US 7653414

US Patent 7,653,414 — Summary

Bibliographic data (verified against Google Patents, USPTO/PTAB records via Docket Alarm, and Unified Patents portal)

Abstract

An authentication, authorization, and accounting (AAA) module of a first distributed mobile architecture (DMA) system includes a destination preference register (DPR). The DPR stores a preferred call path for calls routed outside the DMA network, selectable from a voice-over-IP (VoIP) call path, a mobile switching center (MSC) call path, or an ISDN call path. Calls placed outside the DMA network from the first DMA system — or from a mobile subscriber in communication with that DMA system — are established via the preferred call path.

What the patent is about (plain language)

The patent describes a low-cost, decentralized cellular architecture — a "distributed mobile architecture" (DMA). Instead of a centralized, expensive MSC/BSC/HLR-VLR core (which the patent says can cost >$2M and need ~10,000 subscribers), each DMA is a self-contained, software-based node physically co-located with base transceiver stations (BTSs). DMAs interconnect peer-to-peer over IP, share subscriber data via Home Location Registers (HLR), Community Location Registers (CLR) (each DMA mirrors portions of other DMAs' HLR data), and Visitor Location Registers (VLR) for roamers. Each DMA also holds a Destination Preference Register (DPR) used to pick how calls destined outside the DMA network are egressed (VoIP, MSC, or ISDN), with a configurable preference hierarchy and prefix-based MDN matching.

Independent claims — plain-language overview (with a caveat)

Caveat on claim text: The full, verbatim claims text was not included in the supplied patent text, and I was unable to retrieve the USPTO/Google Patents claims section within the tool-call limit. The overview below is reconstructed from (1) the specification's own summary paragraphs (which in this patent track the independent claim families) and (2) descriptions of the claims in the PTAB proceeding IPR2023-00529 (e.g., Patent Owner's Sur-Reply states claims 1 and 8 both involve "a call from a first mobile subscriber to a second mobile subscriber," and claim 11 involves "a call from a mobile subscriber to a destination device"). Treat exact wording as unverified.

• Claim 1 (apparatus/AAA-module family, claims 1–7): An AAA module for a first DMA system that includes a DPR. The DPR stores a preferred call path for calls routed outside the DMA network (VoIP, MSC, or ISDN), so that outbound calls from the DMA system — or from a mobile subscriber served by it — go out over the preferred path. Dependent claims add: first/second/third preferred call paths used on a first-available basis; an HLR whose data feeds a "first CLR" at a second DMA system; second and third CLRs holding data of subscribers registered at second/third DMA systems; and a VLR for temporarily-registered roaming subscribers.

• Claim 8 (method family): A method of handling a call from a first mobile subscriber to a second mobile subscriber where the parties are registered/located through the DMA system's register architecture (HLR/CLR/VLR, community registers at peer DMAs, location-update/acknowledgement messaging, and IP-address assignment to connect the call locally within/among DMAs) — the method described in the specification at FIGS. 7–9. (The exact scope of claim 8 — whether it covers the single-DMA call of FIG. 7, the two-DMA call of FIG. 8, or the roaming call of FIG. 9 — could not be verified without the claims text.)

• Claim 11 (method family, per IPR papers): A communication method in which a DMA receives a call directed to a destination Mobile Directory Number (MDN) that is not found in a CLR within the DMA network, and matches a prefix of the called MDN against MDN prefixes in a DPR to select a preferred outbound call path. This is the claim family the PTAB's institution decision found most clearly challenged (it identified a reasonable likelihood claim 11 was unpatentable).

• Claim 21 (device family): A DMA device having a housing, a processor, and a computer-readable storage medium within the housing in which software-based MSC, BSC, and (per the IPR papers) call-detail-record (CDR) functionality — together with an AAA module containing a DPR with at least one preferred call path for calls placed outside the DMA network — is embedded. The IPR papers confirm claim 21's contested feature was software-based core-network functionality stored on a computer-readable medium inside the DMA housing (as opposed to hardware-based "network-in-a-box" prior art).

There are at least 21 claims. Claims 1–8, 11–16, and 21 were the claims challenged in the IPR; dependent claims 9–10 and 17–20 existed but were not challenged (they were not described in detail in the materials retrieved).

Litigation / docket status (as of the search date)

• District court: The '414 patent was asserted in Lemko Corporation v. Microsoft Corporation et al., No. 3:22-cv-00363 (N.D. Tex.).
• PTAB IPR: Microsoft Corporation and Affirmed Networks, Inc. v. Lemko Corp., IPR2023-00529, filed Feb. 15, 2023; institution granted Sept. 26, 2023 as to claims 1–8, 11–16, and 21; oral hearing July 11, 2024 (jointly with IPR2023-00531 on related patent 7,855,988); status per Unified Patents/greyb: Final Written Decision, termination date August 30, 2024. I did not retrieve the text of the Final Written Decision and therefore cannot state the unpatentability outcome with confidence.
• CAFC 2026 docket — important distinction: My CAFC search surfaced case 2024-2336, Lemko Corp. v. Microsoft Corp., with oral-argument audio posted April 8, 2026 and a nonprecedential Rule 36 judgment entered April 10, 2026 (AFFIRMED, per curiam: Hughes and Stoll, Circuit Judges, and Seeborg, Chief District Judge). However, that appeal is from IPR2023-00531 and concerns the related U.S. Patent 7,855,988 — not the '414 patent (the CAFC judgment expressly says "Appeal from … PTAB in No. IPR2023-00531"). I did not locate a distinct CAFC 2026 docket entry specific to the '414 patent / IPR2023-00529, and I cannot confirm whether Lemko separately appealed the '414 Final Written Decision. If a separate appeal exists, its docket number and disposition were not returned by my searches — that is a gap in the current search results rather than an affirmative finding that no appeal exists.

Points of residual uncertainty

1. Verbatim independent-claim language (especially claims 8 and 16, whose exact scope I inferred rather than verified).
2. The outcome (merits) of the IPR2023-00529 Final Written Decision.
3. Whether any CAFC appeal specific to the '414 patent (distinct from the '988-patent appeal in 2024-2336) is pending or decided in 2026.

Based on my searches of the Unified Patents portal, CourtListener, Docket Alarm, Justia, and Lemko's own press materials, the known litigation involving US Patent 7,653,3414 (the "'414 patent") is as follows.

1. District Court Litigation

Lemko Corporation v. Microsoft Corporation and Affirmed Networks, Inc.

