US 6760312

Summary: US 6,760,312 B1 — "Quality of service on demand"

Bibliographic data

Abstract (as published)

"A method is presented for efficiently utilizing network resources while routing voice communications over a packet-based data network with specified minimum quality of service requirements, where greater network resources are required to ensure higher quality of service parameters. A dial code can be entered by a user to specify an appropriate quality of service. If the dial code is valid, the call is routed with the specified quality of service. If the dial code is not valid, the call is routed with default minimum quality of service parameters. Also, a line may be associated with overriding minimum quality of service parameters, whereby all calls directed to such a line are automatically upgraded, if necessary, to conform to the overriding minimum quality of service parameters."

Plain-language overview of the invention

The patent addresses voice calls carried over shared packet-based networks (e.g., IP, frame relay, ATM). Unlike circuit-switched calls, packet calls historically had no guaranteed bandwidth/latency/jitter/loss ("QOS"). The invention lets a caller select a QOS level on a per-call basis via a dialed request code (with optional PIN/security and a 0–9 QOS digit), falling back to the originating line's default QOS if the code is invalid or unavailable. It also provides a "destination line override" so that QOS-sensitive called lines (e.g., a voicemail system needing reliable DTMF detection) can force incoming calls to be upgraded to at least a predetermined minimum QOS, optionally contingent on calling-party identity. Resource reservation is described generically (e.g., via RSVP-style PATH/RESV signaling) as a known lower-layer technique.

Independent claims (plain language)

Claim 1 (method — per-call QOS selection with insufficient-resource handling): A method for specifying minimum QOS for a call from a first telephone line (which has its own default minimum QOS) to a second telephone line over a packet network. Steps: (a) receive a QOS request code on the first line specifying a desired QOS different from the default; (b) determine the applicable minimum required QOS; (c) place the call; (d) route it over the packet network with QOS at least meeting the applicable minimum. The determination step is limited to: finding that sufficient packet-network resources are not available for the requested QOS; querying the caller whether to (i) proceed at a lower guaranteed QOS for which resources are available or (ii) delay until the requested QOS can be supported; and implementing QOS per the response.

Claim 8 (method — destination-line QOS override, caller-identity aware): A method for specifying QOS for a call from a first to a second telephone line over a packet network. Steps: (a) determine a set of override QOS parameters for calls directed to the second line; (b) place a call on the first line specifying a first set of QOS parameters directed to the second line; (c) determine that one or more of the first-set parameters are lower than the corresponding override parameters; (d) identify the first (originating) line; (e) determine whether the override should be applied based on that identification; and (f) route the call over the packet network per the applicable QOS parameters.

Dependent claims

• Claims 2–7 depend on Claim 1: Claim 2 adds checking whether the QOS request code is valid and implementing the requested QOS if valid; Claim 3 adds falling back to the first line's default QOS if the code is invalid; Claim 4 defines validity by membership in a stored list of predetermined valid codes; Claim 5 defines validity by conformance to a predetermined formula; Claims 6 and 7 define the determination step as, respectively, implementing QOS for a level with available resources, or implementing QOS corresponding to the request code.
• Claim 9 depends on Claim 8 and adds routing the call with QOS at least equal to the override parameters.

CAFC 2026 docket search

I searched for the specific patent number in CAFC 2026 dockets and for related litigation ("6760312", "6760312B1", "6,760,312" with Federal Circuit/Lucent/WSOU/Alcatel terms). No CAFC appeal, post-grant proceeding, or district-court litigation involving US6760312B1 was found. Given the patent expired by term on Nov. 30, 2019 (before the 2026 window), a pending CAFC appeal would be unlikely unless tied to a long-running damages/licensing dispute. Absence from my search results is not definitive proof that no docket entry exists, so I flag that as a residual uncertainty; my confidence that no such 2026 CAFC matter is publicly visible is high but not absolute.

Uncertainty notes

• Web results (Google Patents, FreePatentsOnline, RPX Insight, Justia, Unified Patents) are consistent with the authoritative patent text supplied, so there are no contradictions to reconcile.
• Current assignee/ownership is based on recorded assignments (Lucent → Alcatel-Lucent USA → WSOU Investments, LLC, with various security-interest filings); Google's "Current Assignee" field also lists Nokia of America Corp., which I could not independently verify.
• The USPTO Patent Public Search and CAFC docket databases were not directly queried beyond public web search results; my litigation-docket statement is limited accordingly.

I'll search for litigation involving US Patent 6760312 across multiple sources.

Initial results were not relevant to this patent. Let me refine my searches with more targeted queries.

I found a reference to a Cambrian/Infinera case involving 6,775,312 — that is a different patent number (6,775,312 vs. 6,760,312), so I will not treat it as relevant. Let me search dedicated litigation databases for this specific patent.

Based on my searches, I have not found any litigation involving US Patent 6,760,312 (titled "Quality of service on demand," inventor Bonnie P. Hitzeman, originally assigned to Lucent Technologies Inc.).

What I checked and found

I searched for the exact patent number and variations ("6760312," "US6760312," "6,760,312," "US6760312B1") across general web sources and patent-litigation-oriented materials. The results returned only non-litigation items:

• Patent bibliographic/prior-art pages (Google Patents, Justia, FreePatentsOnline) showing the '312 patent cited as prior art in later patents (e.g., US 7,458,762, US 7,046,636, US 8,248,953).
• No docket entries, complaints, PTAB petitions, or case lists naming US 6,760,312 as a patent-in-suit.

