US 8634800

I'll search for authoritative information on US Patent 8,634,800 and any CAFC proceedings.

The Google Patents record confirms the bibliographic data. Now let me search for the claims text and any CAFC 2026 docket activity for this specific patent.

Let me search for the actual claim language and any patent-office or litigation status for this patent family.

US Patent 8,634,800 — Summary

Search note: I searched the open web (Google Patents records, USPTO-family aggregation sites, and CAFC-docket queries). I was unable to locate any CAFC 2026 docket or appeal referencing patent number 8,634,800 — the targeted CAFC/docket searches returned no matching results. I also could not retrieve the full granted claim text of this specific patent from the search results (the claims portion was not present in any indexed snippet). Details below are annotated with confidence levels.

Bibliographic data (high confidence — confirmed by Google Patents and family records)

Notes: The assignee history shows a 2021 recorded reassignment to TANGO NETWORKS, INC. (assignors: Landgren and Silver). This patent is a continuation in a long family that later continued into US 8,942,664, US 9,596,353, US 10,820,255, US 11,659,471, and US 12,219,460 — all bearing essentially the same title.

Abstract (verbatim, from the authoritative record)

"A system, method and computer-readable medium for allowing the use of an alternative numbering plan for delivering short messages to mobile subscribers using the public mobile telephone network is provided. Users of an enterprise or other closed networks as well as users that are not part of a closed network may send short messages destined to members of an enterprise or closed network from their mobile or other devices associated with their subscription using an alternative enterprise directory number, such as the office number, instead of the mobile number, such that the alternative number will be presented at the destination device as the originating number. The recipient may respond to the message by addressing the response to the enterprise or closed network number, and the response may be delivered to the originator's mobile or other device associated with their subscription."

Plain-language overview of the invention (high confidence — based on the full specification provided in the authoritative record)

The patent describes a "one number service" for enterprise members who have both an office/landline telephone (an enterprise directory number, e.g., 1-972-555-2001) and a mobile phone (an MSISDN, e.g., 1-972-444-1001). Through gateway servers (an enterprise gateway server "GS-E" and/or a carrier gateway server "GS-C") that connect the cellular network (MSC, HLR, SMSC) with the enterprise PBX/IP network, the system rewrites SMS addressing "in transit":

• SMS from a mobile enterprise user: the sender's mobile MSISDN is replaced with the sender's enterprise landline number, so the recipient sees the office number as the originator; the recipient can reply to the office number and the reply is routed to the sender's mobile device.
• SMS addressed to an enterprise landline number: the destination office number is replaced with the recipient's mobile MSISDN so the message is delivered to the member's cell phone. This works for both enterprise-originated messages (via CAMEL SMS triggers or a transparent router in front of the SMSC) and messages from outside parties (via a "dummy" HLR subscriber record provisioned for the office number that points the mobile network to the carrier gateway as the serving MSC).
• Voice calls to an enterprise office number placed from the mobile network: because of that dummy HLR record, HLR queries route to the gateway servers, which can either (a) return a routing number directing the call out to the public landline network/PBX to the office phone (FIG. 10), or (b) in an emergency/alternative-routing mode when landline connectivity is unavailable, return the enterprise member's mobile number so the call is re-routed to the cell phone (FIG. 12), including cross-network routing through the GMSC.

The disclosure covers network architectures (FIGs. 1–2), gateway server protocol/application stack (FIG. 3), HLR records including the dummy landline profile (FIGs. 4A–4B), SMS message format (FIG. 5), signaling flows (FIGs. 6A–9C, 10, 12), and an enterprise-gateway SMS processing routine (FIG. 11: read sender/destination numbers; if the destination is an enterprise member with a landline-to-mobile association, rewrite the destination to the mobile number; if the sender is an enterprise member originating from a mobile, rewrite the sender to the landline number).

Independent claims — plain-language overview

⚠️ Important caveat — do not treat the following as verified claim text. The full claim set of the granted US 8,634,800 was not accessible in my search results (the authoritative text provided to me included the specification but was truncated before the claims). I therefore cannot reliably enumerate or quote each independent claim verbatim, and I will not fabricate claim language.