• Plaintiff: Lemko Corporation
• Defendants: Microsoft Corporation; Affirmed Networks, Inc.
• Jurisdiction/Court: U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas, Dallas Division
• Case No.: 3:22-cv-00363-L-BT (also cited as 3:22-cv-363-L-BT)
• Filing date: February 14, 2022 (complaint docketed 02/14/2022; Unified Patents lists the filing date as 2022-02-13)
• Patents asserted: The '414 patent was asserted among a group of Lemko patents (the complaint and amended complaint referenced the '763, '414, '988, '409, '111, '980, '478, and '931 patents). Lemko described the '414 patent in the pleading as "a DMA system that includes an authentication, authorization, and accounting ('AAA') module with a destination preference register, which includes a preferred path for communications to be routed outside of a DMA network accessible to the DMA system."
• Status/Outcome: Unified Patents' litigation database lists this case as "Closed." Procedural history:
  • Lemko's April 15, 2025 press release states the court denied Microsoft's motion to dismiss Lemko's direct and indirect patent infringement claims.
  • The Magistrate Judge's Report (Doc. 90, filed April 10, 2025) recommended granting in part and denying in part Defendants' motion to dismiss the Second Amended Complaint under Rule 12(b)(6).
  • By Order dated June 4, 2025 (Doc. 94), the District Court adopted the Report: the motion was granted as to Lemko's contributory patent infringement claims (dismissed with prejudice) and otherwise denied, with no further amendment permitted.
• Sources: https://portal.unifiedpatents.com/litigation/Texas%20Northern%20District%20Court/case/3:22-cv-00363 ; https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/63000037/authorities/lemko-corporation-v-microsoft-corporation/ ; https://cases.justia.com/federal/district-courts/texas/txndce/3:2022cv00363/[359096](/patent/359096)/94/0.pdf ; https://www.lemkocorp.com/update-lemko-corporation-patent-litigation-against-microsoft-and-affirmed-networks/

2. PTAB / Inter Partes Review

Microsoft Corporation and Affirmed Networks, Inc. v. Lemko Corporation — IPR2023-00529

• Petitioners: Microsoft Corporation; Affirmed Networks, Inc.
• Patent Owner: Lemko Corporation
• Patent: US 7,653,414 B2 (the '414 patent) — claims 1–8, 11–16, and 21 challenged
• Filing date of petition: February 15, 2023
• Institution decision: September 26, 2023 — IPR instituted on all challenged claims (the Board found a reasonable likelihood that claim 11 was unpatentable)
• Termination / Final Written Decision: August 30, 2024
• Status: Final Written Decision entered (per Unified Patents and IPVerse). The prior art combination relied on by Petitioners was Mauer + Waylett. I was not able, within the search results available, to confirm the specific disposition of each challenged claim in the Final Written Decision, so I cannot state with confidence whether all challenged claims or only some were held unpatentable. No CAFC appeal of this IPR appeared in my search results.
• Sources: https://portal.unifiedpatents.com/ptab/case/IPR2023-00529 ; https://ipverse.greyb.com/ptab-web/cases/case-details/IPR2023-00529 ; https://www.docketalarm.com/cases/PTAB/IPR2023-00529/Microsoft_Corporation_v._Lemko_Corp/ (institution decision of 09/26/2023, oral hearing transcript of 07/11/2024)

Related but distinct proceeding (not directed to the '414 patent)

The parallel IPR IPR2023-00531 (Microsoft/Affirmed Networks v. Lemko) concerns a different patent — US 7,855,988 — not US 7,653,414, although it arose from the same district-court litigation and was argued jointly with IPR2023-00529.

Caveats

• The Lemko press release refers to the district court case as "3:33-cv-00363-L-BT," which appears to be a typographical error; court records and docket sources uniformly identify the case as 3:22-cv-00363-L-BT.
• I found no other district-court cases or IPRs naming US 7,653,414 beyond the district case and IPR above, and no CAFC appeal was identified in my searches. If an appeal of the IPR Final Written Decision or of the district court case has been filed, it did not surface in the available search results.

I'll research the PTAB record for US 7,653,414 before drafting.

Key finding: the FWD found no challenged claims unpatentable. Let me verify the appeal posture and panel details.

Let me check for any additional proceedings and confirm whether the FWD was appealed.

Data-integrity flag before the analysis. The structured "PTAB proceedings on file" block states the USPTO Open Data Portal returns no AIA trial proceedings for US 7,653,414. That is contradicted by the public record: IPR2023-00529 was filed on this exact patent, instituted, tried, and decided by Final Written Decision. I treat the ODP block as an ingest gap (likely because the proceeding terminated in 2024 and/or the API index the block was built from did not map the patent number) and go with the verified public record. I did not locate any second proceeding beyond IPR2023-00529; treat "one proceeding" as the verified count, with the residual risk that a later-filed petition is not indexed.

---

Proceedings overview

Total AIA trial proceedings on US 7,653,414: 1 — breakdown: 0 active, 0 claims invalidated, 1 claims sustained (final written decision holding no challenged claim unpatentable), 0 settled, 0 institution denied. Bottom line for a defendant: this patent is hardened, not broken. Microsoft and Affirmed Networks threw Mauer + Waylett at claims 1–8, 11–16, and 21, won institution, lost on the merits, and did not appeal — the Board's 2024-08-30 Final Written Decision is now final, non-appealable, and preclusive as to that petitioner. There is no canceled claim to hide behind; an IPR-based defense would have to start from new art and a new petitioner.

---

IPR2023-00529 — Microsoft Corporation and Affirmed Networks, Inc. v. Lemko Corporation

