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 have the institution decision and hearing details. Now I need the Final Written Decision outcome at claim level, and any Federal Circuit appeal.

I need the FWD text itself for claim-level outcomes. Let me search for it directly.

I've reached the search-step limit, so I'll answer from the verified materials I retrieved. Critical data-quality flag first: the structured "PTAB proceedings on file" block (USPTO ODP API) says no AIA trial proceedings exist for the '414 patent — but that is stale. Web sources I retrieved (Docket Alarm's PTAB case page, the Board's own institution decision, the July 11, 2024 hearing transcript, and the Unified Patents portal) positively confirm IPR2023-00529 on US 7,653,414. Per the operating rules, I'm treating the live web evidence as authoritative over the ODP ingest and flagging the contradiction.

What I could not retrieve within the tool-call limit is the text of the Final Written Decision itself, so I cannot state the claim-level disposition (which claims were canceled vs. sustained) with confidence. I say so explicitly below rather than guess.

Proceedings overview

There is one AIA trial proceeding on the '414 patent — IPR2023-00529, an inter partes review filed 2023-02-15 by Microsoft Corporation and Affirmed Networks, Inc. — which was instituted on all challenged claims (claims 1–8, 11–16, 21) on 2023-09-26, argued 2024-07-11, and terminated with a Final Written Decision on 2024-08-30; the FWD's merits outcome is not verifiable from the sources I retrieved, so a defendant cannot yet rely on any claim being canceled, and the only confirmed "hardening" signal is that the patent remains Active with claims intact on the register (adjusted expiration 2027-10-22) — no settled, no institution-denied, no claims-sustained determination can be confirmed at this time.

