US 6014437

I'll search for authoritative records on this specific patent number.

Let me run a few more targeted checks for any 2026 litigation activity and current USPTO status.

US 6014437 — Verification Summary

Search scope notes (read first). I searched for the exact identifier 6014437 against patent databases and Federal Circuit material. Two important caveats:

1. "Live" USPTO/CAFC database access is limited in this environment. I can retrieve indexed public records (Google Patents, uspto.report, Justia, Unified Patents, cafc.uscourts.gov) but I cannot query USPTO PatentCenter/PAIR or the CAFC docket system directly. Everything below is grounded in the authoritative full text you supplied plus indexed public records.
2. No CAFC 2026 activity involving this patent was found. My search for 6014437 + Federal Circuit 2026 returned zero matching results. The only 2026 "6014437" hit was JP 6014437 B2 (Japanese Patent No. 6014437, granted 2016-10-25, Shinkawa Kogyo K.K., a wire processing method) — an unrelated grant that must not be conflated with the U.S. number. Note that US 6014437 expired 2017-02-03, which makes a 2026 Federal Circuit appeal about this claims set improbable, though not categorically impossible (an appeal could in theory arise from an earlier-filed district court case or a PTAB proceeding on a still-live family member). I have no authoritative confirmation of any such case, and I am explicitly flagging that as an open gap rather than asserting it doesn't exist.

---

Bibliographic Data (US 6014437 A)

Assignee caveat: Google Patents states its assignee listing "may be inaccurate" and that it performs no legal analysis. The IBM→Google transfer is consistent with Google's 2011 acquisition of a large IBM patent portfolio, but I have not independently verified the recorded assignment instrument for this specific patent.

---

Abstract (verbatim substance)

A multiprocessor subsystem for a PSTN portion conforming to AIN architectural standards contains processor elements for participating in call routing/switching management and other processor elements for participating in management of services provided to PSTN users/subscribers. Processors participating in call routing are tightly concentrated to ensure reliable control; processors participating in user-service management are distributed so as to allow virtually unlimited growth in new service types without potentially disrupting existing call traffic. The subsystem also contains processor elements with interfaces to networks external to the PSTN (e.g., the Internet, World Wide Web, pager networks). These interfaces let users control enablement/disablement of subscribed services independent of their telephone line usage (e.g., enabling or disabling call waiting before or during a call, and/or defining the duration as extending to an arbitrary number of calls).

---

Independent Claim — Plain-Language Overview

Only Claim 1 is independent. Claims 2–7 are all dependent (2 and 3 depend on 1; 4 and 5 depend on 3; 6 depends on 2; 7 depends on 1). So the entire enforceable scope rests on Claim 1.

Claim 1 — an "intelligent peripheral (IP) system" for an intelligent telephony control system within the PSTN, containing multiple processing units for handling calls between directly conversing PSTN users, comprising:

1. A first set of call processor units that control routing of telephone calls through the portion of the PSTN occupying the IP system's predetermined geographic region.
   • Must contain at least one call processor unit.
   • Must be modularly expandable to add more call processor units.
2. A second set of service application processor units that control various services provided to PSTN users whose telephones are in that same predetermined region.
   • Must contain at least one service application processor unit.
   • Must be modularly expandable to add more such units without affecting the operational capabilities of any call processor unit in the first set.
3. First linking means linking the two sets, so that linked units can communicate with each other and with other elements of the IP system.
4. Second linking means linking the first linking means to a communication network external to the PSTN, which (a) lets the call processor units route telephone calls through the external network, and (b) lets the service application processor units extend their services through the external network.
5. The external communication network must be configured to transport data unrelated to any voice transmission processes being executed in the PSTN, between (i) devices linked to the PSTN in the predetermined geographic region and (ii) devices linked to the external network outside the PSTN.

Plain-English takeaway: The claim is essentially a two-tier processor architecture claim — centralized routing control + independently scalable service control — connected by an internal link that also bridges to an outside data network over which non-voice data flows both ways. The final limitation (5) is the most distinctive and potentially most narrowing element: the external network is characterized by carrying traffic unrelated to PSTN voice transmission, which fits the patent's described web/Internet service-administration use case rather than voice-over-data.

Dependent claims (context only, briefly):

• 2 — first linking means allows the IP system to talk to other IP systems in the PSTN.
• 3 — second linking means is a gateway/firewall processor.
• 4 — that gateway/firewall is integral within the first set of call processor units.
• 5 — that gateway/firewall is physically and logically separate from both sets.
• 6 — external network is the Internet, with a client/server interface presented to it.
• 7 — a service application processor unit can control multiple voice-based services, including voice announcements and instantaneous recognition of spoken voice commands.

---

Embodiment Context (MSP/6000)

The specification's preferred embodiment is the IBM Multiservice Platform for AIX Implementation ("MSP/6000"), built on IBM RISC System/6000 processors (R24 models). Hardware: redundant A/B-zoned switch fabric (Summa Four VCO-80), voice peripheral (VP) processors running IBM DirectTalk/6000, dual call processors, a MOC console, and a dual Ethernet LAN. Software is three-layered (service application management / service application / communications-and-management) on AIX/6000, with a Service Creation API linking layers. The specification repeatedly ties IP↔SCP coordination to a "1129+" signalling protocol and cites Bellcore GR-2802-CORE, GR-1129-CORE, and SR-3511 — all quoted literally as they appear in the text. The external-network aspect is illustrated in FIG. 5 with a gateway/firewall processor 110 toward external data network 120.

---

Bottom Line / Uncertainties

• Patent substance: Confident. The title, dates, inventors, assignee history, abstract, and claim structure above are taken directly from the authoritative full text of US 6014437.
• One independent claim (Claim 1); six dependent claims: Confident from the claim set provided.
• CAFC 2026 docket: Not found — no authoritative confirmation. I could not locate any 2026 Federal Circuit proceeding naming US 6014437, and the patent expired 2017-02-03. If a 2026 appeal exists, it is not reflected in the indexed sources I could reach; treat "no 2026 CAFC activity" as an unverified negative finding, not a certified clearance.
• Current assignee: Google Patents lists Google LLC; the underlying assignment record for this specific patent was not independently verified here.
• Distinct entity warning: do not confuse US 6014437 with JP 6014437 B2 (Shinkawa Kogyo, wire processing) or with any similarly numbered U.S. patent.

I'll research litigation involving US patent 6014437. Let me run several targeted searches.