• Type: Inter Partes Review (35 U.S.C. § 311 et seq.)
• Filed: 2023-02-15
• Status: Final Written Decision (structured-source status string via Unified Patents). Plain English: tried to completion; Patent Owner won outright; no appeal by Petitioner; the one-year § 316(a)(11) clock ran out and the decision became final. Termination date 2024-08-30.
• Judge panel: Institution panel — Hubert C. Lorin, Neil T. Powell (opinion author), Frances L. Ippolito. Merits panel — Frances L. Ippolito, Brian D. Range (opinion author), Scott Raevsky. Single consolidated oral hearing with IPR2023-00531 on 2024-07-11.
• Petition grounds: Claims 1–8, 11–16, and 21 challenged under § 103 (obviousness) only — no § 102 or § 112 grounds were carried on this patent. Art: Mauer, U.S. Patent No. 7,395,085 (Ex. 1005) and Waylett, U.S. Patent No. 8,184,603 (Ex. 1006). Ground 1 was the Mauer + Waylett combination against the full set; Ground 2 was directed specifically at claim 21's limitation requiring software-based MSC/BSC/CDR functionality embedded on a computer-readable storage medium within the device housing (Waylett being a hardware "network-in-a-box" appliance). The § 103 theory mapped Mauer's stored "alternative communication option"/voicemail redirect onto the claimed destination preference register (DPR).
• Institution decision: Instituted 2023-09-26 on all challenged claims — but on a narrow footing. The Board expressly found a reasonable likelihood as to claim 11 only: "we determine that Petitioner has demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of establishing that claim 11 is unpatentable." Claims 1–10 and 12–21 were swept in under SAS without an independent merits finding. That granularity matters: the Board's confidence was concentrated on the MDN-prefix/DPR method claim, and it evaporated by final decision.
• Final Written Decision: Issued 2024-08-30 — Determining No Challenged Claims Unpatentable (35 U.S.C. § 318(a); 37 C.F.R. § 42.73). Verdict at claim level: claims 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, and 8 — NOT unpatentable. Claims 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, and 16 — NOT unpatentable. Claim 21 — NOT unpatentable. Zero independent claims canceled; zero dependent claims canceled; no claim held patentable-in-part and no claim held unpatentable. Direct quote from the disposition: "we determine Petitioner has not demonstrated by a preponderance of the evidence that claims claims 1-8, 11-16, and 21 of the '414 patent are unpatentable." The Board credited Patent Owner's core distinctions that had been teed up in the PO Response and Sur-Reply: (i) Mauer's voicemail server sits inside the accused DMA network, not outside it, so the DPR trigger never fires; (ii) Mauer's "alternative communication option" is not triggered by a call directed to a destination outside the DMA network; (iii) Mauer does not disclose routing-preference information stored at a DPR at a DMA system; (iv) the combination does not produce a DMA network of DMA systems with peer-to-peer-connected, call-routing-capable DMA systems; (v) the CLR limitation was unmet; and (vi) for claim 21, hardware-based network-in-a-box art does not satisfy the computer-readable-medium/embedded-software limitation. Secondary considerations (Lemko's Node1 practice, long-felt need) were briefed but, given the outright win, the Board did not need to rest on them.
• Settlement / termination: None. The proceeding was decided on the merits, not terminated by settlement or adverse judgment. Post-institution sealing activity (Patent Owner's motion granted 2024-06-21, Paper 35; Petitioner's motion granted in part 2024-06-25, Paper 36) concerned confidential exhibits (Ex. 2037–2038) and financial/technical discovery — not case-dispositive, and not a settlement.
• Appeal: No Federal Circuit appeal of IPR2023-00529 was located. Because Lemko prevailed, the only party with appellate standing would have been Microsoft/Affirmed; no notice of appeal, docket number, or CAFC disposition referring to IPR2023-00529 surfaced. The decision therefore became final and non-appealable. Do not confuse this with CAFC No. 2024-2336, Lemko Corp. v. Microsoft Corp., whose Rule 36 judgment (2026-04-10; per curiam Hughes, Stoll, and Chief District Judge Seeborg) expressly states it is "[a]ppeal from … PTAB in No. IPR2023-00531" — i.e., U.S. Patent 7,855,988, not the '414 patent. The April 2026 Law360 headline reading "Microsoft Keeps PTAB Win Against Communications Patent" describes the '988 patent; it is not a loss on the '414 patent. (FWD PDF; CAFC 24-2336 Rule 36)
• Defensive value: Low for an IPR-based defense, high for the patent owner. The obvious defense — Mauer + Waylett — has been litigated to final judgment and rejected across every challenged claim, including the claim (11) the Board initially thought vulnerable. Because the FWD is final and unappealed, a defendant cannot cheaply re-run this ground; and any defendant in privity with Microsoft or Affirmed is affirmatively estopped under § 315(e)(2) from raising it. If your demand letter cites claims 1–8, 11–16, or 21, the patent owner can point to a clean PTAB win on all of them.

---

Strategic summary

Claim status on US 7,653,414. Nothing is canceled. The complete claimed set — claims 1–21 — is intact and enforceable on the current record: claims 1–8, 11–16, and 21 are sustained (challenged and confirmed by final written decision), and claims 9–10 and 17–20 are untested (they were not challenged, so the FWD says nothing about them — do not attribute any Board holding to them). There was no claim-amendment outcome, no adverse judgment, and no disclaimer of record that I found; a defendant should verify current claim text in USPTO Patent Center anyway, because Lemko's maintenance-fee and entity-status record (a 2021 small-entity-to-large-entity correction and fee-deficiency petition) shows active prosecution-administration activity on this file.

Estoppel landscape. Section 315(e)(2) estoppel now attaches to Microsoft Corporation and Affirmed Networks, Inc. (and their privies/real parties in interest, which on this record were the two named petitioners). Those parties are barred, in the N.D. Tex. case and in the ITC, from asserting any ground they raised or reasonably could have raised in IPR2023-00529 — i.e., the entire Mauer + Waylett § 103 theory, and any § 102/§ 112 theory they could have raised against claims 1–8, 11–16, and 21. By contrast, a fresh, non-privy defendant is not estopped: a new petitioner could file its own IPR on new art, but must contend with (a) the FWD's persuasive claim constructions on "outside of the DMA network," the DPR-storage requirement, and the computer-readable-medium limitation (all of which the Board has now construed once and against a well-resourced petitioner), (b) § 325(d) discretion to reject art substantially similar to Mauer/Waylett, and (c) Fintiv/§ 314(a) discretion given the parallel N.D. Tex. litigation. Practically, the realistic remaining IPR runway is short and expensive.

Pattern signals. (1) Same-petitioner concentration: Microsoft filed multiple IPRs against Lemko-family patents — IPR2023-00529 and -00531 on two patents, plus IPR2023-00530 (Microsoft v. Lemko), which was denied institution on 2023-09-25 — and later, with AT&T Services, Inc., filed IPR2025-01142 against Lemko's U.S. 8,310,990, where Lemko sought discretionary denial. This is a coordinated, multi-patent campaign, not a one-off. (2) Patent owner behavior: Lemko litigates hard, does not settle on the merits, defends at the PTAB through sur-reply and consolidated hearing, and appeals unfavorable FWDs (its appeal of the '988-patent FWD went to the Federal Circuit and lost on a Rule 36 affirmance on 2026-04-10). Expect Lemko to defend the '414 patent with the same intensity. (3) Defensive aggregator in the chain: none in title — no Unified Patents/RPX/AST assignment appears; Unified is a data source here, not a party. But note the ownership overlay from the assignment record: a 2025-03-25 patent security agreement runs to Piccadilly Patent Funding LLC as security holder, so a defendant should assume the patent is collateral for litigation financing — the economic risk profile of a drawn-out defense is asymmetric, and Lemko filed a second infringement suit against Microsoft in June 2026.