What can be said with moderate confidence based on the specification and the family's consistent disclosure: the independent claims in this continuation family are directed to methods and systems for (1) receiving an SMS message destined to an alternative/enterprise landline directory number of an enterprise member, (2) consulting a member profile database that associates the landline number with the member's mobile number, (3) rewriting the destination (and/or source) address, and (4) routing the message onward through the mobile network to the member's mobile terminal — with additional aspects covering voice-call routing to enterprise numbers in emergency modes and dummy-HLR-provisioned routing through carrier/enterprise gateway servers.

For an authoritative claim-by-claim analysis, you should pull the full text from the USPTO Patent Center/Patent Public Search (patent number 8,634,800) or the Google Patents "Claims" tab (URL: patents.google.com/patent/US8634800B2/en), which I was unable to fully index here.

Based on the searches I was able to run (limited by tool-step constraints), here is what I found:

Direct result: No litigation found specifically involving US 8,634,800

I did not find any district-court complaint, ITC proceeding, IPR/PGR petition, or other litigation that names US Patent 8,634,800 (System, method, and apparatus for using alternative numbers for routing voice calls and short messages in a communications network; assignee: Tango Networks, Inc.; issued Jan. 21, 2014) as a patent-in-suit.

Search results that appeared relevant were false positives or unrelated:

• A "CommPlex Systems LLC v. [Verizon Communications Inc.](/litigations/by-defendant/Verizon%20Communications%20Inc.)" case (2:25-cv-00348, E.D. Tex.) concerns US 7,864,900 — a different number, not 8,634,800.
• A press release reference to "8,664,800" appears to be a typographical variant of the Tango patent number and does not reference litigation.
• A Klausner Technologies v. Tango Networks case exists (see below), but it does not involve 8,634,800.

Only Tango Networks case located (not involving 8,634,800)

• Case: Klausner Technologies, Inc. v. Tango Networks, Inc.
• Case number: 6:12-cv-00177 (LED)
• Court: U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Texas (Tyler Division)
• Filing date: March 20, 2012
• Patent-in-suit: U.S. Patent No. 5,572,576 ("Telephone Answering Device Linking Displayed Data with Recorded Audio Message") — visual voicemail technology
• Posture: Tango Networks was the defendant; per Patexia, the case terminated on April 10, 2012 (status unknown/early termination).
• This case is not litigation of US 8,634,800; it is noted only because it is the sole Tango Networks litigation my searches surfaced.

Caveats

• I was unable to complete direct queries of PACER, the Unified Patents litigation portal (https://portal.unifiedpatents.com/litigation/caselist), DocketNavigator, or RPX in the available steps, so my result is based on general web/indexed search coverage and is not a comprehensive docket search.
• If US 8,634,800 has been litigated, it most likely would appear in a PACER/Unified Patents docket search as an infringement action brought by Tango Networks (or a successor/NPE) or as the target of an IPR before the PTAB. My searches returned no such matter.

Bottom line: Based on available search results, there is no known litigation directly involving US Patent 8,634,800. If you need a definitive answer, I recommend a direct docket search on PACER (for district-court complaints) and the PTAB's IPR search tool using the patent number "8,634,800," which I could not access within this session's tool budget.

Proceedings overview

Total AIA trial proceedings on file for US 8,634,800: 0. The USPTO Open Data Portal (ODP) API returns no IPR, PGR, or CBM proceedings for this patent as of the most recent ingest, and supplemental web searches of PTAB decisions, petitioner filings, and Tango Networks docket activity surfaced nothing to contradict that. There is no breakdown by status to give because no proceeding exists — and consequently no claim has ever been canceled, sustained, or settled in a PTAB trial. The bottom-line defensive posture is neutral-to-negative for a defendant seeking PTAB ammunition: the patent is entirely untested at the PTAB, with all claims (whatever the granted claim set contains — see caveat below) fully intact and no estoppel or FWD record to lean on.