Let me dig deeper with more targeted searches.

Litigation Search Results for US Patent No. 6,014,437

Bottom line: I found no evidence of any litigation — asserted case, declaratory judgment action, or PTAB/ITC proceeding — involving US Patent No. 6,014,437 ("Multi service platform architecture for telephone networks," Acker et al., IBM; later Google). Based on the searches run, no plaintiff ever appears to have asserted this patent in a U.S. district court, the Federal Circuit, the ITC, or before the PTAB.

What the searches returned, and why it is not litigation for '437

Every hit that mentioned the string "6014437" in a litigation-adjacent context turned out to be either (a) a patent-citation reference (the '437 patent cited as prior art or as a family/citation entry on another patent's page), or (b) an unrelated matter with a different patent number or a different ID. Specifically:

I want to be explicit that the cases surfaced in these searches (the '443/'824 Tesco patents, the Parus Holdings cases, the VoIP-Pal complaints, Genesys/Parus "computer, internet and telecommunications based network" patents, etc.) are not litigation over US 6,014,437 — they are different patents that merely appear alongside '437 in citation lists or share subject matter. I did not find a single complaint, docket entry, judgment, or PTAB proceeding naming 6,014,437 as the patent-in-suit.

Corroborating context from the patent record itself

The authoritative patent text you supplied shows a prosecution/ownership history with no litigation annotations:

• Assignee chain: International Business Machines Corp. → assigned to Google Inc. (2011-07-12) → Google LLC (change of name, 2017-10-05).
• Legal status: "Expired – Lifetime"; anticipated expiration 2017-02-03.
• No "Litigation" section appears on the Google Patents record (Google Patents routinely lists litigation/PTAB data when present).

A patent that was never litigated and that expired in 2017 is entirely consistent with the negative result above.

As to the specific data fields you requested

Because no case was identified, I cannot responsibly provide plaintiff(s), defendant(s), jurisdiction, case number, filing date, or outcome for any case — doing so would require fabricating a case, which I will not do.

Important caveats and limitations (please read)

1. Search recall is imperfect. The searches I ran were web-index based (Google Patents, Justia, Unified Patents portal, CourtListener, Docket Alarm, RPX) and one query returned unrelated content. I was stopped before I could exhaustively query the Unified Patents litigation caselist, PACER, or the CAFC docket directly. You should independently confirm with:

   • Unified Patents Portal litigation search: https://portal.unifiedpatents.com/litigation/caselist
   • PACER / CourtListener RECAP: search party "Google LLC" / "International Business Machines" for '437
   • USPTO PTAB (IPR/PGR/CBM) and USPTO assignment database

2. Absence of evidence ≠ evidence of absence. It is possible but unlikely that a small, short-lived, or unindexed suit exists. Given the patent never shows up as a patent-in-suit in any indexed source, and given its 2017 expiration, a truly litigated '437 would be surprising.

3. Do not confuse the 6014437 string with 6014437-adjacent numbers. Consistent with the strict rule, I have treated only US 6,014,437 as the target; the JP 6014437 B2, the Lithuanian registry entry No. 6014437, and the '443/'824/'437 patents in other families are separate entities and were excluded.

If you'd like, I can run additional targeted searches against the Unified Patents caselist URL and PACER-style sources to try to definitively close out the "no litigation" finding.

I'll verify the canonical "no proceedings" list against live sources before drafting.

Initial searches returned noise (unrelated patents sharing the "601" number string). Let me run tighter queries.

Proceedings overview

Total AIA trial proceedings on US 6014437: 0. The USPTO Open Data Portal / PTAB structured record supplied in this prompt returns no AIA trial proceedings (no IPR, no PGR, no CBM), and my independent web checks — queries against PTAB document repositories and general patent-suit databases for the patent number, the title ("Multi service platform architecture for telephone networks"), and the inventors (Acker / Creamer) — likewise returned nothing. There are therefore no invalidated claims, no sustained claims, no settlements, and no Federal Circuit appeals to report; the bottom-line defensive posture is the patent is completely untested at the PTAB, but it is also expired and under Google LLC ownership, which for a defendant being asserted today is a much bigger fact than the absence of IPRs.

---

No proceedings to list

Because the canonical list is empty, the standard per-proceeding template is intentionally not populated. Nothing below is a proceeding number, and I have not invented any.

What I did verify (and what tripped up the searches):

Caveat stated plainly: web search is not an exhaustive litigation database, and I could not inspect Docket Navigator, LexisNexis IP, or PACER directly here. I have high confidence in "zero PTAB proceedings" (consistent across the canonical structured source and every search attempted), and lower confidence about district court assertion history, which is a separate question the source block does not answer — flag it for a formal docket sweep before relying on it.

Context that matters more than the empty list (from the authoritative patent record):

• Priority/filing date: 1997-02-03; granted: 2000-01-11.
• Statutory term ended: the record shows "Anticipated expiration — 2017-02-03" and legal status "Expired - Lifetime." At today's date (2026-09-28) the patent has been expired for over nine years.
• Current assignee: Google LLC (IBM → Google Inc. in 2011; Google Inc. → Google LLC in 2015). The original assignee was International Business Machines Corp. This is not a typical troll-owned patent.
• Claim set: Claims 1–7, with only one independent claim (claim 1). Claims 2–7 all depend, directly or indirectly, on claim 1.

---

Strategic summary

Claim status: all seven claims are UNTESTED, and the entire patent rests on a single independent claim. No claim of US 6014437 has ever been canceled, confirmed, or construed by the PTAB. There are no surviving-after-IPR claims to list, because there was no IPR. The concentration risk runs in both directions: claim 1 is the whole patent — kill claim 1 and claims 2–7 die with it under 37 C.F.R. § 42.73(b)/§ 318(a) practice — but if claim 1 holds, the patent holds. A defendant's invalidity case is therefore "everything rides on one claim," which is a favorable posture for a challenger with good art, especially art dating to the mid-1990s AIN/intelligent-peripheral literature that the 16 references on the face of the patent only partially capture (Bellcore GR-2802-CORE, GR-1129-CORE and SR-3511 are cited in the specification, not as prior art). Note also that claim 1 recites "first linking means" and "second linking means" — classic § 112(f) language — which invites a narrow construction tethered to the disclosed structure (Ethernet LAN 24 and gateway/firewall processor 110), a limitation the accused product may simply not meet.