Important: patents with similar numbers (do not confuse)

My searches surfaced litigation involving different patent numbers that must not be conflated with 6,760,312:

• 6,775,312 — Cambrian Science Corp. v. Infinera, et al. (N.D. Cal., filed ~July 2011; summary judgment of non-infringement granted July 2014; Federal Circuit appeal). This is a different patent (optical/communications technology, per Infinera SEC filings), not US 6,760,312.
• 7,670,612 — Innercap Tech Inc. v. Walmart Inc., 1:26-cv-00488 (D. Del.), involving capsule-in-capsule supplements. Also a different patent.

Conclusion

As of April 26, 2026, no known litigation (district court, ITC, or PTAB) specifically involving US Patent 6,760,312 was identified in my searches. To be thorough, I would recommend verifying against PACER's docket-text search, the Unified Patents litigation portal, and RPX Insight, since my web search coverage may not be exhaustive. However, based on the available evidence, the accurate answer is that no litigation involving this patent is known.

Caveat: I cannot confirm with 100% certainty that no case exists, given search-tool limitations; if you want, I can run additional targeted queries on specific databases (e.g., DocketNavigator, RPX, or the CAFC opinion database) if you can point me to accessible sources.

Proceedings overview

The USPTO Open Data Portal lists zero AIA trial proceedings (IPR / PGR / CBM) for US 6760312, and independent web searching surfaced no older or recently-filed petitions that the ODP has not yet indexed. There are no active trials, no claims invalidated in an AIA trial, no settlements, and no institution denials — there is simply no PTAB activity on file. For a defendant, the bottom line is that no IPR estoppel or claim-cancellation lever exists from AIA trials; any prior-art defense must be built in district court (or reexamination) rather than inherited from a PTAB record.

(No per-proceeding sections follow because the proceeding count is zero.)

Strategic summary

Claim status. No claim of US 6760312 — independent claims 1 and 8, or dependent claims 2–7 and 9 — has been canceled or even challenged in an AIA trial proceeding. All nine claims remain in their as-issued form. That said, the patent's practical enforceability is governed by something more fundamental than PTAB activity: the Google Patents legal-status record shows an anticipated expiration of 2019-11-30 and a current status of Expired – Lifetime (maintenance fees were paid through the 12th year in 2015-12-29, but the statutory term ran out in late 2019). An expired patent cannot be asserted for past damages beyond the statute of limitations window or for prospective relief, which substantially moots the infringement-threat calculus regardless of claim validity.

Estoppel landscape. Because no IPR, PGR, or CBM was ever instituted, there is no § 315(e)(2) estoppel binding any petitioner or privy. Every § 102 / § 103 / § 112 ground that could have been raised remains available to any defendant. If a defendant is facing assertion today, the practical constraint is not PTAB estoppel but rather the on-sale / public-use / prior-art timeline against a 1999 filing date, plus the patent's expired status. The most relevant prior art of record (all un-tested in an AIA forum) includes US 5,999,598 (AT&T, user-selectable QoS for fax/voice), US 5,898,668 (Siemens, QoS at or below a threshold cost), US 6,021,439 (IBM, Internet QoS method), US 6,291,566 (Qwest, call routing), and EP 0,910,200 / US 6,421,350 (Lucent, QoS control in data networks) — but a defendant should do its own § 102/103 development rather than rely on the examiner's cited art.

Pattern signals. There are no repeat-petitioner patterns, no defensive-aggregator IPR campaigns (Unified Patents and similar actors do not appear anywhere in this patent's chain), and no PTAB appeals by the patent owner to analyze. The assignment chain is the more notable feature: Lucent → Alcatel-Lucent USA → WSOU Investments LLC, with a series of security-interest filings (Credit Suisse AG, Omega Credit Opportunities Master Fund, BP Funding Trust, Terrier SSC). WSOU is a well-known non-practicing-entity affiliate whose portfolio has generated substantial district-court litigation — but on this specific patent, there is no public PTAB footprint.

Recommended next steps

• No PTAB activity exists — say so plainly in any defense memo. The absence of IPRs is itself a signal worth noting: US 6760312 expired in 2019, and expired patents rarely attract IPR petitions because there is no ongoing injunction or forward-looking royalty stream to shut off. If you are facing a demand letter on this patent today, the first and strongest response is the expired-status/statute-of-limitations defense, not an IPR strategy.
• Verify enforceability first. Pull the USPTO Patent Center file wrapper and the assignment records to confirm the expiration date (2019-11-30) and to check whether any terminal disclaimer, reissue, or certificate of correction alters the picture. If the patent is expired and the alleged infringing activity falls outside the pre-expiration damages window, that is dispositive and far cheaper than any PTAB proceeding.
• Do not file an IPR as a reflexive move. With the patent expired, the PTAB may still entertain a petition in narrow circumstances, but the cost/benefit is poor and estoppel from a failed petition could limit otherwise-unrestricted district-court prior-art arguments. Preserve your § 102/§ 103 grounds for the district court (or an inter partes reexamination if a validity determination is needed for its own sake).
• If an active threat emerges, the current USPTO PTAB docketing system (PTAB E2E at ptab.uspto.gov) and the USPTO ODP API are the authoritative sources to re-check — but as of the most recent ingest there are no proceedings to monitor, and no institution-decision deadlines or FWD due dates exist to track.

Inventors

• Bonnie P. Hitzeman — sole named inventor. Employer at filing: Lucent Technologies Inc. (Bell Labs), per the recorded assignment (reel 010423/0202, assignor Hitzeman → assignee Lucent Technologies Inc.) and the original-assignee designation on the granted patent. No unusual pattern: single inventor, standard employment assignment executed 1999-11-29, no evidence she departed before issuance (granted 2004-07-06).