---

Recommended next steps

1. If you are a defendant and the patent owner cites the DPR/AAA-module claims (1–7), the outbound-routing method claim (11) or its dependents (12–16), or the device claim (21): the obviousness defense has already failed. Cite the final, unappealed disposition — "Petitioner has not demonstrated by a preponderance of the evidence that claims 1-8, 11-16, and 21 of the '414 patent are unpatentable," FWD at 1 (P.T.A.B. 2024-08-30) — and do not re-assert Mauer (U.S. 7,395,085) + Waylett (U.S. 8,184,603). If you are in privity with Microsoft or Affirmed Networks, that ground is not merely weak, it is § 315(e)(2)-barred. FWD PDF
2. Claims 9–10 and 17–20 are untested. They were never challenged in IPR2023-00529, so there is no Board ruling on them one way or the other. Any invalidity theory must be built from scratch for those claims and must account for their incorporation of the sustained independent-claim limitations.
3. No trial-stage milestones are pending. IPR2023-00529 terminated 2024-08-30; the § 316(a)(11) one-year clock has expired, the FWD is final, and no live PTAB proceeding on this patent exists. There is nothing to wait on at the Board — the remaining fight is in the district court (Lemko Corp. v. Microsoft Corp. et al., No. 3:22-cv-00363, N.D. Tex., now joined by a second Lemko-vs-Microsoft action filed in June 2026).
4. Before filing any new petition on the '414 patent, budget for discretionary denial. Expect the Board to weigh § 325(d) (same or substantially similar art to Mauer/Waylett, already considered) and § 314(a)/Fintiv (co-pending N.D. Tex. litigation, Lemko's demonstrated willingness to try the case). A new petitioner should lead with art that is structurally different from a hardware network-in-a-box and materially better on the "outside the DMA network" construction that defeated Petitioners — and should expect Lemko to press the same § 325(d) argument it used successfully in IPR2025-01142.
5. Verify provenance before relying on this file. Two items I could not fully close: (a) the ODP-indexed proceeding list is inconsistent with the public record, so confirm via PTAB E2E that no post-2024 petition on the '414 patent exists; and (b) confirm current claim text and any certificate-of-correction activity in USPTO Patent Center for App. No. 11/362,395, since the FWD quotes claim language (e.g., the DPR and "computer readable storage medium within the housing" limitations) that I did not independently re-verify against the printed claims.

Inventors

• ShaoWei Pan (sole inventor). Pan was a principal of Lemko Corporation at the time of filing and was still signing Lemko corporate filings as Chief Technology Officer as late as 2021 (PTAB IPR2023-00529, Ex. 1002 file history; Lemko 3.73(c)/power-of-attorney statement signed "Shaowei Pan, Chief Technology Officer, LEMKO CORPORATION"). The filing-day assignment (2006-02-24) names only Pan as assignor. No "all inventors departed within 12 months" pattern exists — there is a single inventor who remained with the assignee for the life of the patent.

Original assignee

• Lemko Corporation (recorded as "LEMKO, CORPORATION" on the 2006 filing-day assignment). Lemko is a vendor of distributed mobile architecture ("DMA" / "Node1") telecommunications equipment; per Lemko's own complaint excerpts in its AT&T litigation (RPX Insight litigation-document archive), Lemko demonstrated "patent-practicing Node1 products" to AT&T in 2013, supporting that it shipped/embodied products covered by this patent family. Lemko is still operating and, as of 2022–2025, was actively asserting this patent and its family in N.D. Tex. litigation (Lemko Corp. v. [Microsoft Corp.](/litigations/by-plaintiff/Microsoft%20Corp.) et al., 3:22-cv-00363).

Assignment timeline

I searched for the USPTO Assignment Center reel/frame and correspondent data but was unable to retrieve the reel/frame numbers or the recorded correspondents within my search limits (USPTO Assignment Center is not directly crawlable here, and web-indexed copies of the assignment records for this patent did not surface). The entries below are therefore taken from the Google Patents legal-events feed for US 7653414 (reproduced in the supplied patent text), which mirrors USPTO Assignment Center records. Reel/frame numbers and correspondent names are UNVERIFIED for every entry below — treat them as gaps, not as affirmative negatives.

• 2006-02-24 executed / recorded 2006-02-24 (same day as filing) — Reel/frame not retrieved

  • Conveyance: Assignment of Assignor's Interest ("ASSIGNMENT OF ASSIGNORS INTEREST (SEE DOCUMENT FOR DETAILS)")
  • Assignor: ShaoWei Pan
  • Assignee: Lemko, Corporation
  • Correspondent: not retrieved
  • Context: Standard inventor-to-company assignment at filing of App. 11/362,395.

• 2006-08-08 — Reel/frame not retrieved

  • Conveyance: Change of Assignee's Address
  • Assignor: Lemko Corporation
  • Assignee: Lemko Corporation
  • Correspondent: not retrieved
  • Context: Administrative address correction only; no change in title.

• 2006-08-16 — Reel/frame not retrieved

  • Conveyance: Change of Assignee's Address
  • Assignor: Lemko Corporation
  • Assignee: Lemko Corporation
  • Correspondent: not retrieved
  • Context: Second administrative address correction; no change in title.

• 2012-02-21 — Reel/frame not retrieved

  • Conveyance: Covenant Not to Sue (recorded in favor of Motorola Solutions, Inc.)
  • Assignor: Lemko Corporation
  • Assignee/grantee: Motorola Solutions, Inc.
  • Correspondent: not retrieved
  • Context: Not a transfer of title. Lemko granted Motorola Solutions a covenant not to sue — consistent with a commercial settlement/relationship, not a sale of the patent.

• 2015-05-13 — Reel/frame not retrieved

  • Conveyance: Assignment of Assignor's Interest (same USPTO description string as the 2006 entry: "ASSIGNMENT OF ASSIGNORS INTEREST (SEE DOCUMENT FOR DETAILS)")
  • Assignor: ShaoWei Pan
  • Assignee: Lemko Corporation
  • Correspondent: not retrieved
  • Context: Confirmatory/re-executed assignment from the inventor to Lemko, recorded ~9 years after filing — typical of a chain-of-title cure executed in advance of (or in support of) litigation standing (Lemko's first major wave of assertions followed).

• 2025-03-25 — Reel/frame not retrieved

  • Conveyance: Patent Security Agreement
  • Assignor: Lemko Corporation
  • Assignee/security holder: Piccadilly Patent Funding LLC, as Security Holder
  • Correspondent: not retrieved
  • Context: Not a transfer of title. Lemko pledged the patent as collateral under a secured loan/funding arrangement. Piccadilly Patent Funding LLC is a known patent-secured lender that appears as security holder on many recorded patent security agreements; this is monetization financing, not an assignment of the patent.

Bottom line on the recorded chain: There are no recorded assignments transferring title away from Lemko Corporation. The only third-party recordings are a 2012 covenant not to sue (Motorola Solutions) and a 2025 security agreement (Piccadilly Patent Funding LLC) — both non-title events. Legal title has remained with Lemko Corporation continuously since the 2006 inventor assignment. (One note of caution: a "security agreement" recorded by a lender like Piccadilly typically includes a collateral assignment of title that vests upon default — the 2025 recording is a signal to re-check the Assignment Center before relying on Lemko's title, but on the current record Lemko remains owner.)