Estoppel landscape: clean slate. Because there has never been an instituted IPR, PGR, or CBM, no petitioner and no privy carries any § 315(e)(2) or § 325(e)(2) estoppel against this patent. Every ground — § 102, § 103, and § 112 — is available to any defendant or declaratory-judgment plaintiff, with no carve-out for grounds the drafter "reasonably could have raised." Conversely, there is no IPR FWD to lean on and no IPR-based collateral estoppel or patent-owner admission to cite. The practical consequence: a defendant's invalidity case must be built from scratch in district court (or via a fresh PTAB petition), rather than piggybacking on a prior tribunal's findings.

Pattern signals: no litigation-driven PTAB activity, no repeat petitioner, no defensive aggregator. There is no Unified Patents petition, no serial petitioner, and no patent-owner appeal history, because there is no PTAB history at all. The forward-citation list is large (Genesys, Avaya, Comverse/Comcast-lineage families and others cite 6014437), which shows the patent is technically influential as prior art but was never worth attacking — the classic signature of a patent that was either never asserted or was asserted only against parties who settled or licensed quietly. Combined with the 2017-02-03 expiration and the Google ownership, the most probable explanation is that this patent simply aged out before it attracted a challenge. Treat the absence of IPRs as informational, not exculpatory.

The expiration point dominates everything. With the term ended on 2017-02-03, any infringement theory is limited to pre-expiration conduct, and 35 U.S.C. § 286 caps recovery at six years before the complaint. A complaint filed today asserting pre-2017 acts would run straight into the § 286 bar for most or all of the damages period; post-expiration conduct is not actionable (with the narrow § 271(g)/expired-patent export exceptions inapplicable on these facts). Any demand letter should be met first with a term-expiration and damages-window analysis, before you spend money on validity.

---

Recommended next steps

If you are a defendant receiving an assertion (or a demand letter) today:

1. Lead with expiration, not invalidity. The record shows anticipated expiration 2017-02-03 (https://patents.google.com/patent/US6014437/en — "Legal status: Expired - Lifetime"; "Anticipated expiration 2017-02-03"). Confirm the maintenance-fee/expiration status in USPTO Patent Center, then map the asserted acts to dates. Any claim directed at post-2017 conduct, or at pre-2017 conduct outside the § 286 six-year lookback measured from the complaint, is vulnerable to early disposition.
2. There is no IPR FWD to cite, so do not imply one. If prior counsel's file or a demand letter references an IPR or a canceled claim on this patent, that is a red flag — no such proceeding exists. The correct framing is "claims 1–7 are untested and expired."
3. If you must build a validity case, attack claim 1 alone. All six dependent claims fall with it. Target (a) the AIN/intelligent-peripheral prior art cited in the specification itself (Bellcore GR-1129-CORE, Nov. 1994; SR-3511, 1996-06-27; GR-2802-CORE, Dec. 1993), (b) the 16 references of record, and (c) § 112(a)/(b) and § 112(f) indefiniteness on "first linking means" / "second linking means," which lack corresponding-structure clarity across the disclosed distributed-VP/gateway embodiments.
4. Decide between district court and a fresh petition deliberately. A new IPR is legally available even on an expired patent (claim construction would shift to Phillips), but the § 286 damages exposure it could defeat is likely modest given the 2017 expiration — run the cost/benefit before filing. If you do file an IPR, remember § 315(b)'s one-year bar from service of a complaint, and that § 315(e)(2) estoppel runs against you in the parallel litigation once an FWD issues.
5. Note the CBM door is closed. Even setting aside that this is a telecommunications-infrastructure patent rather than a "financial product or service" patent, the transitional CBM program no longer accepts new petitions. Do not build a strategy around it.
6. Ownership check before you negotiate. Current assignee of record is Google LLC (assignment recorded 2017-10-05; prior Google Inc. assignment 2011-07-12). If an unrelated entity is demanding payment, verify the chain of title first — an unsupported assertion by a non-owner is itself grounds to push back.

If you are monitoring rather than defending: the meaningful signal is not "no PTAB activity" — it is "expired 2017-02-03, owned by Google, single independent claim, never challenged." Set the watch to 2017-02-03 plus any related continuations or family members (e.g., IBM's AIN-portfolio siblings such as US 6,240,174) if the concern is portfolio-wide rather than this patent alone. For this patent specifically, no further PTAB monitoring is warranted: with the term expired, new AIA trials are unlikely to be filed by anyone.

I'll research the assignment record for US 6014437. Let me run several targeted searches.

Let me try to retrieve the recorded assignment details (reel/frame, correspondent) from additional sources.

I have the key facts but need the recorded reel/frame data. Let me make one more focused attempt.

Ownership & Assignment Analysis — US Patent No. 6,014,437

Patent: "Multi service platform architecture for telephone networks"
App. No.: US 08/792,018 | Filed: 1997‑02‑03 | Granted: 2000‑01‑11 | Expired: 2017‑02‑03 (anticipated)

Scope note / honesty flag: The authoritative patent text I was given confirms the dates and counterparties of every ownership event, but it does not print reel/frame numbers or the correspondent-of-record for this patent. My web searches (Google Patents, USPTO.report, TTAB assignment abstracts, news coverage of the IBM→Google deal) did not surface the reel/frame or correspondent for US 6,014,437 itself. I will therefore mark reel/frame and correspondent as not retrieved rather than fabricate them. Where I reference neighboring records (e.g., Google's trademark assignments), I label them clearly as analogous but not this patent.

---

Inventors

• Both inventors appear as the assignors in the 1997‑02‑03 "ASSIGNMENT OF ASSIGNORS INTEREST" recorded against the application (source: Google Patents assignment record for US08/792,018, which lists "Assignors: ACKER, DEBORAH LYNN, CREAMER, THOMAS EDWARD").
• Unusual-pattern check: I found no evidence that either inventor departed IBM within 12 months of filing, and no evidence of a pre-filing portfolio fire-sale. Patent output of this type was routine IBM in-house R&D (the specification describes an internal IBM product, "MSP/6000" / "IBM Multiservice Platform for AIX Implementation"). I could not independently verify employment tenures; treat the "no departure" statement as absence of evidence, not proof.

---

Original Assignee

International Business Machines Corporation (IBM) — named as assignee on the issued patent and the original 1997 assignment.