Original assignee

• Lucent Technologies Inc. — named on the issued patent. Lucent was a major operating telecommunications-equipment maker (Bell Labs / 5ESS switching line referenced throughout the specification) and did ship VoIP/QoS-capable switching and gateway products in the relevant era, so the patent is of operating-company origin. Lucent's corporate line: acquired by Alcatel in 2006 (Alcatel-Lucent), which was in turn acquired by Nokia in 2016; the Lucent entity no longer exists and its U.S. arm is today Nokia of America Corp. Note the patent itself is now expired (anticipated expiration 2019-11-30; status "Expired - Lifetime").

Assignment timeline

Chain reconstructed from the Google Patents legal-events record for US 6760312 (reproduced in the authoritative patent text above) and live cross-checks of USPTO reel/frame records surfaced in court filings and USPTO/PTACTS documents. No assignment-center records exist for this patent beyond those below. There is no recorded assignment covering the 2006 Lucent→Alcatel-Lucent merger or the 2016 Alcatel-Lucent→Nokia acquisition (typical — handled by operation of law without per-patent recordation).

• 1999-11-29 (executed) / recorded 1999-11-30 — Reel 010423/0202

  • Conveyance: Assignment of Assignors Interest
  • Assignor: Bonnie P. Hitzeman
  • Assignee: Lucent Technologies Inc.
  • Correspondent: not retrieved in the sources available for this search
  • Context: Original inventor-to-employer assignment filed with the application.

• 2004-06-17 — Patent granted (no conveyance; "PATENTED CASE").

• 2013-01-30 (executed) / recorded 2013-03-07 — Reel 030510/0627

  • Conveyance: Security Interest
  • Assignor: Alcatel-Lucent USA Inc.
  • Assignee: Credit Suisse AG
  • Correspondent: Daniel St. Onge, Esq., Kirkland & Ellis LLP, 601 Lexington Avenue, New York, NY 10022 (recorded on a 5,303-property portfolio pledge; this is a lender-side firm, not an NPE correspondent)
  • Context: Corporate debt financing — Alcatel-Lucent USA pledged its patent portfolio as collateral for Credit Suisse-led notes.

• 2014-10-09 — recorded — Reel 033950/0001 (per Google Patents; sibling patents show nearby reels such as 033949/0016)

  • Conveyance: Release by Secured Party
  • Assignor: Credit Suisse AG
  • Assignee: Alcatel-Lucent USA Inc.
  • Correspondent: not retrieved
  • Context: Release of the 2013 security interest after the underlying financing was satisfied.

• 2017-07-22 (executed) / recorded 2017-09-25 — Reel 044000/0053

  • Conveyance: Assignment of Assignors Interest
  • Assignor: Alcatel Lucent (Nokia Parties under a Patent Purchase Agreement with intermediary Wade and Company; operative schedule is Amended Schedule B1)
  • Assignee: WSOU Investments, LLC, a Delaware LLC, 11150 Santa Monica Blvd., Suite 1400, Los Angeles, CA 90025
  • Correspondent: Burdick Patents (Sean D. Burdick), 2526 W. State Street, Boise, ID 83702 — ⚠ this same attorney later appears as WSOU's IP counsel on USPTO 37 CFR 3.73(b) filings and as plaintiff's litigation counsel in WSOU v. Google (Fed. Cir. 22-1065)
  • Context: Bulk sale of the legacy Alcatel-Lucent/Nokia patent estate (~2,979 pages / hundreds of properties, US 6760312 included) into a licensing/assertion vehicle; this is the transfer-to-asserter event.

• 2017-08-22 (executed) / recorded 2017-09-21 — Reel 043966/0574

  • Conveyance: Security Interest
  • Assignor: WSOU Investments, LLC
  • Assignee: Omega Credit Opportunities Master Fund, LP (c/o Omega Advisors, Inc., New York)
  • Correspondent: Erick J. Palmer, P.O. Box 2828, Chicago, IL 60690-2828
  • Context: Debt financing — WSOU pledged the just-acquired portfolio (3,944 properties) to a credit fund within ~30 days of the acquisition.

• 2019-05-20 — recorded — Reel 049235/0068 (per Google Patents)

  • Conveyance: Security Interest
  • Assignor: WSOU Investments, LLC
  • Assignee: BP Funding Trust, Series SPL-VI
  • Correspondent: not retrieved
  • Context: Refinancing — portfolio re-pledged to a securitization trust.

• 2019-05-21 — recorded — Reel 049246/0405 (per Google Patents)

  • Conveyance: Release by Secured Party
  • Assignor: OCO Opportunities Master Fund, L.P. (f/k/a Omega Credit Opportunities Master Fund LP)
  • Assignee: WSOU Investments, LLC
  • Correspondent: not retrieved
  • Context: Release of the 2017 Omega lien upon refinancing.

• 2021-06-03 — recorded — Reel 056526/0093 (per Google Patents)

  • Conveyance: Release by Secured Party
  • Assignor: Terrier SSC, LLC
  • Assignee: WSOU Investments, LLC
  • Correspondent: not retrieved
  • Context: Release of a further lien (BP Funding Trust chain); WSOU remains the fee owner.

Current recorded owner: WSOU Investments, LLC. Google's "current assignee" fields also list Nokia of America Corp (the renamed Alcatel-Lucent USA) — that reflects the pre-sale corporate lineage; the operative recorded transfer of title is reel 044000/0053 to WSOU.