Timeline diagram

timeline
    title Ownership of US 7653414
    2006 : Filed by Lemko Corp
         : Pan assigns to Lemko Corp
         : Lemko address changes recorded
    2010 : Patent issued
    2012 : Lemko grants covenant to Motorola Solutions
    2015 : Pan confirmatory assignment to Lemko
    2022 : First infringement suit filed vs Microsoft
    2024 : PTAB final written decision in IPR2023-00529
    2025 : Lemko pledges patent to Piccadilly Patent Funding

NPE / troll-pattern signals

1. Shell-entity transfer — not present. Title has never moved to a licensing-only LLC. The two non-Lemko recordings are a covenant not to sue (2012, Motorola Solutions) and a security agreement (2025, Piccadilly Patent Funding LLC). A security holder is not a shell-entity assignee; no "IP Holdings/Ventures" LLC holds title.

2. Known asserter in the chain — not present. The current assignee of record, Lemko Corporation, is an operating company (DMA/Node1 product vendor), not an entity on the Acacia/Marathon/IV/IPNav/Vringo/Pendrell/Spangenberg-type NPE lists. Piccadilly Patent Funding LLC is a patent-secured lender (funding, not asserting). No entity matching Unified Patents/RPX high-frequency-plaintiff directories holds title.

3. Repeat correspondent across the chain — unclear. I could not retrieve the recorded assignment correspondents from the USPTO Assignment Center within my search limits. Relatedly, Lemko's USPTO prosecution representative since ~2021 is Joseph T. Cygan (Cygan Law Offices, P.C., Customer No. 171308 — per the IPR2023-00529 file-history exhibit and Lemko's recorded powers of attorney), but that is a POA/correspondence-address matter, not an assignment-correspondent finding, and I have no evidence placing Cygan on NPE assertion lists. Marked unclear for lack of data, not for absence of the pattern.

4. Cascading transfers — not present. The chain is flat and sparse: Pan → Lemko (2006), a confirmatory Pan → Lemko re-recording (2015), plus two non-title events. No chained LLCs, no multi-hop transfers in <24 months.

5. Pre-litigation transfer — not present. No assignment is recorded within six months before the first infringement suit naming this patent (filed Feb. 2022, N.D. Tex. 3:22-cv-00363). The nearest prior recording (2015 confirmatory assignment) predates the suit by ~7 years; the 2025 Piccadilly security agreement postdates it by ~3 years.

6. Bankruptcy fire-sale — not present. No Chapter 7/11 filing by Lemko surfaced in any search; no court-supervised patent sale (Kodak/Nortel-style) is recorded.

7. Privateering — not present. No evidence (SEC filing, EFF/Patent Progress coverage) that Lemko transferred the patent to an NPE to assert against competitors on its behalf. Lemko asserts directly and identifies itself in pleadings as the product-developer.

8. Defensive aggregator (anti-NPE) — not present. The chain does not terminate at RPX, AST, LOT, Unified Patents, or OIN.

Verdict

Operating-company assertion. The recorded chain shows continuous title in Lemko Corporation — a DMA/Node1 product vendor that has demonstrated patent-practicing products (per its AT&T litigation pleadings) and is suing actual industry players (Microsoft/Affirmed Networks, N.D. Tex. 3:22-cv-00363). The only third-party recordings are a 2012 covenant not to sue to Motorola Solutions and a 2025 patent security agreement to lender Piccadilly Patent Funding LLC — both non-title events that do not shift ownership to an NPE. The 2025 Piccadilly security agreement is the one item worth monitoring: if Lemko defaults and Piccadilly forecloses, the chain could convert to lender-controlled monetization, but on the current record that has not occurred and would be speculation.

Caveat on data quality: reel/frame numbers and recorded correspondents were not retrievable within my search limits, so the verdict rests on the conveyance types and dates in the Google Patents legal-event feed. Verify against the USPTO Assignment Center before any formal chain-of-title opinion.

Verification links:

• USPTO Patent Assignment Search: https://assignmentcenter.uspto.gov/
• USPTO legacy assignment index: https://assignment.uspto.gov/patent/index.html (search Patent No. 7653414)
• Google Patents legal events for US7653414: https://patents.google.com/patent/US7653414/en

I attempted to pull the USPTO/Google Patents record for US 7,653,414 and to enumerate the references cited on the face of the patent, but I have to be transparent about what the searches did and did not return before giving you the prior-art analysis.

What I searched and what came back

• Direct searches for a USPTO front-page "References Cited" list for 7,653,414 (e.g., Google Patents citations, FreePatentsOnline, USPTO full-text) returned no usable results within the tool-call limit. The Google Patents full-text extract you supplied also omits the "(56) References Cited" section, so I cannot verify the examiner's prosecution citations with confidence and will not fabricate a list of them.
• What the searches did return were the PTAB/IPR docket papers for IPR2023-00529 ([Microsoft Corp.](/litigations/by-plaintiff/Microsoft%20Corp.) & Affirmed Networks, Inc. v. Lemko Corp., challenging the '414 patent). Those papers (Docket Alarm copies of the Petition exhibits table, Petitioner's Reply, and Patent Owner's Response/Sur-Reply) identify the prior art that is presently the most relevant known art against the '414 patent — even though that art was applied in the IPR under 35 U.S.C. § 103 (obviousness), not under § 102 (anticipation).

Important caveat on the statute: The user asked which claims each reference "potentially anticipates under § 102." In the actual proceeding, the grounds of record against the '414 patent are § 103 obviousness combinations. No document I retrieved asserts § 102 anticipation of any '414 claim by any single reference, so I cannot honestly map references to "§ 102 anticipation" of specific claims. Below I map them to the challenged claims and grounds as actually asserted.

Most relevant prior art identified (from IPR2023-00529)

1. U.S. Patent No. 7,395,085 — Mauer et al. ("Mauer") — Ex. 1005 in IPR2023-00529

• Citation: U.S. Patent No. 7,395,085 B2 to Mauer et al.
• Dates: I could not verify the issue/filing dates from the retrieved excerpts. The IPR exhibit list identifies it only as "U.S. Patent No. 7,395,085 to Mauer et al. ('Mauer')" (Ex. 1005). Treat any specific date as unverified.
• Description (grounded in the IPR papers): Mauer is described by both sides as directed to conventional wide-area and wireless-local-area networking (Patent Owner's Response characterizes it as using "conventional cellular and wireless networks"). Per the dispute framing, Mauer includes a voicemail server and an "alternative communication option" that Petitioners relied on as the alleged "destination preference register" (DPR) of the challenged claims. Lemko's arguments against the combination were that (a) Mauer's voicemail server sits within the alleged DMA network, (b) Mauer's "alternative communication option" is not triggered when a call is directed to a destination outside the DMA network, and (c) Mauer does not disclose DPR information stored at a DMA system.
• Claims applied against: Petitioners used Mauer (alone and/or in view of Waylett) against claims 1–8, 11–16, and 21 — the full set of challenged claims. The Board's institution decision specifically found a reasonable likelihood that claim 11 (the MDN-prefix/DPR method claim) was unpatentable. In the Final Written Decision (August 30, 2024), the outcome per-claim was not retrievable in this session, so I cannot state which claims were ultimately held unpatentable.
• § 102 note: Asserted in the IPR only as part of § 103 obviousness grounds; no § 102 anticipation assertion was found.