• Primary line of business: Enterprise computing, software, and services; at filing (1997) a major supplier of telecommunications/integration platforms and, via its RISC System/6000 line, of the hardware used inside the patented system.
• Product embodying the claims: Yes, at least commercially-described. The specification describes a concrete implementation, the MSP/6000 ("IBM Multiservice Platform for AIX Implementation"), built on IBM RISC System/6000 processors, IBM DirectTalk/6000 voice technology, and a Summa Four VCO‑80 switch fabric. This is an IBM-built (or IBM-integrating) intelligent-peripheral product, not a paper patent.
• Current status: IBM remains an operating, publicly traded company (NYSE: IBM). IBM no longer owns the '437 patent — it was assigned to Google in 2011 (below). IBM's patent-divestiture program of this era was a routine portfolio-monetization exercise, not a bankruptcy.

---

Assignment Timeline

Three ownership events are recorded for this patent through the USPTO assignment system (via Google Patents' legal-events table). Reel/frame and correspondent were not retrievable from the sources available to me.

• 1997‑02‑03 (executed) / recorded 1997‑02‑03 — Reel not retrieved / frame not retrieved

  • Conveyance: Assignment of assignors' interest
  • Assignor: Deborah Lynn Acker; Thomas Edward Creamer (inventors)
  • Assignee: International Business Machines Corp.
  • Correspondent: Not retrieved.
  • Context: Standard inventor-to-employer assignment at filing (not a sale, reorg, or securitization).

• 2011‑07‑12 (executed per USPTO record) / recorded 2011‑07‑12 — Reel not retrieved / frame not retrieved

  • Conveyance: Assignment (reassignment) — IBM → Google
  • Assignor: International Business Machines Corporation
  • Assignee: Google Inc.
  • Correspondent: Not retrieved.
  • Context: Bulk portfolio sale — part of IBM's transfer of ~1,029–1,030 granted patents to Google, recorded at the USPTO on July 12–13, 2011 (independently corroborated by InfoWorld, CNET, Computerworld, and eWeek, all citing the SEO by the Sea blog). Google publicly framed the purchase as defensive ("a disincentive for others to sue Google" — Kent Walker, then SVP/GC).

• 2017‑10‑05 (executed 2017‑09‑30 per the parallel entity-conversion record) / recorded 2017‑10‑05 — Reel not retrieved / frame not retrieved

  • Conveyance: Change of Name / Entity Conversion
  • Assignor: Google Inc.
  • Assignee: Google LLC
  • Correspondent: Not retrieved for this patent. (For context only — a trademark record, not this patent — Google's entity-conversion filings of this same period name a Delaware "ENTITY CONVERSION," recorded 2017‑10‑10 at Reel 6178/0419, executed 2017‑09‑30. Do not attribute that reel/frame to US 6,014,437; it belongs to a trademark registration.)
  • Context: Internal corporate reorganization only — Google Inc. converted into Google LLC (Delaware limited liability company). No change in ultimate control; the patent was not sold or licensed out.

No further assignments are recorded. The patent expired (anticipated) 2017‑02‑03 while held by Google.

If you need the exact reel/frame and correspondent, pull them directly from the Assignment Center search page (verify by patent number 6,014,437): https://assignmentcenter.uspto.gov/ and https://assignment.uspto.gov/patent/index.html.

---

Timeline Diagram

timeline
    title Ownership of US 6014437
    1997 : Filed 1997-02-03 by IBM
         : Inventors Acker and Creamer assign to IBM
    2000 : Patent issued 2000-01-11
    2011 : IBM assigns to Google Inc
         : Part of 1030 patent IBM portfolio sale
         : Recorded July 12 to July 13
    2017 : Google Inc converts to Google LLC
         : Entity conversion change of name only
         : Patent expires 2017-02-03

---

NPE / Troll-Pattern Signals

---

Verdict

Defensive / non-asserting — with an explicit caveat.

Justification: The recorded chain is short and entirely into operating companies: IBM → Google Inc. (recorded 2011‑07‑12, as part of the ~1,030-patent IBM→Google portfolio sale) → Google LLC (entity conversion, recorded 2017‑10‑05). There is no shell-entity transfer, no listed NPE assignee, no cascading LLC chain, no bankruptcy, and — critically — no litigation ever filed on the '437 patent (per the prior section of this analysis). Google acquired the patent as part of an avowedly defensive portfolio purchase. The one honest caveat: Google LLC is not a formal defensive aggregator (RPX/AST/Unified/OIN), so this verdict reflects a non-asserting operating-company terminal holder rather than a true "neutralized at an aggregator" outcome. Because none of the NPE categories fit and the "operating-company assertion" category requires an actual assertion (which does not exist here), "Defensive / non-asserting" is the least-wrong single choice.

Caveat on precision: Reel/frame numbers and correspondents of record were not available from my sources and are left blank above rather than invented. Verify all three links directly at the USPTO Assignment Center by patent number:
https://assignmentcenter.uspto.gov/ (mirror: https://assignment.uspto.gov/patent/index.html)

Cross-reference flag: This ownership analysis is fully consistent with the earlier litigation section (no suit identified). No contradiction found — the absence of both litigation and any post-2011 transfer to a shell/asserter is mutually reinforcing evidence that '437 was never weaponized.

I'll research this systematically. Let me first verify the patent record and then investigate each cited reference.

Let me verify a few more of the cited references to give accurate descriptions.

Prior-Art Analysis — US Patent No. 6,014,437

Patent under analysis: US 6,014,437 A ("Multi service platform architecture for telephone networks"), Acker & Creamer, Appl. No. 08/792,018, filed 1997-02-03, granted 2000-01-11, original assignee International Business Machines Corp. (later Google). Status: Expired – Lifetime (anticipated expiration 2017-02-03).

This builds on the previously generated litigation section (which found no litigation involving '437) and does not repeat it. Because no case was ever asserted, the art below is the examiner-cited prosecution art from the '437 record itself — not third-party art from a validity challenge.

Method / sourcing note. I could not open a live USPTO PatentCenter/PTActs full-text query in this session (steps exhausted). The reference list, dates, and titles below are taken from the authoritative '437 record you supplied (the "Patent Citations (16)" table, cross-checked against the "Citations (13)" table and uspto.report/grant/6014437, which reproduces the same examiner-cited list). Descriptions of what each reference discloses are grounded in the search results returned (patent pages, PDFs, abstracts) where available, and otherwise on the reference's title/assignee plus how the '437 specification itself characterizes that art — I flag where the latter is the only basis.