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

• Type: Inter Partes Review (35 U.S.C. § 311; petition under § 312)
• Filed: 2023-02-15
• Status: The USPTO ODP structured block reports no proceedings (stale — see flag above). Live docket sources (Unified Patents, Docket Alarm, IPVerse/greyb) list the status as "Final Written Decision" entered, with termination date 2024-08-30. Plain-English gloss: the trial phase is over; the Board issued its merits decision, but I could not retrieve that decision's text and therefore cannot confirm which claims, if any, were held unpatentable.
• Judge panel: Institution panel — Hubert C. Lorin, Neil T. Powell, Frances L. Ippolito (decision authored by Powell, entered 2023-09-26). Oral-hearing panel — Frances L. Ippolito, Brian D. Range, Scott Raevsky (hearing held 2024-07-11, jointly with the related IPR2023-00531 on the '988 patent). Lead counsel: Matthew Hopkins / Barry K. Shelton / Michael Rueckheim (Winston & Strawn) for Petitioners; James Hannah, Aaron M. Frankel, Jeffrey H. Price, Jenna Fuller, Jeffrey Eng (Kramer Levin) for Patent Owner.
• Petition grounds: Obviousness under § 103 over Mauer (US 7,395,085) in view of Waylett (US 8,184,603) — the combination the parties argued throughout. Claim coverage per the institution decision: claims 1–8, 11–16, and 21 of the '414 patent. The record confirms at least two distinct ground groupings: (Ground 1) Mauer + Waylett against the system/method claims (1–8, 11–16), including the "destination preference register" (DPR) and "community location register" (CLR) limitations; and (Ground 2) Mauer + Waylett against claim 21, specifically challenging the claimed software-based MSC/BSC/CDR functionality stored on a computer-readable medium within the DMA housing (Patent Owner argued Waylett's "network-in-a-box" was hardware-based and did not teach the software-embedded medium). Exhibits 1009–1012 (Hohnstein, Meche, Frost, Kalavade) and dictionary/textbook excerpts (Ex. 1013–1014) appear as supporting technical evidence, not as separate anticipation grounds — I did not confirm their exact role.
• Institution decision: Instituted on all challenged claims, 2023-09-26. The Board found a reasonable likelihood that claim 11 (the DPR prefix-matching method claim) is unpatentable, and instituted on claims 1–8, 11–16, and 21 as a group. The decision noted the '414 patent was asserted in Lemko Corp. v. Microsoft Corp., No. 3:22-cv-00363 (N.D. Tex.), creating the parallel district-court exposure.
• Final Written Decision (if issued): A FWD was entered and the case terminated on 2024-08-30 (per Unified Patents / greyb / Docket Alarm). I did not retrieve the FWD text, so I cannot state the claim-level verdict — do not treat any claim as canceled or sustained on the basis of this memo. The contested issues framed for decision were: (1) construction of "distributed mobile architecture" (Patent Owner urging a distributed, peer-to-peer, call-routing-software architecture; Petitioners urging plain meaning); (2) whether Mauer + Waylett renders obvious the DPR and the "call outside the DMA network" trigger; (3) the CLR limitation; and (4) for claim 21, whether Waylett's hardware NIB teaches the claimed computer-readable storage medium with embedded MSC/BSC/CDR software. Patent Owner's secondary-considerations case (commercial success of the "Node1" product) was also contested on nexus grounds.
• Settlement / termination: No settlement — the case ran to a FWD. No confidential settlement terms are reported.
• Appeal: I found no Federal Circuit appeal specific to IPR2023-00529 / the '414 patent in my searches. The CAFC case that surfaced (2024-2336, Lemko Corp. v. Microsoft Corp., argued 2026-04-08, Rule 36 AFFIRMED 2026-04-10) is an appeal from IPR2023-00531 — the related but different US 7,855,988 patent, not the '414. Whether Lemko separately appealed the '414 FWD is unknown; if a notice of appeal exists it did not appear in the retrieved results.
• Defensive value: Uncertain — and that uncertainty matters. If you are facing assertion of the '414 patent today, you cannot yet tell a client "the claims are dead" or "the patent owner won." The proceeding was fully litigated through oral hearing and a FWD, and Microsoft's parallel win on the sibling '988 patent (affirmed at the CAFC in 2026) suggests Petitioners' Mauer/Waylett theory may have fared well — but that is inference, not evidence, and the FWD must be pulled before any advice is given. The confirmed defensive facts are narrower: the IPR established that a prior-art combination of Mauer + Waylett was a serious enough threat that the Board instituted on every challenged claim including the two independent claim families (claims 1 and 8) and device claim 21, and the claims' validity is therefore litigated, not untested.

Strategic summary

Claims status — CANCELED vs. SUSTAINED vs. UNTESTED. Because the FWD text was not retrievable in this analysis, I cannot classify any claim of the '414 patent as canceled or sustained. What is confirmed: claims 1–8, 11–16, and 21 were challenged and instituted; the case ran to a FWD on 2024-08-30; the patent remains in Active status on the USPTO register with an adjusted expiration of 2027-10-22 (consistent with either a partial-win FWD leaving some claims alive, or an intact patent pending appeal — Google Patents' "Active" flag is not a claim-level statement). Claims 9–10 and 17–20 were never challenged and remain untested by any AIA proceeding. The first practical task for any defendant is to read the FWD (USPTO PTAB E2E / Docket Alarm entry for IPR2023-00529, paper ~42-44, entered 2024-08-30) and determine which claims, if any, were canceled — everything else in this memo is secondary to that.

Estoppel landscape. Under § 315(e)(2), Microsoft and Affirmed Networks — and their privies — are barred in the parallel N.D. Tex. case (3:22-cv-00363) and any other later forum from raising any § 102/§ 103 ground they raised or reasonably could have raised in IPR2023-00529, once the FWD is final (including after appeal, if any). That means the Mauer + Waylett combination and its obvious variants are off the table for Microsoft/Affirmed in the district court, win or lose at the Board. For a new defendant not in privity with Microsoft/Affirmed, no estoppel applies: Mauer (US 7,395,085) and Waylett (US 8,184,603) — and the additional references that surfaced in the record (Hohnstein US 6,816,706; Meche US 6,871,072; Frost US 4,284,848; Kalavade US 7,136,651) — are all still available as prior art, subject only to the usual § 315(b) one-year bar measured from service of the complaint against that defendant. Because the '414 patent expires in October 2027 and any new IPR petition would need to be filed within one year of service, the window for a new defendant to file its own IPR is tight or already closed depending on when it was served — check the § 315(b) date immediately.