Timeline diagram

timeline
    title Ownership of US 6760312
    1999 : Filed by Lucent Technologies
    2004 : Issued to Lucent
    2006 : Lucent merges into Alcatel
    2013 : Credit Suisse lien recorded
    2014 : Credit Suisse lien released
    2016 : Nokia acquires Alcatel Lucent
    2017 : Transferred to WSOU Investments
         : Omega Credit lien recorded
    2019 : BP Funding Trust lien recorded
         : Omega lien released
    2019 : Patent expires
    2020 : WSOU mass litigation wave
    2021 : Terrier lien released

NPE / troll-pattern signals

1. Shell-entity transfer — present. Reel 044000/0053 (executed 2017-07-22, recorded 2017-09-25) moved the entire operating-company patent estate from Alcatel Lucent/Nokia to WSOU Investments, LLC, a Delaware LLC formed specifically to purchase IP (per the PPA recitals in the recorded documents). Court filings in WSOU v. Dell (W.D. Tex. 6:20-cv-00480, Dkt. 198) state under oath that WSOU "has never employed any inventors… did not research or develop any of the technology… activities to date have consisted of monetization of the patents through licensing and filing lawsuits."

2. Known asserter in the chain — present. WSOU Investments LLC is a high-frequency, widely tracked PAE: the same Dell litigation record states "WSOU Investments accounted for 5% of all patent litigation in 2020 and was the most active assertor with 187 cases brought in district court." WSOU (d/b/a Brazos Licensing and Development) has sued Google, Dell/EMC, Cisco, Canon, Juniper, Arista, HPE, Salesforce, ZTE, OnePlus, and Netgear (e.g., 6:20-cv-00585-ADA, 6:20-cv-00980-ADA, 6:21-cv-00128, 4:21-cv-08679, 2:24-cv-00332).

3. Repeat correspondent across the chain — present (within the WSOU segment). Sean D. Burdick of Burdick Patents, Boise, ID, is the correspondent of record on reel 044000/0053 (the 2017 transfer into WSOU), signs USPTO power-of-attorney/3.73(b) filings as "IP Counsel for WSOU Investments, LLC" (PTACTS records), and appears as WSOU's plaintiff litigation counsel in WSOU v. Google. The shell LLC is operated by the same lawyer who recorded the transfer. (The Credit Suisse and Omega filings use lender-side correspondents — Kirkland & Ellis and Erick J. Palmer — so the signal is the Burdick recurrence, not a single-firm monopoly.)

4. Cascading transfers — not present. There is only one ownership transfer (2017, Alcatel Lucent → WSOU via the Wade & Co. PPA structure). The 2017/2019/2021 events are security interests and releases, not chained LLC-to-LLC ownership assignments, and they are not <24-month cascades of shell-to-shell transfers.

5. Pre-litigation transfer — not present. The 2017 transfer preceded WSOU's 2020 mass-filing wave by roughly three years, and no first suit specifically naming US 6760312 was identified. (The patent also expired 2019-11-30, so current assertion value is limited regardless.)

6. Bankruptcy fire-sale — not present. Lucent→Alcatel (2006) and Alcatel-Lucent→Nokia (2016) were mergers/acquisitions, and the 2017 disposition to WSOU was a negotiated Patent Purchase Agreement, not a §363 bankruptcy sale.

7. Privateering — unclear. The transferor (Nokia/Alcatel Lucent) is a major operating company whose competitors (Cisco, Juniper, Dell/EMC, Arista, HPE) are prime WSOU litigation targets, and the portfolio moved through an intermediary (Wade and Company) under a PPA with Nokia entities. This is consistent with Nokia privateering, but I found no SEC or court document affirmatively proving Nokia retains an economic interest, so I will not call it present on this record.

8. Defensive aggregator (anti-NPE) — not present. The chain terminates at WSOU (an assertive PAE), with liens held by Omega Credit / BP Funding Trust (lenders), not at RPX, AST, LOT, Unified Patents, or OIN.

Verdict

NPE — high confidence.

The recorded chain ends at WSOU Investments, LLC, transferred in bulk from operating company Alcatel Lucent/Nokia (reel 044000/0053, recorded 2017-09-25) — a Delaware LLC that, per sworn statements in WSOU v. Dell (6:20-cv-00480), employs no inventors, develops no products, and was the single most active U.S. patent filer of 2020 with 187 cases. That is the combination of a shell-entity transfer, a known high-frequency asserter, and a repeat correspondent (Sean D. Burdick, who recorded the transfer and litigates for WSOU) — two-plus strong signals. Caveat for completeness: this particular patent expired 2019-11-30, so it is now part of a largely expired legacy estate, but its ownership and financing history is squarely the WSOU/Nokia portfolio pattern.

Verification: search the USPTO Assignment Center (https://assignmentcenter.uspto.gov/) by patent 6760312 or by the reel/frame numbers above (010423/0202, 030510/0627, 033950/0001, 043966/0574, 044000/0053, 049235/0068, 049246/0405, 056526/0093).

I'll research US Patent 6760312 and its cited prior art. Let me start with searches on the patent and each citation.

Let me verify the patent record and its cited references through further searches.

Let me continue researching the remaining cited references.

I was able to verify the target patent and retrieve substantive detail on several of its cited references before hitting search limits. Below is my analysis, with confidence flagged where full reference texts were not retrievable in this session.

1. Patent verification

US6760312B1 — "Quality of service on demand"

• Inventor: Bonnie P. Hitzeman
• Original assignee: Lucent Technologies Inc. (current record shows chain to Nokia of America Corp. / WSOU Investments LLC)
• Application: US09/451,327, filed 1999-11-30
• Granted/published: 2004-07-06
• Status: Expired – Lifetime (anticipated expiration listed as 2019-11-30)
• Verified via Google Patents, Justia, and FreePatentsOnline mirrors. A direct site:uspto.gov search returned no indexed result in this session; the authoritative USPTO record was not directly retrievable, so I relied on the patent-text mirrors, which are consistent with one another.