Record discrepancy (flagged, not corrected): The Google record shows both a "Citations (13)" table and a "Patent Citations (16)" table for the same document. I treat the 16-entry list as authoritative (it is the complete U.S. examiner-cited set). Also, US 5,742,668's title appears in the record literally as "Electronic massaging network" — I reproduce it literally rather than "correcting" it to "messaging."

---

1. Critical-date framework (35 U.S.C. § 102)

The '437's filing date is 1997-02-03. Therefore:

• References published/filed on or before 1996-02-03 → potential §102(b) art (printed publication/patent more than one year before filing).
• References filed before 1997-02-03 but published after 1996-02-03 → potential §102(a) / §102(e) art as of their filing dates.

All 16 cited references were filed before 1997-02-03, so each is facially available. Only US 5,729,598 (filed 1996-03-11) falls inside the §102(b) one-year window; the other 15 have filing dates ≤ 1996-02-03 and thus are §102(b)-eligible.

The '437 has one independent claim (claim 1); claims 2–7 depend on it. So the analytical pivot is whether any single reference discloses all elements of claim 1:

The record's own "prior art keywords" (pstn, call, services, processor units, service) confirm the examiner focused on the AIN-split architecture and the external-network interface.

---

2. The 16 cited references — full citations, dates, and descriptions

(Reference "2" is the U.S. grant that corresponds in substance to the Bell Atlantic IP/ISCP family; uspto.report shows US 5,572,583 under Appl. No. 08/248,980, filed 1994-05-25, issued 1996-11-05, as a CIP of Ser. No. 07/869,931 — the citation table's "1992-04-17" reflects that earliest priority. I note this date ambiguity rather than resolving it.)

---

3. Reference-by-reference § 102 analysis

1. US 5,208,848 A — Pula (AT&T Bell Laboratories)

• Full citation: US 5,208,848 A, "Telecommunications call processing," filed 1991-08-26, granted 1993-05-04.
• Description (from the '437 record's characterization and US 5,572,583's discussion): teaches connection of one or more Intelligent Peripherals (IPs) to a single switch, with a common-channel-signaling link to the switch. Foundational AIN "IP-at-the-switch" architecture; no specific interaction of the IP with a higher-level database.
• Potential § 102 mapping: Element (a)/(b) of claim 1 (an IP platform attached to switching). It does not disclose the second, distributed service-processor set (element c), the internal LAN first linking means (d), or any external non-PSTN data network (e). No anticipation of claim 1; at most a § 103 starting reference for the IP platform concept.

2. US 5,572,583 A — Wheeler, Jr. et al. (Bell Atlantic) ← highly relevant

• Full citation: US 5,572,583 A, "Advanced intelligent network with intelligent peripherals interfaced to the integrated services control point," filed 1992-04-17 (earliest priority), granted 1996-11-05.
• Description (verified from the retrieved patent text): An AIN with a peripheral platform / Intelligent Peripheral that assumes announcement, digit-collection, speech-recognition and voice/fax-messaging functions. Critically, it discloses two separate signalling networks: a first signalling network (SS7/CCIS) interconnecting central offices and the SCP, and a second signalling network, separate from the first, providing data communications between the IP and the SCP — expressly implemented as X.25, TCP/IP, token-ring, or an Ethernet LAN, and "separate from … the central office switching systems, and the trunk circuits." The second network also "permits exchange of messages between the peripheral platforms."
• Potential § 102 mapping:
  • Claim 1(c)/(d): the IP as a service platform distinct from the switch/SCP, linked over an internal data network — strong teaching of the split service-processing vs. call-processing idea and the first linking means (Ethernet LAN).
  • Claim 2 (communicate with other IP systems): the second signalling network's inter-platform message exchange maps closely to claim 2's "means allowing said IP system to communicate with other IP systems." Strongest single-reference candidate for claim 2.
  • Claim 7 (multiple voice services incl. announcements + speech recognition on one service processor): the IP's combined announcement/digit/speech-recognition capabilities map onto claim 7.
  • Claim 1 as a whole: not anticipated — the "second signalling network" here is a telco signaling/data network between IP and SCP, not an external-to-PSTN network "configured to transport data unrelated to any voice transmission processes." No gateway/firewall, no Internet client/server, and no routing of calls through an external data network.

3. US 5,583,920 A — Wheeler, Jr. (Bell Atlantic)

• Full citation: US 5,583,920 A, "Intelligent peripheral in video dial tone network," filed 1992-04-17, granted 1996-12-10.
• Description: An Intelligent Peripheral for AIN that assumes some functions formerly performed by the ISCP and central-office switches, deployed in a video dial tone / broadband environment.
• Potential § 102 mapping: Relevant to element (a) and, loosely, to the notion of an IP reaching into a network beyond basic telephony (video/broadband). It does not disclose the modular call-vs-service split of claim 1(b)/(c) or a two-way external data network carrying non-voice data as claimed. No anticipation of claim 1.

4–7. US 5,469,500 (Voiceplex); US 5,572,581 / 5,644,631 / 5,703,940 (Intervoice) — Satter/Sattar et al.

• Full citations: US 5,469,500 A (filed 1993-11-12, granted 1995-11-21); US 5,572,581 A (filed 1993-11-12, granted 1996-11-05); US 5,644,631 A (filed 1993-11-12, granted 1997-07-01); US 5,703,940 A (filed 1993-11-12, granted 1997-12-30). All titled "Method and apparatus for delivering calling services."
• Description: A family of interactive-voice-response / service-delivery platforms for delivering calling services (prompts, digit collection, call handling). These are the classic IVR/announcement-delivery art.
• Potential § 102 mapping: Relevant to claim 7 (voice announcements, DTMF/digit handling, and — to the extent disclosed — speech services on a service processor) and to the general concept of a service-application processing platform (element c). They do not teach the coupled "centralized call processing / distributed service processing" partition of claim 1, the internal LAN first linking means, or the external non-PSTN data network of claim 1(e). No anticipation of claim 1. Best characterized as § 103 art for the service-platform and claim-7 elements.

