385,446 (network‑side forwarding). Obvious.
• Claim 25 (system, runtime time validation) — The added limitation is that time‑attribute validation "occurs during processing of a call," with each policy applied only if its time attribute validates against current time. US 6,898,274 expressly routes "using a call routing schedule based on time" at call time, and US 5,982,870/5,329,578 validate the applicable schedule on receipt of the call. Obvious.
• Claim 26 (method, runtime time validation) — Method counterpart of 25; obvious on the same basis.
• Claim 27 (forwarding method, runtime validation) — Obvious: Pershan redirects at call set‑up based on the applicable schedule; '578 routes per subscriber schedule "on the time and day the incoming call is received."
• Claim 28 (policy processor, runtime validation) — Means‑plus‑function counterpart of 16/25; obvious.

Net: every independent claim's distinguishing features are (a) the transitive chain across heterogeneous networks and (b) time attributes validated at call time — and both are taught, respectively, by US 5,737,403 and US 6,898,274 / US 5,982,870 / US 5,329,578.

---

VII. Dependent claims

• Claims 2, 20, 22 (PBX/PSTN/VOIP/wireless) — Each listed network type is separately disclosed: PSTN/AIN (Pershan; Woodson), wireless (US 6,385,446; Woodson's MSC), PBX/centrex (US 4,436,962; US 5,018,194), and VoIP was notoriously well known by 2004 (and is in the '858 background). Mere enumeration of known network types does not confer patentability.
• Claims 4, 5, 6 (time‑keeping component; multiple forwarding policies per phone system; update on expiry) — US 5,982,870 (per‑line time schedules; concurrent set‑up across a network), US 6,898,274 (subscriber‑modified schedules; SCP controls switches), and US 5,329,578 (scheduled location changes / schedule override) render these obvious. A "clock + timer to reprogram forwarding at schedule boundaries" is routine automation of Pershan's schedules.
• Claims 7, 8, 10–15, 17 (transitive‑mapping error handling; reject / default / original number / most‑recent / most‑frequent / most‑forwarded) — These are the strongest example of predictable combining: the loop‑prevention references were specifically cited by the examiner (US 2003/0059018; US 2004/0062376; US 2005/0111649). Woodson teaches exactly the claimed treatments — do not forward (reject), send to voice mail (default), or play announcement — when a forwarding loop is detected at the control point. Selecting the "most recently/most frequently used" mapping is a routine tie‑break/selection heuristic, and the '858 itself offers "first matching," "most frequently applied," and "most recently applied" as interchangeable alternatives, which is itself evidence these are design choices, not invention.
• Claims 18, 19, 21, 23 (processor as software on an application server, stand‑alone computer, or ASIC) — Pure implementation choice; the '858 lists them as alternatives, and '578 expressly recites an "application server." Obvious as a matter of law under KSR (a known structure performing a known function).

---

VIII. Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of success

1. Same field, same problem, same solution space. Pershan, '578, '274, '403, and Woodson all address network‑controlled redirection of a call to a subscriber across multiple destinations. Combining a personal‑number schedule ('578) with a multi‑number AIN address table ('5982870) is not a leap; it is the union of two known address tables.
2. The '858's own background supplies the motivation. The specification admits the "need for a system that transparently allows a caller to efficiently reach a user" across office/cellular/branch/foreign/home phones. KSR instructs that the problem in the field can supply the motivation; here the applicant supplied it.
3. The time element was known and expressly integrated. Pershan claim 2 and '274 are time‑scheduled routing references; '578 validates the schedule at call time. Attaching a schedule to a forwarding table was conventional.
4. The chain/loop problem was known and had known solutions. '403 poses the d1→d2→d3 question; Woodson and Mello Eber solve the loop. A POSITA building a multi‑number forwarder would foreseeably need loop handling and would have consulted these references — the KSR "predictable variation" case.
5. Interoperability across network types. AIN/SS7 interworking with wireless (Woodson's MSC‑to‑SCP) and PBX/centrex was standard, so chaining a mapping across a PSTN node, a wireless node, and a PBX node carried a reasonable expectation of success.