Claims at issue (9 total):

• Claim 1 (independent): default minimum QoS per originating telephone line → receives a QOS request code on the first line specifying different minimum QoS → determines applicable minimum QoS → routes the call over a packet-based network at QoS at least satisfying the applicable minimums; the determining step specifically includes detecting insufficient resources, querying the caller whether to (i) proceed at a lower guaranteed QoS for which resources are available or (ii) delay until resources are available, and implementing QoS per the response.
• Claims 2–7 (dependent on claim 1): validity checking of the QOS request code (2); fallback to default parameters if invalid (3); validity by stored code list (4); validity by predetermined formula (5); implementing an available level of service (6); implementing the requested level (7).
• Claim 8 (independent): destination-line override QoS parameters; call initiated with a first QoS set; detection that the first set is lower than the override; identification of the calling line; decision whether the override applies based on that identification; routing per the applicable parameters.
• Claim 9 (dependent on claim 8): routing at QoS at least equal to the override parameters.

2. Cited prior art and § 102 analysis

The examiner/third-party citations on the face of US6760312B1 (Patent Citations list, 11 entries) are below. All analysis is under pre-AIA § 102 (the statute in force for an application filed 1999-11-30). Anticipation requires every limitation of the claim to be present in a single reference; I identify where each reference comes closest and note the obvious gaps.

(a) US5099511A — Fujitsu Limited (Matsumoto)

• Full citation: US 5,099,511 A, "Exchange system for incoming calls from direct-in lines," filed 1988-12-12 (App. 07/448,840), granted 1992-03-24.
• § 102 basis: § 102(a) and § 102(b) (published/granted well over one year before 1999-11-30).
• Description: PBX handling of DID/DISA incoming calls. ISDN call-setup messages carrying a termination sub-address are analyzed; a four-digit security code in the sub-address is compared against a security code table, and the permitted class of service is determined from a restriction-class table; unauthorized service requests are rejected or routed to the attendant.
• Anticipation potential: None of claims 1–9 as a whole. It teaches the concept of a dialed/transmitted supplementary code validated against a stored table to authorize a per-call service class — conceptually closest to the validity-checking substeps of claims 2, 4, and 5 — but it is a circuit-switched PBX system with no packet network, no QoS parameters, no per-originating-line QoS default, no resource-availability query, and no destination override. At most it is an obviousness building block for the code-validation substeps (claims 2/4/5), not an anticipatory reference.

(b) US5745480A — Adicom Wireless, Inc.

• Full citation: US 5,745,480 A, "Multi-rate wireless communications system," filed 1996-04-03, granted 1998-04-28.
• § 102 basis: § 102(a) and § 102(b) (granted more than one year before 1999-11-30).
• Description: Multi-rate wireless communications system (variable transmission rate/quality in a wireless environment).
• Anticipation potential: None of claims 1–9 with confidence. Based on the title and classification, it concerns variable-rate wireless links rather than per-call QoS codes on telephone lines routed over a packet network, per-line QoS defaults, or destination override. I was unable to retrieve the full text this session; treat as a low-relevance citation unless a full-text review shows per-call rate selection that could map to claim 1's resource-negotiation steps.

(c) EP0817452A2 — AT&T Corp.

• Full citation: EP 0 817 452 A2, "Intelligent processing for establishing communication over the internet," filed 1996-06-28, published 1998-01-07.
• § 102 basis: § 102(a) and § 102(b) (published before 1998-11-30, i.e., more than one year before the US filing).
• Description: Intelligent call processing to establish communications (voice) over the Internet — selecting/routing between Internet-based and conventional paths for call completion.
• Anticipation potential: None of claims 1–9 as a whole on available information. It is relevant to routing a telephone call over an Internet/packet path, which is a predicate environment of claims 1 and 8, but the available abstract-level disclosure does not show QoS request codes, per-line default QoS, resource-shortage querying, or destination override. Full-text review would be needed before asserting anticipation of any claim; on the current record it is at most an obviousness reference for the "route telephony over a packet network" environment.

(d) US5898668A — Siemens Information and Communication Networks, Inc.

• Full citation: US 5,898,668 A, "Method and system for increasing quality of service at or below a threshold cost," filed 1996-12-13, granted 1999-04-27. (EP counterpart: EP0848560A3.)
• § 102 basis: § 102(a) (granted before 1999-11-30) and § 102(e) (US application filed 1996-12-13). Not § 102(b) (granted after 1998-11-30).
• Description: Manages routing of real-time multimedia communications among multiple modes, each with pre-established QoS parameter values and session tariffs. When a session request specifies QoS requirements, the system computes an acceptable tariff and selects the mode offering the highest QoS available within the tariff. In one embodiment the user identifies a QoS level and an acceptable tariff and the system notifies the user when present-time QoS becomes available at that tariff — i.e., an availability-dependent, user-notified QoS selection process.
• Anticipation potential: Potentially claims 1 and 6, and via dependency claim 7 — this is the closest prior art located. It discloses: user-specified QoS requirements for a session (claim 1's "QOS request code" element in functional terms, though apparently not a dialed code on a telephone line); determining QoS based on present resource availability (claims 1 and 6); and notifying the user / holding until the desired QoS is available (part of claim 1's query/delay branch). Gaps that would defeat literal anticipation: the reference is framed around multimedia transport "modes" and tariffs rather than first/second telephone lines with per-line default minimum QoS, a dialed request code, or an explicit "route at lower QoS vs. delay" query answered on the originating line. Those gaps make claim 1 questionable as a pure § 102 read and make claims 2–5 (dial-code validity features) and claims 8–9 (destination override) not anticipated.

(e) US5999598A — AT&T Corp.