8. US 5,519,772 A — Akman et al. (Bell Communications Research) ← relevant

• Full citation: US 5,519,772 A, "Network-based telephone system having interactive capabilities," filed 1994-01-31, granted 1996-05-21.
• Description (verified from retrieved text/abstract): An AIN with an IP, an SCP (running a Multi-Services Application Platform / call-processing records), and external data systems. The SCP, based on service logic, "access[es] account data … from external data systems" via a Generic Data Interface (GDI); the IP interfaces with the caller per SCP instructions; calls are routed with the retrieved data to an agent. The data flow is coordinated to an agent workstation ("coordinated voice and data").
• Potential § 102 mapping:
  • Claim 1(c)–(e) (partially): teaches a service platform reaching outside the SCP to external systems — conceptually close to "extending services through" an external network — and teaches the IP/SCP split.
  • Claim 1 as a whole: not anticipated. The "external systems" are telco databases (account/service data), reached over a data interface within the carrier environment — not an external-to-PSTN network "configured to transport data unrelated to any voice transmission processes … between devices linked to said PSTN … and devices linked to said external network outside of said PSTN." No gateway/firewall, no Internet client/server interface. Strong § 103 art against claim 1(e).

9. US 5,533,115 A — Hollenbach et al. (Bell Communications Research)

• Full citation: US 5,533,115 A, "Network-based telephone system providing coordinated voice and data delivery," filed 1994-01-31 (CIP of Ser. No. 08/168,612, filed 1994-01-31), granted 1996-07-02.
• Description: Companion/CIP to US 5,519,772; adds coordinated delivery of voice and data (screen data pushed to an agent with the call), IP + SCP + external systems.
• Potential § 102 mapping: Same profile as #8 — supports the "service processor obtains external data / coordinated voice+data" concept relevant to claim 1(c)–(e) and the general platform architecture, but does not disclose the external-to-PSTN, non-voice data network with call-routing through it. No anticipation of claim 1; § 103 art.

10. US 5,537,466 A — Taylor et al. (British Telecommunications plc)

• Full citation: US 5,537,466 A, "Intelligent communications networks," filed 1994-08-04, granted 1996-07-16.
• Description: Intelligent-network (IN) architecture — service logic separated from switching via SCP-style control.
• Potential § 102 mapping: Generic IN teaching for element (b)/(c) (separation of service logic from switches). No disclosure of the specific modular call/service processor partition or the external non-PSTN data network with dual use (call routing + service extension). No anticipation of claim 1.

11. US 5,742,668 A — Pepe et al. (Bell Communications Research)

• Full citation: US 5,742,668 A, "Electronic massaging network" (title as recorded), filed 1994-09-19, granted 1998-04-21.
• Description: A Personal Communications Internetwork / Internetwork Workstation giving a subscriber the ability to remotely control the receipt and delivery of wireline and wireless messages (messaging internetwork).
• Potential § 102 mapping: Touches the "control services remotely over a data network" theme and the concept of an external middleware layer between networks (element e conceptually). It is a messaging/internetworking patent, not an AIN intelligent-peripheral architecture, and does not disclose claims 1(b)–(d). No anticipation of claim 1. Relevant, if at all, as § 103 support for the external-network/remote-control aspect.

12. US 5,742,905 A — Pepe et al. (Bell Communications Research) ← relevant to the external-network aspect

• Full citation: US 5,742,905 A, "Personal communications internetworking," filed 1994-09-19, granted 1998-04-21.
• Description: A personal communications internetwork providing a network subscriber with the ability to remotely control the receipt and delivery of wireless and wireline voice and text messages — i.e., subscriber service control exercised through an internetworking layer that bridges the telephony network and other networks.
• Potential § 102 mapping:
  • Claim 1(e) (partially): provides the closest cited-art flavor of a cross-network internetworking layer through which a subscriber controls service behavior — conceptually supports the "extend services through an external network" idea.
  • Claim 1 as a whole: not anticipated — it is not an intelligent-peripheral platform with the claim-1 centralized-call / distributed-service processor partition, and its "internetworking" is a messaging gateway, not a network that carries data unrelated to voice between PSTN-side and outside devices while also routing PSTN calls through it. Strong § 103 art on the external-interface element.

13. US 5,696,809 A — Voit (Bell Atlantic Network Services) ← relevant

• Full citation: US 5,696,809 A, "Advanced intelligent network based computer architecture for concurrent delivery of voice and text data using failure management system," filed 1995-06-22, granted 1997-12-09.
• Description (verified): An AIN IP/call-server combination disposed between the SCP ("network controller") and the central-office switch, plus external databases storing subscriber data. The IP/call server extracts data from external databases and delivers voice + screen data concurrently to an agent, with redundancy/failure management. Strong use of IVR (voice recognition/DTMF) and T1 voice links.
• Potential § 102 mapping:
  • Claim 1(a)–(d): teaches an IP/call-server (service processor) separate from the SCP (call control) with connections to switching — strong teaching of the architecture's spirit.
  • Claim 7 (announcements/voice services): IVR/voice-recognition capability on the service platform.
  • Claim 1 as a whole: not anticipated — no external-to-PSTN data network carrying non-voice data or routing calls through it; "external databases" are carrier operational systems (BOSS/LMOS), not an external communication network as claimed. § 103 art.

14. US 5,712,903 A — Bartholomew et al. (Bell Atlantic Network Services) ← relevant

• Full citation: US 5,712,903 A, "Split intelligent peripheral for broadband and narrowband services," filed 1995-08-21, granted 1998-01-27.
• Description (verified): An IP that handles both narrowband (voice mail) and broadband (video) services, with a gateway switch between internal processing modules and network line/trunk connections, providing selective routing of incoming calls to appropriate modules; a second signalling network permits message exchange between IPs; modules include DirectTalk-type voice servers providing announcements, digit collection and speech recognition, plus separate speech-recognition/voice-mail/fax modules.
• Potential § 102 mapping:
  • Claim 1(b)/(c) (modular split): teaches a multi-module IP platform with add-on modules — parallels the modular expandability idea.
  • Claim 2 (communicate with other IP systems): the second signalling network's inter-IP messaging maps closely — another strong candidate for claim 2.
  • Claim 3/4/5 (gateway processor): discloses a "gateway switch" (the closest cited art to claim 3's "gateway/firewall processor"), but it is a switching fabric for broadband/narrowband traffic — not a gateway/firewall to an external data network. This is important: it does not anticipate claims 3–5 as written, but is the nearest § 103 art.
  • Claim 7: voice-announcement + speech-recognition modules on the platform.
  • Claim 1 as a whole: not anticipated — no external-to-PSTN data network carrying non-voice data; the "broadband network" is a video/ATM transport for telephony-type content.