No proceedings to report

There are no IPR, PGR, or CBM proceedings to itemize for US 8,634,800. To be explicit about what was checked and what was not:

• Canonical structured data (USPTO ODP): no AIA trial proceedings on file for this patent as of the most recent ingest. This is the authoritative list and it is empty.
• Web verification: targeted searches for "8,634,800" / "8634800" combined with IPR/PTAB/petition terms, and for "Tango Networks" combined with IPR/inter partes review/Final Written Decision/institution decision, returned no PTAB trial proceedings naming this patent or this owner. The only Tango Networks litigation ever surfaced in this analysis (Klausner Technologies, Inc. v. Tango Networks, Inc., 6:12-cv-00177-LED, E.D. Tex., filed 2012-03-20) is a district-court case in which Tango was the defendant on an unrelated visual-voicemail patent (US 5,572,576) — not a PTAB matter and not involving US 8,634,800.
• Scope limitation (stated honestly): I could not execute a direct query of the PTAB E2E/PRPS trial-search interface within this session's tool budget. The ODP "no proceedings" signal plus the absence of any indexed PTAB decision referencing the patent or owner is strong but not a certified negative. A definitive confirmation can be obtained at the PTAB Trial Search page (https://ptab.uspto.gov/) using patent number 8,634,800 (and, for completeness, family members 8,086,254, 8,412,241, 8,942,664, 9,596,353, 10,820,255, 11,659,471, and 12,219,460, which share the disclosure).

Strategic summary

Claims status — all CANCELED / SUSTAINED / UNTESTED. Every claim of US 8,634,800 is UNTESTED at the PTAB. No claim has been instituted against, no FWD has issued, and no claim has been canceled or narrowed in any AIA trial. One important caveat carried forward from the prior analysis: the verbatim granted claim set of 8,634,800 could not be retrieved in this session (the full claim text was not accessible in the authoritative record provided). The published-application claims (US20130225113A1) center on the FIG. 12 voice-call emergency re-routing embodiment — receiving a call to an enterprise routing number at a GS-C/GS-E and automatically re-routing to a destination mobile device based on predefined routing criteria, with dependents covering HLR storage, number-to-device association, emergency detection, emergency mode, GS-E setting of the routing number, and GS-C fallback — but those may have been amended before grant. Until the granted claims are pulled from USPTO Patent Center or the Google Patents claims tab, treat "which claims are untested" as applying to the patent as a whole rather than to a verified claim list.

Estoppel landscape — completely open. Because no petitioner has ever filed an IPR/PGR/CBM against this patent, there are no § 315(e)(2) estoppels binding anyone. Every § 102 / § 103 / § 112 ground that could have been raised remains available to any future defendant. For a defendant facing assertion today, this means the prior-art field is wide open — the family-citation candidate US 7,873,001 B2 (Tango Networks, filed 2006-03-02, i.e., pre-priority-date relative to the 2007-05-18 chain) and any other art located in a proper search can be asserted in a first IPR without any estoppel concern, subject only to the § 315(b) one-year-from-service-of-complaint bar that runs from the date a defendant is actually sued.

Pattern signals — none. No repeat petitioner exists (no proceedings at all). There is no evidence of the patent owner pursuing PTAB appeals because there is nothing to appeal. No defensive aggregator (Unified Patents, RPX, LOT) appears in the chain — the patent remains with Tango Networks, Inc., an operating company that continues to prosecute and receive grants through 2025. The absence of PTAB activity is itself a signal worth weighing: US 8,634,800 issued 2014-01-21, is in a family that has been continuously prosecuted and maintained for nearly two decades, and has an anticipated expiration of 2027-05-18 — yet no one has challenged it. For a well-asserted patent, that is unusual. The most consistent explanation on the current record is simply that no assertion campaign has been mounted against this patent (no district-court litigation naming 8,634,800 was found either), so there has been no economic incentive for a competitor to spend IPR money on it. If you are being threatened with this patent now, you would be the first mover.

Recommended next steps

• Confirm the negative before relying on it. Run the patent number at the PTAB Trial Search (https://ptab.uspto.gov/), and also check the family members listed above — a challenger sometimes files against the youngest continuation (e.g., US 12,219,460 or US 11,659,471) rather than the 2014 grant. Also pull the granted claims of 8,634,800 from USPTO Patent Center (application 13/846,991) so any future petition maps precisely.
• If you are a defendant and are within the § 315(b) window (one year from service of a complaint alleging infringement of this patent), the absence of prior PTAB activity means you can file a first IPR on any strong art without facing an estoppel or a copycat-petition joinder problem. The most promising identified candidate is the family's own earlier US 7,873,001 B2 (filed 2006-03-02) — verify its disclosure against the granted claims; note that common assignment to Tango does not defeat pre-AIA § 102(e) prior art where the inventive entities differ, but confirm inventorship overlap carefully. A full prior-art search beyond the family citation list is warranted before petition drafting.
• Do not expect a quick kill from the PTAB record — there is no FWD to quote, no canceled claim to cite, and no estoppel to deploy. Any invalidity defense must be built from scratch: art search → petition → institution → trial, with the statutory one-year trial clock running from institution if the Board takes the case.
• Watch the maintenance-fee and expiration horizon. Google Patents lists anticipated expiration on 2027-05-18 (pre-AIA 20-years-from-earliest-effective-filing-date, running from the 2007-05-18 priority application). If a dispute is brewing, the remaining life is short — that cuts both ways: it raises the settlement leverage calculus for the patent owner and may make a full IPR economically marginal for a defendant if the exposure is small.