2. U.S. Patent No. 8,184,603 — Waylett et al. ("Waylett") — Ex. 1006 in IPR2023-00529

• Citation: U.S. Patent No. 8,184,603 B2 to Waylett et al.
• Dates: Unverified from retrieved excerpts. Note that the patent issued in 2012, i.e., after the '414 patent's Feb. 24, 2006 filing date; it was usable in the IPR only by virtue of an earlier effective filing date. I could not verify that earlier date and will not state one.
• Description (grounded in the IPR papers): Waylett is a "network-in-a-box" (NIB) system. Patent Owner's Response repeatedly characterizes Waylett as a hardware-based network appliance implementing conventional MSC/BSC-type functionality ("Waylett's Network-in-a-Box is Based on the Conventional Network Appliance Approach"), in contrast to the '414 patent's claimed software-based MSC/BSC/CDR functionality stored on a computer-readable medium inside the DMA housing. Waylett is the primary reference on Ground 2, claim 21, where the contested feature was whether the software-on-computer-readable-medium limitation was disclosed.
• Claims applied against: Waylett (in combination with Mauer) was applied to the same challenged set — claims 1–8, 11–16, and 21 — with particular significance for claim 21 (the device claim requiring software-based core-network functionality on a computer-readable medium within the DMA housing). Patent Owner's § 103 defense argued Waylett's hardware NIB does not teach that feature.
• § 102 note: Same as Mauer — the record asserts only § 103 obviousness combinations (Mauer + Waylett), not § 102 anticipation.

Other references in the IPR record (context, not front-page citations)

The IPR exhibit list also shows non-patent literature (an excerpt from GSM Networks: Protocols, Terminology, and Implementation by Gunnar Heine, December 1998; Newton's Telecom Dictionary, 20th ed., March 2004) and at least one additional patent (U.S. Patent No. 9,755,825 to O'Brien) referenced in later papers — but these are IPR exhibits/authorities, not necessarily the examiner's citations on the '414 face.

Gaps (stated explicitly, per operating rules)

1. I could not retrieve the actual front-page "(56) References Cited" list for US 7,653,414 (examiner-cited U.S. patents, foreign patents, and NPL). Any list I gave you from memory would risk fabrication, so I have deliberately not supplied one.
2. Accordingly, I cannot provide a verified § 102 anticipation analysis per claim for the examiner-cited references.
3. The two references above (Mauer, Waylett) are the most relevant prior art on the present litigation record (IPR2023-00529), but they were litigated under § 103, and the per-claim outcome of the August 30, 2024 Final Written Decision was not retrievable in this session.

If you want the definitive examiner citation list, the authoritative sources are the USPTO Patent Center record for the '414 patent (front page, field (56)) or the issued patent's first page at USPTO PatFT/Google Patents (the "Citations" tab) — both of which were outside my reach within this session's tool limit.

I'll research the prior art references and the IPR record before providing the § 103 analysis.

I've confirmed the two primary references from IPR2023-00529: Mauer (U.S. 7,395,085) and Waylett (U.S. 8,184,603). Let me gather details on each reference and the IPR grounds.

Obviousness Analysis — US Patent 7,653,414 B2 under 35 U.S.C. § 103

0. Scope, sources, and confidence flags

This analysis is grounded in (i) the full specification text supplied with the task, (ii) the previously generated Patent Summary and Litigation Summary (treated as authoritative), and (iii) the IPR2023-00529 record as surfaced in the live search results. Three evidentiary gaps materially constrain any claim-by-claim verdict, and I flag them rather than paper over them:

1. No verbatim claims text was retrieved. Independent-claim scope below is reconstructed from the specification's summary paragraphs (which track the claim families) and from the parties' characterizations in the IPR papers (e.g., Patent Owner's Sur-Reply states claims 1 and 8 both involve "a call from a first mobile subscriber to a second mobile subscriber," and claim 11 involves "a call from a mobile subscriber to a destination device").
2. The Final Written Decision's merits outcome is unverified. The IPR2023-00529 FWD issued August 30, 2024, but neither its text nor a holding (all-claims-unpatentable vs. mixed) was retrieved. The analysis therefore assesses strength of the grounds as presented, not the Board's actual disposition.
3. Mauer and Waylett are known only through the IPR record's characterizations, not their full texts. I describe each only to the extent the record supports.

The confirmed challenged-claims set (per the IPR institution and petition): claims 1–8, 11–16, and 21 of the '414 patent, on grounds built on Mauer (Ex. 1005, U.S. 7,395,085) and Waylett (Ex. 1006, U.S. 8,184,603), with a distinct "Ground 2" treatment of claim 21's computer-readable-medium/embedded-software limitation.

---

1. Legal framework

Under 35 U.S.C. § 103, a claim is unpatentable if the differences between the claimed subject matter and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time of invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art (Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1 (1966)). Post-KSR, obviousness can be shown by any of the classic rationales — combining prior-art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results, substituting one known element for another to obtain predictable results, and "obvious to try" where a finite number of identified, predictable solutions exists (KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415–21 (2007)). The Graham factual inquiries are: (1) scope and content of the prior art; (2) differences between the prior art and the claims; (3) level of ordinary skill; and (4) secondary considerations.

The relevant claimed invention (Feb. 24, 2006) sits at the intersection of three mature, well-documented technical fields by 2006: (a) cellular core networking (MSC/BSC/HLR/VLR/ANSI-41/GSM MAP); (b) IP telephony and least-cost/trunk-route selection (VoIP gateways, SS7/ISUP, ISDN PRI); and (c) "network-in-a-box" / soft-switch consolidation of core functions onto commodity computing hardware. That maturity is itself an obviousness-relevant fact: every architectural ingredient (prefix-based routing, HLR/VLR databases, alternate-route cascading, VoIP/ISDN/PSTN egress interfaces) was individually conventional long before 2006.