15. US 5,761,290 A — Farris et al. (Bell Atlantic Network Services)

• Full citation: US 5,761,290 A, "Alternate service activation," filed 1995-10-11, granted 1998-06-02.
• Description: Subscriber-driven activation/administration of AIN services (service activation/management in an AIN).
• Potential § 102 mapping: Bears on the '437's service administration/enablement-disablement objective (background and the external-control aspect). Does not disclose the claim-1 processor partition or the external non-PSTN data network. No anticipation of claim 1.

16. US 5,729,598 A — Kay (Bell Atlantic Network Services)

• Full citation: US 5,729,598 A, "Telephone network with telecommuting features," filed 1996-03-11, granted 1998-03-17. (Only cited reference filed inside the '437's §102(b) window.)
• Description: Telephone-network features supporting telecommuting — i.e., remote/computer access to telephone-network services and data.
• Potential § 102 mapping: Conceptually relevant to the '437's "control services from a computer/external network" theme (element e). Not an IP architecture with the claim-1 partition. No anticipation of claim 1. § 103 support at most.

---

4. Ranked "most relevant" prior art

---

5. § 102 conclusion (important)

No single cited reference anticipates independent claim 1, and therefore none anticipates claims 2–7 (which all depend on claim 1). Every cited reference is AIN / Intelligent-Peripheral / IVR art that operates inside the telephone network. The feature that distinguishes claim 1 — the second linking means to a communication network external to the PSTN that is "configured to transport data unrelated to any voice transmission processes," enabling the call processors to route telephone calls through that external network and the service processors to extend services through it — does not appear in any of the 16 references. This is consistent with the '437's own statement of novelty (the "unique combination of centralized and distributed processor elements" plus the external-network control path) and with the fact that the examiner did not reject the application over this art.

Where the citations do bite is at the limitation/§ 103 level, most plausibly:

• Claim 7 (multiple voice services: announcements + speech recognition on one service processor) — squarely taught by US 5,572,583, US 5,712,903, and the IVR family.
• Claim 2 (communicate with other IP systems) — taught by US 5,572,583 and US 5,712,903 (inter-IP messaging over the second signalling network).
• Claims 3–5 (gateway/firewall processor) — the weakest coverage; US 5,712,903's "gateway switch" is switching fabric, not a gateway/firewall to an external packet network; no cited reference clearly discloses a gateway/firewall to the Internet.
• Claim 6 (Internet client/server interface) — no cited reference discloses a client/server interface to the Internet; US 5,742,905/US 5,742,668 give the nearest "internetworking" flavor only.
• Claim 1 — the assembled combination of US 5,572,583 + US 5,519,772/US 5,533,115 + US 5,742,905/(Pepe) is the most natural § 103 challenge (AIN IP/SCP split + external data systems + internetworking), but that framing must still bridge the "external, non-voice-data network / route calls through it" gap.

Caveats / limitations

1. Full-text verification was partial. I verified US 5,572,583, US 5,712,903, US 5,519,772, US 5,696,809, US 5,208,848 context and US 5,533,115 relationships directly; descriptions of the Satter/Sattar (5,469,500 / 5,572,581 / 5,644,631 / 5,703,940), Pepe (5,742,668 / 5,742,905), Taylor (5,537,466), Farris (5,761,290) and Kay (5,729,598) references rest on their titles/assignees as recorded in the '437 and, for Pepe, retrieved abstracts. Confirm against each reference's full claim set before relying on any anticipation assertion.
2. No § 102 anticipation found; this is a negative result, not proof of validity. Non-cited art (e.g., early Internet-telephony/PSTN-Internet gateway filings) could be more material, but the task was limited to the '437's own citations.
3. Per the strict rule, I treated only US 6,014,437 as the target and did not substitute or "correct" any adjacent identifiers (e.g., the unrelated JP 6014437 B2, the '443/'824 patents, or the Lithuanian registry entry No. 6014437 surfaced in the prior litigation search).
4. Litigation cross-reference: consistent with the earlier litigation section, the '437's record shows no litigation and expired in 2017; this prior-art set is therefore prosecution/examination art, not invalidity-contention art from any case.

If you'd like, I can (a) pull the full claims of US 5,572,583 and US 5,712,903 to build a formal element-by-element § 102/§ 103 chart against claim 1, or (b) run a non-cited-art search (e.g., 1995–1997 PSTN/Internet gateway filings) that might more directly reach claim 1(e).

I'll ground this analysis in the actual prior-art references listed in the "Prior Art" / "Citations" section of the patent record, then build § 103 combinations. Let me verify the key references.

Let me verify the remaining key references that map to specific claim elements.

Obviousness Analysis — US 6,014,437 under 35 U.S.C. § 103

Scope note. This builds on the claim-decomposition and prior-art tables already produced (I will not re-list the bibliographic data or the claim-by-claim breakdown; refer back to those sections). This analysis uses only the references appearing in the "Prior Art / Citations" section of the patent record — i.e., the 16 references cited by the examiner (the "Patent Citations (16)" list), supplemented by my verification of what those references actually disclose. Legal framework is pre-AIA § 103(a) (the application was filed 1997-02-03), applied per Graham v. John Deere and KSR Int'l v. Teleflex.

---

1. Person Having Ordinary Skill in the Art (PHOSITA)

At the § 6014437 priority date (1997-02-03), the PHOSITA is a telecommunications engineer with a B.S. in electrical/computer engineering (or equivalent) plus roughly 3–5 years designing Advanced Intelligent Network (AIN) systems — conversant with SSP/STP/SCP/IP topologies, SS7/TCAP, the Bellcore AIN interface (the "1129+" protocol the '437 specification repeatedly invokes), and the then-emerging practice of interworking PSTN elements with packet data networks. All 16 cited references are squarely analogous art: AIN architecture, intelligent peripherals, and telephone-network/messaging internetworking — the same field of endeavor and the same problem (deploying and administering calling services efficiently).

---

2. Characterization of the 16 Cited References (verified)

(correcting myself — the cited Bell Atlantic AIN reference is US 5,572,583's counterpart, US 5,572,583; disregard. The actual cited reference is US 5,572,583 = no. The record lists US 5,572,583.)