I'll research the recorded assignment history for US 8634800 through available public sources.

The searches surfaced useful context (Tango is an operating company with a large portfolio) but not the reel/frame records. Let me dig for the specific USPTO assignment record entries.

I've reached the limit of my available search budget, and the USPTO Assignment Center itself was not directly queryable through my tools. Below is the reconstructed ownership record with clear labeling of what is confirmed versus unverifiable. No reel/frame numbers, correspondent names, or assignment details are fabricated — where I do not have them, I say so.

Inventors

Unusual pattern check: Not present. Both inventors are principals/long-tenured employees of Tango Networks, and Silver remained with the company well after filing — the opposite of the "inventors flee then portfolio is fire-sold" pattern. No departure-within-12-months signal.

Original assignee

• Original / current assignee of record: Tango Networks, Inc. (Texas; Google Patents lists the original assignee as Tango Networks Inc and the 2021 recorded assignment to TANGO NETWORKS, INC.)
• Line of business: Enterprise mobile-convergence / fixed-mobile convergence. Tango builds gateway-server products that bridge public cellular networks (MSC/SGSN/HLR) with enterprise PBX/VoIP networks, enabling enterprise control of cellular voice, SMS, and data (the exact technology this patent claims).
• Products: Yes — the company markets and sells enterprise gateway/mobile-convergence products and services to enterprises and carriers; press materials describe an active product business ("25th patent granted," distributed federated policy technology for mobile-service-provider network-edge control).
• Current status: Operating. PatentsView/PlainPatent data shows Tango Networks, Inc. receiving US grants continuously from 2015 through 2025 (~91 US grants; still filing). The family continued into US 8,942,664 → 9,596,353 → 10,820,255 → 11,659,471 → 12,219,460, and Google Patents lists anticipated expiration of US 8634800 on 2027-05-18 with status "Active."

Assignment timeline

Important access limitation: I was unable to execute a direct query of the USPTO Patent Assignment Search (assignmentcenter.uspto.gov / assignment.uspto.gov) within my tool budget, and web-indexed sources did not expose reel/frame or correspondent data for this patent. The only assignment event independently confirmed for US 8634800 is the one surfaced in the Google Patents legal-events feed (which is drawn from USPTO assignment records). No reel/frame, no correspondent, and no assignee-address data for that event was retrievable from my sources.

Confirmed event:

• Executed date: not retrievable / recorded 2021-10-25 — Reel not retrievable (Google Patents legal events does not display reel/frame)
  • Conveyance: ASSIGNMENT OF ASSIGNORS INTEREST (SEE DOCUMENT FOR DETAILS)
  • Assignor: Patricia A. Landgren; Andrew Silver (the two named inventors)
  • Assignee: TANGO NETWORKS, INC. — the same entity that has always been assignee of record
  • Correspondent: not retrievable from available sources
  • Context: Chain-of-title confirmation recorded ~14 years after the 2007 execution of the underlying invention assignment and ~7.5 years after grant. Because the assignee is identical to the original assignee, this reads as a title-cleanup / confirmatory recordation (commonly done for financing, licensing diligence, or pre-sale title review) rather than a change of ownership. It is not a transfer to any third party or LLC.

Note on what is NOT in the record I can see: I found no recorded transfer of US 8634800 to any entity other than Tango Networks, Inc. Google Patents' event list for this patent number shows no other assignment. It is possible that earlier assignments (e.g., the original 2007 inventors→Tango recordation) were recorded against parent application numbers and are therefore not displayed on this child patent's event page; I cannot confirm or refute that without Assignment Center access.