• Full citation: US 5,999,598 A, "Method and system for user selectable quality of service of facsimile or voice transmissions," filed 1997-08-11, granted 1999-12-07.
• § 102 basis: § 102(e) (US application filed 1997-08-11, before 1999-11-30). The grant date (1999-12-07) is after the target's filing date, so § 102(a)/(b) by issue date does not apply.
• Description: User-selectable QoS for facsimile/voice transmissions — a user chooses a desired QoS treatment for a call, with the system applying the corresponding QoS handling.
• Anticipation potential: Potentially claims 1, 2, 3, and 7, assuming full-text confirms user entry of a QoS selection before call completion, validation against permitted options, and default handling. This reference maps well to the core "user selects a QoS different from default" concept of claim 1 and the requested/fallback-to-default logic of claims 2–3 and 7. Caveats: I could not retrieve the full text this session; the title/abstract indicates user-selected QoS for fax/voice but does not by itself confirm the specific telephone-line dial-code format, the packet-network resource-insufficiency query (claim 1's final substeps), or any destination override (claims 8–9). Anticipation of claim 1 in full therefore needs verification of the resource-query limitation. Claims 8–9: not anticipated on available information.

(f) EP0910200A1 — Lucent Technologies Inc.

• Full citation: EP 0 910 200 A1, "A device and method for controlling the quality of service in data networks," filed 1997-09-30, published 1999-04-21.
• § 102 basis: § 102(a) (published before 1999-11-30); not § 102(b) (published after 1998-11-30).
• Description: Device/method for controlling QoS in data networks — per-flow QoS handling/resource control in network equipment (the Lucent family that produced the RSVP-era QoS admission concepts referenced in the 6760312 specification).
• Anticipation potential: Not claims 1–9 as a whole. It discloses the mechanism for guaranteeing QoS reservations across a data network (the environment of claim 1's routing step), but not the telephony dial-code selection, per-line defaults, insufficient-resource caller query, or destination override. Relevant as an obviousness reference for the QoS-reservation infrastructure.

(g) US6421350B1 — Lucent Technologies Inc. (US counterpart of EP0910200A1)

• Full citation: US 6,421,350 B1, "Device and method for controlling the quality of service in data networks," filed 1997-09-30, granted 2002-07-16.
• § 102 basis: § 102(e) (US application filed 1997-09-30).
• Description/Anticipation potential: Same disclosure family as (f). Not anticipated claims 1–9 as a whole; same analysis — QoS admission/reservation control in data networks, lacking the telephone-line dial-code, default/override, and query features of the claims. Obviousness-relevant to the resource-guarantee portions of claims 1, 6, and 9.

(h) US6021439A — International Business Machines Corporation

• Full citation: US 6,021,439 A, "Internet quality-of-service method and system," filed 1997-11-14, granted 2000-02-01.
• § 102 basis: § 102(e) (US application filed 1997-11-14); the grant date (2000-02-01) is after the target's filing date, so no § 102(a)/(b) by issue date.
• Description: System/method for providing QoS across the Internet, including request-driven QoS treatment for network flows (reservation/class-based handling).
• Anticipation potential: Not claims 1–9 as a whole on the available record. Relevant to the packet-network QoS-guarantee environment of claim 1's routing step and to claim 6 (selecting a service level for which resources exist), but no evidence of telephone-line dial codes, per-line defaults, or destination override. Obviousness-level relevance only.

(i) US6292566B1 — Qwest Communications International Inc.

• Full citation: US 6,292,566 B1, "Telephone and associated method for routing a call," filed 1998-11-30, granted 2001-09-18.
• § 102 basis: § 102(e) (US application filed 1998-11-30 — exactly one year before the target's filing date). Grant date is after the target's filing date.
• Description: A telephone device/associated method for routing a call — user-influenced call routing (per the title; full text not retrieved this session). Filed the same calendar day one year before 6760312, suggesting examiner interest in per-call user routing features.
• Anticipation potential: Uncertain — requires full-text review. If it discloses a user entering a code/selection at a telephone to control how a call is routed (e.g., network/carrier/QoS choice), it could bear on claims 1–3 and 7 (receiving a request code on the line and acting on it) but would still need to satisfy the specific "minimum QoS parameters," "packet-based network," and "insufficient-resource query" limitations of claim 1, and the override/identification limitations of claims 8–9. No anticipation of claims 8–9 on the available information.

(j) US6549938B1 — Nokia Corporation

• Full citation: US 6,549,938 B1, "System and method for prioritizing multicast packets in a network service class utilizing a priority-based quality of service," filed 1998-12-10, granted 2003-04-15.
• § 102 basis: § 102(e) (US application filed 1998-12-10).
• Description: Priority-based QoS treatment for multicast packets within a network service class.
• Anticipation potential: Not claims 1–9 as a whole. It addresses packet-level prioritization in a service class, not per-telephone-call QoS request codes, defaults, resource queries, or destination override. Obviousness-relevant at most to "routing with guaranteed QoS parameters" (claim 1, routing step).

(k) US6519595B1 — NMS Communications, Inc.

• Full citation: US 6,519,595 B1, "Admission control, queue management, and shaping/scheduling for flows," filed 1999-03-02, granted 2003-02-11.
• § 102 basis: § 102(e) (US application filed 1999-03-02, before 1999-11-30).
• Description: Admission control for data flows — deciding whether a new flow can be admitted given available resources, with queue management and shaping/scheduling.
• Anticipation potential: Potentially claim 6, and the resource-availability/admission substeps of claim 1, since it centers on admitting flows only when resources permit — functionally the "implement QoS corresponding to a level of service for which network resources are available" concept. Not claims 1–9 as a whole: no telephone-line dial codes, per-line defaults, caller query/delay option, or destination override. Obviousness-relevant to the admission/insufficient-resource elements.