Pattern signals. This is a coordinated, two-front attack by the same petitioner pair: Microsoft/Affirmed filed IPR2023-00529 ('414 patent) and IPR2023-00531 ('988 patent, a related Lemko DMA patent) on the same day (2023-02-15), from the same N.D. Tex. litigation, argued them jointly on 2024-07-11 before the same panel. The '988-patent IPR ended in a FWD that Lemko appealed; the CAFC affirmed via Rule 36 on 2026-04-10 (case 2024-2336) — meaning Microsoft has now won the sibling DMA-patent fight at the Board and on appeal, a meaningful pattern signal that the Mauer/Waylett obviousness theory is likely to have succeeded on the '414 as well (again: verify against the FWD). There is no defensive aggregator (e.g., Unified Patents) in the chain — this is direct competitor/defendant litigation. Lemko defended the IPR vigorously (expert declaration from the named inventor Dr. ShaoWei Pan, secondary-considerations evidence on its Node1 product), so expect continued aggressive defense of any surviving claims, including any appeal of the '414 FWD if one was filed.

Recommended next steps

1. Pull the FWD before doing anything else. Retrieve the Final Written Decision in IPR2023-00529 from USPTO PTAB E2E (search "IPR2023-00529") or via the Docket Alarm case page (https://www.docketalarm.com/cases/PTAB/IPR2023-00529/Microsoft_Corporation_v._Lemko_Corp/), entered 2024-08-30. Read the claim-by-claim disposition table: the FWD will state, in terms, that claims X, Y, Z "are unpatentable" and claims A, B "are not shown to be unpatentable." Quote that language in any client advice — if claims 1, 8, 11, and/or 21 were canceled, an infringement theory built on them is dead; if Lemko prevailed, an IPR-based defense on Mauer/Waylett is foreclosed for Microsoft but not for you.
2. Check the CAFC docket for a '414 appeal. The Rule 36 affirmance in 2024-2336 was the '988 patent's appeal only. Search the Federal Circuit docket for "Lemko v. Microsoft" appeals from IPR2023-00529. If Lemko appealed the '414 FWD and the appeal is pending, the district-court case (3:22-cv-00363, currently post-motion-to-dismiss with contributory-infringement claims dismissed with prejudice and direct/induced claims surviving per the 2025-06-04 order) may be stayed or the estoppel analysis may shift; if the appeal window (63 days from FWD) closed with no appeal, the FWD is final and § 315(e)(2) estoppel is fully in force for Microsoft/Affirmed.
3. If you are a newly-served defendant, run the § 315(b) clock immediately — the patent expires 2027-10-22, so there is limited runway for any new IPR, and confirm whether you are in privity with Microsoft/Affirmed (which would carry both the benefit of their estoppel against them and the burden of it against you if you later tried to join or reuse grounds).
4. No further proceedings exist beyond IPR2023-00529 — there is no second IPR, no PGR, no CBM, and no institution denial on this patent. The absence of any other challenger is itself a signal: the '414 patent has been litigated and PTAB-tested only by Microsoft/Affirmed, so the Mauer/Waylett record is the single most valuable invalidity asset available — mine the FWD and the full IPR record (Petition, PO Response, Petitioners' Reply, Sur-Reply, expert declarations, and the 2024-07-11 hearing transcript at https://www.docketalarm.com/cases/PTAB/IPR2023-00529/Microsoft_Corporation_v._Lemko_Corp/docs/08-19-2024-Board/) for claim constructions and admissions that bind Lemko in the district court.

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.