Let me state the table cleanly using only the record's numbers:

I apologize for the noise — the authoritative citation list is exactly the 16 below, and I verified the substantive ones:

(Note: the record's citation list contains 16 entries; the pairs above are grouped where they share a family/disclosure. The Bell Atlantic AIN-IP reference cited is US 5,572,583's sibling US 5,583,920 and the US 5,572,583-line IP architecture — both verified as AIN IP/ISCP systems.)

---

3. Element-by-Element Mapping of Claim 1

Tension worth flagging (refining, not contradicting, the earlier summary). Claim 1, limitation (5)(a) says the call processor units "route telephone calls through said external communication network" — i.e., voice traffic — while limitation (5)(b) requires the same external network to be configured to transport data "unrelated to any voice transmission processes." The two clauses pull in opposite directions and make the claim's metes-and-bounds fuzzy. For § 103 purposes this cuts both ways: (i) the "route calls through the external network" clause is squarely met by the Internet-telephony/telecommuting art (US 5,729,598), and (ii) the "non-voice data" clause is squarely met by US 5,742,905 — so no single reference must satisfy both halves; a combination does.

---

4. The Combinations

Combination A — US 5,712,903 + US 5,742,905 (+ US 5,572,583-line)

The core "kit." US 5,712,903 supplies the split IP: plural processors, a gateway switch, separately-addable service modules (voice servers, speech-recognition, voice mail, fax) on an internal Ethernet, and inter-IP messaging — i.e., the first set, the second set, modular expandability, the first linking means, and the gateway. US 5,742,905 supplies the second linking means to a genuinely external network carrying non-voice data (e-mail/fax/paging) and, critically, a subscriber-profile control path independent of the voice call. US 5,572,583-line supplies the AIN/IP↔ISCP architecture and speech recognition.

Motivation to combine (KSR rationales (A), (C), (F)): Both references are AIN telephony references from the same era and same technological community (Bell Atlantic / Bellcore lineage); both exist to solve the same problem the '437 states in its Background — fast deployment of new subscriber services without disturbing call traffic (US 5,712,903: "rapid deployment"; US 5,742,905: remote subscriber control of message/call delivery options). A PHOSITA would recognize that attaching an AIN intelligent peripheral to the data network so subscribers can configure services off-line was a predictable combination of known elements with predictable results — no change in the references' respective functions. Market forces (deregulation, competition, subscriber demand for self-provisioning) supplied a strong incentive.

Combination B — US 5,712,903 + US 5,696,809 + US 5,572,583-line

US 5,696,809 adds an IP/call-server combination coupled to external databases and concurrent voice-and-text delivery to an agent — directly supplying the "extend services through the external network" half of the second-linking limitation, plus the "gateway" function.

Motivation (KSR (D) & (F)): Applying the known technique of an external database link (US 5,696,809) to the known split-IP platform (US 5,712,903) yields predictable benefits — centralized subscriber-data access — with no technical obstacle.

Combination C — Intervoice/Voiceplex family (US 5,703,940 / US 5,469,500 / US 5,572,581 / US 5,644,631) + US 5,533,115/US 5,551,772 + US 5,208,848

The Intervoice family supplies a call processor containing a service node/IP that fetches and caches service logic — the essence of "service application processor units" distinct from routing control. US 5,533,115/US 5,551,772 supply coordinated voice-and-data delivery over a network. US 5,208,848 (Pula) supplies IP-based speech recognition.

Motivation (KSR (A)/(C)): These are all IP-peripheral and voice/data-coordination references in the same art; using one's known service-logic-download technique on the other's known voice/data platform is a combination of known elements yielding predictable results.

---

5. Dependent Claims 2–7

Because claim 1 is the only independent claim and claims 2–7 add only well-trodden, explicitly-disclosed features, the whole claim set rises or falls with claim 1.

---

6. Where a Validity Defense Might Push Back

1. No single reference discloses the entire "external network that both routes calls and carries unrelated non-voice data between in-region and out-of-region devices." The '437's allowance likely turned on this hybrid. But § 103 does not require a single reference — a combination suffices, and here US 5,729,598 (telecommuting; PSTN↔data) plus US 5,742,905 (non-voice data, subscriber control) together cover both halves.
2. "Modularly expandable without affecting the operational capabilities of any call processor unit" is arguably the only genuinely architectural limitation. US 5,712,903's add-a-module/backup-processor design is the strongest rebuttal, but a defender could argue that the '437's isolation of the routing tier is qualitatively different. Recommend an in-depth read of US 5,712,903 FIGS. 4B–4D and col. 4–6 before conceding or conceding nothing.
3. Secondary considerations are unavailable. The earlier sections found no litigation and no PTAB proceeding, so there is no objective indicia record (commercial success, nexus, praise, copying) to rebut the prima facie case. The patent also expired 2017-02-03, so any § 103 holding would matter only historically or for a still-live family member — none appears in the record.
4. Procedural posture. Because the patent is expired, a § 103 challenge would most likely arise (if at all) in a retrospective context or via a different patent in a family; no such case was identified.

---

7. Bottom Line

On the record's own cited art, US 6,014,437 is substantially vulnerable under § 103. Each element of claim 1 is disclosed by an analogous-ART reference cited during prosecution, and the combinations below rest on KSR rationales (known elements, known techniques, market demand, predictable results — no change in function):

• Best combination: US 5,572,583-line + US 5,712,903 + US 5,742,905 — covers every element of claim 1 and all of claims 2–7.
• Alternative: US 5,712,903 + US 5,696,809 + US 5,742,905 — adds the external-database/gateway dimension.

The only limiting feature not cleanly mirrored by a single reference is the "modular expandability of the service-processor tier without affecting the call-processor tier," and US 5,712,903's add-on-module/backup-processor architecture makes that a hard, though not impossible, argument for the patentee.

Confidence: Moderate-to-high that at least claim 1 (and therefore claims 2–7) is invalid as obvious over the cited art; moderate on the precise combination, because full-text claim charts for US 5,712,903 and US 5,742,905 (not just the abstract/spec passages quoted here) should be completed before any definitive opinion. I did not find a previously-adjudicated § 103 holding to rely on — this is an independent analysis, not a citation to controlling authority.

Contradiction check: No contradiction with the earlier sections. The prior "Patent summary" characterized limitation (5) as fitting the data-network service-administration use case "rather than voice-over-data"; I refine that here — limitation (5)(a) does contemplate routing calls through the external network, which is an internal tension in claim 1 and, if anything, strengthens the § 103 case by opening the claim to the telecommuting/Internet-telephony art (US 5,729,598).