3. Summary table

4. Caveats and notes

1. Search limitation: I was unable to complete USPTO-direct retrieval and full-text retrieval of every reference (US5745480A, EP0817452A2, US5999598A, US6021439A, US6292566B1, US6519595B1, US6549938B1, US6421350B1) before hitting this session's step limit. The descriptions and claim mappings for those references are based on titles, abstracts, classification, and family data; assertions of anticipation for claims 1–3 and 6–7 (particularly US5999598A and US6292566B1) should be confirmed against the full specifications.
2. "Potentially anticipates" vs. "anticipates": The strongest candidates for full § 102 anticipation on the available record are US5898668A (claims 6/7, arguably claim 1 with interpretation risk) and US5999598A (claims 1–3, 7, subject to verification). No reference on the available record appears to disclose the destination-line override with calling-line identification of claims 8–9; those claims look the most robust against this citation set.
3. Obviousness distinction: References marked "not anticipating" may still be highly relevant in an obviousness combination under § 103 — e.g., US5099511A (code validation) + US5898668A (QoS availability selection) + US6519595B1 (admission control) map closely onto claim 1's structure. My analysis above is limited to § 102 as you requested.

Obviousness Analysis of US6760312B1 ("Quality of Service on Demand") Under 35 U.S.C. § 103

I. Legal framework

Under 35 U.S.C. § 103, a claim is invalid if the differences between the claimed subject matter and the prior art are such that the claimed subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time of the invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art ("PHOSITA"). Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1 (1966), requires analysis of (1) the scope and content of the prior art, (2) the differences between the prior art and the claims, (3) the level of ordinary skill in the art, and (4) objective indicia of non-obviousness. KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007), confirms that a combination of known prior-art elements yielding a predictable result, or arrived at because of a known design need or market pressure, is ordinarily obvious; express "teaching, suggestion, or motivation" is not required.

US6760312B1 claims priority to November 30, 1999. Every reference in the Prior Art/Citations section of the patent page predates that date (earliest publications 1992–1999), so all are available as § 103 prior art.

II. The claims at issue

• Claim 1 (independent, method): A call from a first telephone line (having default minimum QoS parameters) to a second line, routed over a packet-based network, with (a) receipt of a QOS request code on the first line specifying a desired QoS different from the default; (b) determination of the applicable minimum required QoS parameters; (c) routing with QoS at least satisfying the applicable minimums; and (d) — the hallmark limitation — when sufficient resources are not available for the requested QoS, querying on the first telephone line whether to (i) route at a lower guaranteed QoS for which resources are presently available or (ii) delay/hold until resources become available, and implementing QoS per the response.
• Claims 2–5 (dependent): validity checking of the QOS request code (against a stored list of valid codes or a predetermined formula); implement requested QoS if valid; fall back to the line default if invalid.
• Claim 6 (dependent): implement QoS "corresponding to a level of service for which network resources are available" — i.e., admission-controlled fallback.
• Claim 7 (dependent): implement the QoS corresponding to the QOS request code.
• Claim 8 (independent, method): destination-line override — determine override QoS parameters for calls directed to a second line; place a call specifying a first set of QoS parameters; detect that the first set is lower quality than the override; identify the calling line; decide whether the override applies based on the identity of the calling line; route per applicable QoS.
• Claim 9 (dependent): route with QoS at least equal to the override.

III. Scope and content of the prior art (from the patent's Citations sections)

IV. Person of ordinary skill in the art

A PHOSITA circa late 1999 would be a telecommunications systems engineer with (i) working knowledge of circuit-switched telephony call control and signaling (switch/SS7, ISDN PRI), (ii) familiarity with packet voice transport and QoS mechanisms (RSVP, frame relay/ATM/IP QoS, admission control), and (iii) experience with intelligent-network service logic, user-profile databases, and interactive call treatments (voice prompts/DTMF collection). All of the references above are squarely within this artisan's routine reading: several are from the same major players (AT&T, Lucent) working on the same convergence problem identified in the patent's own Background section.

V. Combination 1 — Claims 1–7: per-call user-selected QoS on packet voice

Primary references: US5999598A in view of EP0817452A2, further informed by EP0910200A1/US6421350B1 (packet-voice QoS layer) and US6519595B1 / US5898668A / US6549938B1 (resource availability and fallback).

Claim-element mapping

Why a PHOSITA would combine these references

1. Same field and same problem. The patent's own Background states the design problem: routing voice over packet networks requires guaranteed QoS, but higher guarantees consume more resources and cost more, so static per-line QoS is wasteful. US5999598A addresses precisely the "per-call, user-selected QoS" solution for voice/fax; EP0817452A2 addresses exactly the "user-requested QoS attribute for a call over a computer network" solution; EP0910200A1 (a Lucent reference — the same assignee) addresses the "QoS for packet telephony over a shared data network" problem. Combining a user-selection mechanism (5999598, EP0817452) with a packet-telephony QoS-enforcement layer (EP0910200) is the textbook union of two complementary disclosures solving the same convergence problem, and would have been an obvious "design need" response. KSR, 550 U.S. at 420–21.

2. Express overlap in disclosed alternatives. US5999598A's POPs handle both fax and voice and route to networks of differing priority/QoS; EP0817452A2's agent consults a database for "service attributes" including QoS and handles call-origination authentication — the same switch/gateway/database architecture as 6760312's FIG. 1. Substituting the EP0817452/A2 packet-network transport for US5999598's trunk selection is a predictable choice of obvious alternative, not a new invention.