---

2. Person of ordinary skill in the art (PHOSITA)

A PHOSITA would have a B.S. (or equivalent experience) in electrical engineering, computer science, or telecommunications, plus 2–4 years of experience in wireless network architecture — familiar with CDMA/GSM radio access and core network elements (BTS/BSC/MSC/HLR/VLR), SS7/ISUP/ANSI-41/GSM-MAP signaling, VoIP/SIP interworking, IP routing, and PBX/trunking economics. The '414 specification itself emphasizes cost-driven rural deployment (spec. ¶¶ 0007–0010), which colors the PHOSITA's design incentives: minimizing backhaul and centralized-switch capital cost while reusing commodity hardware and standard air interfaces.

---

3. The claims at issue (reconstructed scope)

• Claims 1–7 (AAA-module/DPR family). Claim 1: an AAA module of a first DMA system comprising a destination preference register (DPR); the DPR stores a preferred call path for calls routed outside the DMA network, selectable from VoIP, MSC, or ISDN; outbound calls from the first DMA system — or from a mobile subscriber served by it — are established via that preferred path. Dependents: first/second/third preferred paths used on a first-available basis; an HLR whose subscriber data populates a "first CLR" at a second DMA; second/third CLRs for subscribers registered at second/third DMA systems; a VLR for roaming subscribers temporarily registered at the first DMA.
• Claim 8 (method, inter-DMA call). Per the IPR record, a call from a first mobile subscriber to a second mobile subscriber is completed through the register architecture — HLR lookup, CLR lookup for a subscriber homed on a peer DMA, location-update/acknowledgement messaging, and IP-address assignment to connect the call.
• Claim 11 (method, outbound-call routing). Receiving a call to a destination MDN not found in a CLR within the DMA, and prefix-matching the MDN against MDN prefixes in a DPR to select an outbound path. This is the claim the Board identified in institution as most clearly vulnerable.
• Claim 21 (device). A DMA device with a housing, processor, and computer-readable medium within the housing, having software-based MSC, BSC, and CDR functionality plus an AAA module with a DPR (per the IPR record's characterization of the contested "software/medium" feature).

---

4. Prior art of record

4.1 Mauer — U.S. 7,395,085 (Ex. 1005)

Per the IPR record, Mauer discloses a wireless system combining conventional WWAN and WLAN access with a voicemail server and an "alternative communication option" for completing calls when a called party is not reachable through the primary path. Petitioners mapped Mauer's alternative-communication/voicemail-redirect mechanism onto the claimed "destination preference register," treating the voicemail server as a destination outside the (alleged) DMA network whose selection is governed by stored preference data. Patent Owner's principal distinctions were structural: (i) Mauer's voicemail server sits inside the alleged DMA network, not outside it; (ii) the "alternative communication option" is not triggered by a call "directed to a destination device that is outside of the DMA network"; and (iii) Mauer does not store routing-preference information "at a DPR at a DMA system" in the distributed, peer-to-peer sense claimed (PO Resp. § VI.B; PO Sur-Reply § II.A). Petitioners responded that an unreachable mobile subscriber is functionally "outside the coverage areas of the claimed wireless network" and that no claim language requires the preferred path's destination to be the called second subscriber (Pet. Reply § B.2–B.3).

4.2 Waylett — U.S. 8,184,603 (Ex. 1006)

Per the record, Waylett is a "network-in-a-box" (NIB) — a self-contained appliance consolidating cellular core-network functions (MSC/BSC-type switching, subscriber registers, and call handling) into a single deployable unit for small/remote coverage. Patent Owner consistently characterized Waylett's NIB as a hardware-based conventional network appliance whose core functions are not implemented as software modules embedded in a computer-readable storage medium inside the housing — the specific limitation contested for claim 21 (PO Resp. § VI.D; PO Sur-Reply § II.D). Petitioners' counter was that implementing the NIB's MSC/BSC/CDR functions as software on a computer-readable medium was a routine design choice that a PHOSITA would make, and/or that the combination with Mauer's systems supplied the distributed-network context.

4.3 Relationship of the references to each other

The references are complementary rather than duplicative: Mauer supplies the preference-driven alternate-routing concept (albeit in a voicemail/alternative-option context), while Waylett supplies the self-contained, site-deployable cellular core (the "DMA device" analogue). Neither alone plausibly reads on the full DMA-network-plus-DPR architecture; the IPR grounds therefore rested on their combination.

---

5. Proposed combination — Mauer in view of Waylett (the IPR's primary ground)

5.1 Proposed claim mapping (as Petitioners argued)

5.2 The strongest ground: claims 11 and 1 (DPR + prefix-matching)

The DPR is the patent's inventive core, and it is also its most conventional feature when stripped of the DMA-network scaffolding. A telephone switch selecting an outbound trunk by matching a dialed-number prefix against a preference-ordered list of routes (VoIP first for cost, ISDN for quality, MSC/PSTN as fallback) is textbook least-cost-routing / automatic route selection, decades old by 2006. The '414 specification itself frames the DPR as user-preference policy: "if a user wishes to save money, the user can choose to make calls … via a VoIP interface… if a user wishes to have a higher call quality, the user can choose to make calls … via an ISDN interface" (spec., AAA-module description, FIG. 5). The only arguably novel hook is where the register lives (distributed across peer DMA nodes) and when it is consulted (when the MDN is absent from the local CLR set). Against a NIB-style distributed architecture (Waylett) combined with a preference-driven alternate-route mechanism (Mauer), a PHOSITA's motivation to add a prefix-keyed egress-preference table at each node is strong: it directly serves the specification's own stated goals — minimizing toll cost and maximizing call quality for a rural, backhaul-constrained deployment. This is precisely why the Board found at institution that claim 11 had a reasonable likelihood of being unpatentable.

Claim 11 vulnerability: high. If the claims require only (a) a call to an MDN not found in the local/community registers, and (b) prefix lookup in a preference table — both of which Mauer's alternative-communication selection and routine dial-plan logic would suggest — claim 11 reads as a predictable application of known route-selection to a known distributed-switch context.

Claim 1 vulnerability: medium-high, but fact-sensitive. Claim 1 is more vulnerable than its dependent structure might suggest, because the DPR "preferred call path" is defined functionally (calls are established via the preferred path) and the enumerated paths (VoIP/MSC/ISDN) are all conventional egress types. The live dispute — whether Mauer's voicemail server is "inside" or "outside" the DMA network — is a claim-construction fight about the meaning of "outside of a distributed mobile architecture network" and "the call." Under Petitioners' plain-meaning construction (the DMA network = the peer-to-peer wireless network; any server outside the wireless coverage/peer set is "outside"), Mauer's voicemail/alternative destination qualifies, and claim 1's DPR limitation is met by Mauer's stored alternative-communication preference plus Waylett's NIB deployment. Under Patent Owner's construction (the voicemail server is inside the DMA network, so the trigger never fires), the ground fails on claim 1. The outcome therefore hinges on construction — the classic situation where obviousness and claim construction are intertwined.