---

IX. Where the prima facie case is weakest (patentee's likely rebuttal)

To be fair and rigorous, these are the genuine counterpoints — I do not think any of them defeats the strongest combination, but they are where the argument is closest:

1. "Different types of phone services" as an express limitation. The '858 is the only reference that requires the three‑node chain to cross heterogeneous service types (claims 1, 3, 9, 16). Pershan is largely wireline‑centric; the heteroginity must be imported from US 6,385,446/Woodson. A patentee will argue no single reference (and no cited reference) expressly contemplates re‑mapping across PBX→PSTN→wireless boundaries; the combination must be shown to be more than aggregating known forwarding features. Counter: '403's chain resolution plus the wireless/PBX references, motivated by the admitted problem, supplies this, and the combination is at most a predictable arrangement of known elements.
2. No explicit "transitive across policies" language in Pershan. Pershan's time schedules attach to a single-level redirection; the two‑policy chain (first map, then a second independently time‑validated map) is contributed by '403/'274. A patentee may argue the examiner allowed the case because none of the cited art discloses a second mapping policy whose search identity is the first policy's target, each with its own time attribute. This is the '858's most defensible feature; the response is that '403's d1→d2→d3 example is precisely a second forwarding entry keyed on the first target, and '578/'274 supply independent time validation for each scheduled change.
3. Means‑plus‑function indefiniteness overlap. Claims 1/16/28's "means for" recitations ("means for storing," "means for analyzing," "means for outputting") are arguably indefinite under Williamson if no algorithm/structure is clearly linked; if so, some claims may be vulnerable under §112 rather than §103. Either way the functional breadth cuts against validity.
4. Secondary considerations. I have no evidence of objective indicia (long‑felt need, commercial success with nexus, failure of others, licensing). The CIP family (US 8,483,102; US 8,111,822; US 9,413,895) shows the applicant kept prosecuting this subject matter, but that is not itself an indicium of non‑obviousness. If a patentee could show a nexus between the "cross‑network transitive identity" feature and commercial adoption, it would weigh against obviousness — but I cannot verify any such evidence.

---

X. Conclusion

There is a strong, articulable prima facie §103 case that:

• Primary combination (claims 1, 3, 9, 16, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28): US 5,982,870 (Pershan) in view of US 5,329,578 (Northern Telecom mobility manager) and US 5,737,403 (AT&T routing‑feature interaction), further in view of US 6,898,274 (Nortel adaptive time‑based routing).
• Dependent error‑handling claims (7, 8, 10–15, 17): add US 2004/0062376 (Woodson) and/or US 2003/0059018 (Mello Eber) and/or US 2005/0111649 (Motorola).
• Network‑type/implementation‑choice claims (2, 18–23): add US 6,385,446 (Nokia/wireless), US 4,436,962 / US 5,018,194 (PBX/centrex), and the admitted knowledge of VoIP.

The single most vulnerable independent claims are 16 and 28 (means‑plus‑function processor claims) and 25–27 (runtime time validation), because US 6,898,274, US 5,982,870, and US 5,329,578 each disclose time‑based routing validated at call time. The single most defensible feature across the set is the express, cross‑network, two‑policy transitive chain, and even that is met by US 5,737,403's d1→d2→d3 teaching combined with the wireless/PBX references.

Confidence / uncertainty flags

• High confidence in the disclosures of US 5,982,870, US 5,329,578, US 6,898,274, US 5,737,403, and US 2004/0062376 (full text verified).
• Lower confidence on US 6,535,596 B1 and US 2002/0051519 A1 (full texts not retrieved); I have not relied on them as essential to any combination.
• All prior-art citations in this analysis are taken from the "Citations (14)" list on the face of the '858 record, except where I note a family/related reference. Notably, US 2004/0062376, US 2003/0059018, and US 2005/0111649 are on that list, which strengthens the obviousness case because the examiner was already aware of the loop‑handling art for the transitive‑mapping claims.
• I did not find, and do not assert, any CAFC 2026 activity on the '858; the patent's Google Patents status is "Expired – Lifetime" (anticipated expiration 2024‑11‑02), so any present‑day §103 dispute would be collateral (e.g., past damages) rather than prospective.