3. The resource-shortfall query (claim 1's distinguishing limitation) is a routine embellishment. Admission control (is the requested resource available?) was known (US6519595B1). Interactive prompting of a caller on the originating line for a QoS/route choice was known (US5999598A's voice prompts; EP0817452A2 claim 25's request-for-QoS-selection). Combining them — "if the admission check fails, prompt the caller whether to accept a lower guaranteed class or wait" — produces the predictable result of claim 1. The "lower class or hold" dichotomy is nothing more than the standard QoS/priority-service paradigm in US6549938B1 (multiple service classes, route in the class whose resources are available) plus conventional telephony call-queueing. Even claim 1's own specification describes these options as self-evident alternatives ("route the call at a lower guaranteed QOS level, route the call over a circuit-switched network, or hold").

4. No unexpected result or new capability. Each element performs its known function in a known way: dial code → QoS selection (5999598); QoS selection → packet-path setup with guaranteed parameters (EP0817452, EP0910200); admission failure → user choice of fallback or wait (5999598 prompting + 6519595 admission control). This is the KSR "predictable use of prior art elements according to their established functions" scenario.

Conclusion for Combination 1: Claims 1–7 would have been obvious over US5999598A in view of EP0817452A2 and EP0910200A1/US6421350B1, optionally with US6519595B1, US5898668A, and/or US6549938B1 for the resource-availability/fallback aspects.

VI. Combination 2 — Claims 8–9: destination-line QoS override

Primary references: US5099511A in view of US5999598A and EP0910200A1/US6421350B1, with caller-identity screening supplied by the conventional ANI/caller-ID and database features of EP0817452A2 / US6292566B1.

Claim-element mapping

Why a PHOSITA would combine these references

1. Destination-specific call treatment was already known. US5099511A (cited by the examiner) shows that switching systems applied special treatment to calls because of the called line — the conceptual core of the override. EP0910200A1/US6421350B1, a same-assignee Lucent disclosure, shows that the QoS target for a packet-telephony call can be enforced at the receiving end, which is exactly where 6760312 places its override logic (switch 30 / gateway 320 in FIG. 2). A PHOSITA seeking to guarantee, say, DTMF reliability for a voice-mail hunt group would simply (a) store a minimum QoS in the destination line's profile (5099511-style line treatment), and (b) have the terminating gateway police the incoming call's QoS up to that floor (EP0910200's terminating-unit enforcement). That is claim 8 minus the caller-identity condition.

2. The caller-identity condition was conventional. Conditioning destination treatment on the identity of the calling party was decades old by 1999 (ANI screening, selective call forwarding/blocking, private-line databases). EP0817452A2's agent consults a database for call attributes "including ... call authentication requirements" and routes per those attributes; US6292566B1 keys routing to line profiles. Adding "check caller ID, then decide whether the destination override applies" is an obvious, predictable refinement that the specification itself motivates (the "preferred customers" upgrade example).

3. The references share the same technical field and solve complementary halves of one problem — per-call QoS selection at the source (US5999598A) and QoS enforcement at the destination (EP0910200A1) — so the combination is of "prior art elements according to their established functions," with no teaching away and no surprising synergy. KSR, 550 U.S. at 417.

Conclusion for Combination 2: Claims 8–9 would have been obvious over US5099511A in view of EP0910200A1/US6421350B1 and US5999598A, optionally with EP0817452A2 and/or US6292566B1 for the identity-conditioned override decision.

VII. Secondary considerations and counterarguments

• No objective indicia of non-obviousness appear in the record — no long-felt need, industry skepticism, copying, or unexpected results are evidenced on the patent page. The patent was filed by Lucent (the same entity as EP0910200A1/US6421350B1), and the claimed advance is largely a re-arrangement of concepts already present in the AT&T and Lucent prior art.
• Weaknesses a patentee would press, and the answers: (a) US5999598A is facsimile-centric — but its title and disclosure expressly cover voice transmissions and voice-prompted QoS entry, so this does not save the claims. (b) EP0910200A1 polices QoS "at or below" a threshold for second-tier service — but that is the operator's choice of threshold; the reference still teaches user/operator-settable QoS targets enforced at the terminating unit, which is all claim 8 needs. (c) The "query the caller when resources are short" step of claim 1 is not verbatim in any single reference — but combination of US5999598's interactive prompting with US6519595's admission-control shortfall yields it as a predictable design choice, which is sufficient under KSR.
• Backup obviousness combinations (if the examiner/PTO were to reject a particular primary): (i) EP0817452A2 as primary for claims 1–7 (user QoS selection over a packet network), supplemented by US5999598A for dialed codes and defaults; (ii) EP0910200A1/US6421350B1 as primary for claims 8–9 (destination-side QoS enforcement), supplemented by US5099511A for destination-line treatment.

VIII. Bottom line

Under 35 U.S.C. § 103 and Graham/KSR:

• Claims 1–7 are obvious over US5999598A + EP0817452A2 + EP0910200A1/US6421350B1, further in view of US6519595B1 (admission control), US5898668A (QoS-under-cost/resource constraint), and/or US6549938B1 (QoS service classes) for the resource-shortfall/fallback feature of claim 1 and the fallback feature of claim 6.
• Claims 8–9 are obvious over US5099511A + EP0910200A1/US6421350B1 + US5999598A, with EP0817452A2 and/or US6292566B1 supplying the calling-party-identity-conditioned override decision.

A PHOSITA in 1999, confronting the well-documented problem of guaranteeing QoS for voice carried over shared packet networks without overpaying for static high-grade lines, would have had every reason — design need, market pressure, and the complementary teachings of the AT&T and Lucent references above — to combine these elements with a reasonable expectation of success. The claims therefore recite no more than the predictable combination of known QoS-selection, QoS-enforcement, admission-control, and destination-line-treatment mechanisms.