5.3 Claim 8 and the CLR/register architecture — the weakest link for Petitioners

The distributed register scheme — each DMA hosting an HLR for its home subscribers while mirroring peer DMAs' HLR data into "Community Location Registers," plus VLR entries for roamers, with location-update/acknowledge messaging and IP-address assignment — is the most architecturally distinctive feature set. HLR/VLR replication and location updating are, of course, ancient (ANSI-41/GSM MAP). But the CLR construct — a partial, pre-fetched mirror of a peer's HLR held at each DMA so calls can be routed without centralized queries — is not obviously present in either Mauer (voicemail/WLAN-centric) or Waylett (single-appliance-centric). Patent Owner's arguments that the combination "does not result in a DMA network of DMA systems" and lacks any rational motivation to produce peer-to-peer distributed call routing (PO Resp. § VI.A; Sur-Reply § II.B) have real force here. Petitioners' best rebuttal is that once one deploys multiple Waylett-style NIBs at remote sites, interconnecting them and sharing subscriber data is the only workable way to avoid a centralized MSC — and that a PHOSITA would necessarily implement register sharing. That is a plausible KSR "design need" rationale, but it requires the Board to accept a heavier inferential chain than for claims 1/11. Claim 8 and the CLR dependents: moderate-to-low vulnerability on this record.

5.4 Claim 21 (software-embedded MSC/BSC/CDR) — the Ground 2 fight

Claim 21's contested feature is that MSC/BSC/CDR functionality is software embedded in a computer-readable medium inside a housing. Patent Owner's position is that Waylett's NIB is hardware-based and therefore teaches away from (or at least does not disclose) a software-defined implementation. From a PHOSITA's standpoint this is the least persuasive distinction: by 2006, soft-switch/MSC implementations on COTS servers with software on storage media were industry-standard (e.g., softswitch architectures in general), and embodying an appliance's switching functions as software modules on a disk/medium inside the box was an obvious implementation choice, not an invention. The IPR papers show this exact fight (Pet. Reply § D; PO Sur-Reply § II.D), and this is the type of "known technique / obvious implementation" issue on which KSR is most favorable to a petitioner. Claim 21 vulnerability: medium-high if the Board treats software implementation as an obvious design choice; lower only if the claims require a specific structural arrangement (software agents, particular module decomposition) that the references lack.

---

6. Motivation to combine — the explicit KSR rationales

A petitioner must articulate a reason a PHOSITA would combine Mauer and Waylett, not merely show the elements exist somewhere in the art. The strongest, record-supported rationales:

1. Shared problem, complementary solutions (express teaching/suggestion in the problem itself). The '414 specification's own Background identifies the problem: centralized MSCs cost >$2M and need ~10,000 subscribers, making rural service uneconomic. Waylett's NIB is a known answer to the "too expensive to centralize" problem (small-footprint site core). Mauer addresses a different facet — completing calls when the primary destination is unavailable, using stored preferences. A PHOSITA designing a low-cost rural NIB network who needs to route outbound calls to the PSTN/VoIP/ISDN would naturally consult the art on preference-based alternate routing (Mauer). The combination solves a problem both references are directed to: cost-effective call completion without a full centralized core.

2. Predictable result / known interchangeability. Adding a prefix-keyed, preference-ordered egress selector (DPR) to a small-site switch (NIB) yields the predictable result of least-cost/quality-optimized routing. KSR's "known technique applied to a known device ready for improvement" maps directly: Mauer's route-selection technique applied to Waylett's deployable switch.

3. Design incentives and market pressure. Rural deployments (the spec's stated target) are backhaul- and toll-cost-sensitive. A PHOSITA would select VoIP egress first (cheap), ISDN second (quality), MSC third (ubiquity/fallback) — exactly the claim's enumerated hierarchy — because that ordering is the obvious engineering answer to the spec's own cost/quality tradeoff discussion.

4. Combining references to fill each other's gaps. Waylett lacks preference-based external routing; Mauer lacks a self-contained distributed-cellular context. Each reference's gap is filled by the other's teaching — the standard "two references, two missing pieces" combination.

Petitioners' weakest motivation link (per PO's strongest argument) is the leap from "Mauer redirects to voicemail when a subscriber is busy/unreachable" to "a DMA node consults a DPR to egress any external call." If claim 11/claim 1 require the DPR to be consulted for all out-of-network calls (not merely as a fallback when the primary callee is unavailable), the motivation argument must be rebuilt on general least-cost-routing knowledge rather than Mauer's specific teaching — which is still viable under KSR but is a weaker, more generic rationale. I assess this as the difference between a near-certain obviousness finding on claim 11 and a genuinely contested one on claim 1.

---

7. Secondary considerations (from the record)

Patent Owner's secondary-considerations case rested on the commercial success of Lemko's Node1 product and alleged long-felt need for low-cost distributed architecture (PO Resp. § VII; PO Sur-Reply § III). Petitioners' rebuttal — that the 3G Node1 product lacks nexus to the claimed DPR, and that the evidence conflated a later 4G Node1 product (Pet. Reply § E) — is a classic nexus attack. If the Board credited the nexus failure, secondary considerations would not rescue the claims; if it found nexus, it could support patentability of at least the DPR-centric claims. Because the FWD's outcome is unverified, I note only that the recorded state of the secondary-considerations debate favored Petitioners on nexus.

---

8. Other plausible combinations (beyond the IPR ground)

Had the IPR not already settled on Mauer+Waylett, a § 103 challenger would likely have built combinations from the same three categories, e.g.:

• A soft-switch / distributed-BSC reference + a least-cost-routing or VoIP-peering reference, to show the DPR and prefix-matching were conventional adjuncts to distributed switching;
• Standard ANSI-41/GSM MAP art (HLR/VLR registration and location updating) + a trunk-preference reference, to attack the register architecture and DPR features with closer art than Mauer for the CLR/VLR elements;
• A wireless-local-loop or micro-BTS "network-in-a-box" reference in place of Waylett, for the same claim-21 software/housing feature.

I refrain from asserting specific patent numbers for these categories because none were confirmed in the search results; the confirmed combination of record remains Mauer (7,395,085) + Waylett (8,184,603).

---

9. Bottom-line assessment

On the record available, the most defensible § 103 case is Mauer + Waylett against claims 11 and 21, and the most defensible patentee positions are on claim 8 and the CLR-dependent claims. The ultimate FWD outcome of IPR2023-00529 (Aug. 30, 2024), and any CAFC review specific to the '414 patent, remain unverified in the retrieved materials and should be checked in USPTO Patent Center / PTAB and CAFC dockets before this analysis is relied on for a case-specific conclusion.