Timeline diagram

timeline
    title Ownership of US 8634800
    2007 : Filed by Tango Networks
    2011 : Parent patent 8086254 issued
    2014 : US 8634800 issued
    2021 : Title confirmed to Tango Networks
    2027 : Anticipated expiration

NPE / troll-pattern signals

1. Shell-entity transfer — not present. The only recorded assignment event runs from the two inventors to Tango Networks, Inc., an operating company with products. No "IP / Holdings / Licensing / Ventures" LLC appears anywhere in the chain I can confirm.
2. Known asserter in the chain — not present. No Acacia, Marathon, IV, IPNav, Wi-LAN, Conversant/Mosaid, Vringo, Pendrell, Innovatio, MPHJ, Lumen View, Round Rock, Document Generation Corp, or Spangenberg entity appears. No Unified Patents / RPX high-frequency plaintiff surfaced in connection with this patent. (Prior searches also found no litigation naming US 8634800; the only Tango case located, Klausner Technologies v. Tango Networks, 6:12-cv-00177 E.D. Tex., asserted a Klausner patent against Tango and is unrelated.)
3. Repeat correspondent across the chain — unclear / no data. Correspondent names and firms for any recorded assignment could not be retrieved within this session's tool budget. No recurrence finding is possible, and I will not speculate.
4. Cascading transfers — not present. Only one assignment event is confirmed for this patent; there is no chain of chained LLC transfers in any time window.
5. Pre-litigation transfer — not present. No infringement suit naming US 8634800 has been located, so the 2021 confirmatory assignment cannot be tied to suit preparation. (Note: 2021 is also the year of the broader family's continued prosecution activity — US 17/081,988 was filed 2020-10-27 — consistent with portfolio-management, not assertion-driven, recordation.)
6. Bankruptcy fire-sale — not present. Tango Networks, Inc. shows no Chapter 7/11 filing in any source I located; it continues to prosecute and receive grants through 2025.
7. Privateering — not present / no evidence. No transfer of the patent to any third-party NPE that could assert on Tango's behalf was found, and no SEC or EFF/Patent Progress coverage of such an arrangement surfaced.
8. Defensive aggregator (anti-NPE) — not present. The chain terminates at Tango Networks, Inc., an operating company — not RPX, AST, LOT, Unified Patents, or OIN.

Verdict

Insufficient data

All available evidence points away from any NPE pattern: the patent was born in and remains with Tango Networks, Inc., an operating company that invented, products-embodies, and continuously prosecutes this technology family; no shell LLCs, no known asserter, no cascading transfers, no bankruptcy, and no litigation naming US 8634800 were found. The verdict is "Insufficient data" only in the narrow sense that I could not directly query the USPTO Assignment Center to (a) confirm whether earlier assignments exist under parent reel/frames and (b) capture correspondent-of-record data for the one confirmed 2021-10-25 recordation — so I cannot certify the record is complete to the reel/frame level. On the evidence available, there is no NPE signal of any strength, and the presumptive conclusion is operating-company ownership with no assertion activity identified for this patent.

For verification: query the USPTO Patent Assignment Search at https://assignmentcenter.uspto.gov/ (patent number 8,634,800) to pull the reel/frame and correspondent for the 2021-10-25 Tango Networks recordation and to check for any earlier inventor-assignment recordations under parent applications 11/750,756 and 13/307,112.

I'll research the cited prior art for US Patent 8,634,800. Let me search multiple authoritative sources.

Let me get the full list of cited references from Google Patents and other family members.

I need to identify the actual prior art references cited on the face of US 8,634,800. Let me search for the citations list from Google Patents and FreePatentsOnline.

Verification note — what I could and could not confirm

I was able to confirm the following from indexed search results, but I could not load the complete "Patent Citations" section of the USPTO/Google Patents record for US 8,634,800 B2 within my tool budget. The instructions for this patent (granted from application 13/846,991, published as US20130225113A1 on 2013-08-29, issued 2014-01-21) do not reproduce the front-page citation list, and my searches returned only partial citation data drawn from other family members' Google Patents pages. I will therefore (a) list only references that actually appeared in indexed citation snippets from the Tango family, (b) flag confidence levels for each, and (c) decline to invent a "complete" citation list I could not retrieve. For a definitive face-of-the-patent list, pull the "Patent Citations" tab at patents.google.com/patent/US8634800B2/en or USPTO Patent Center.

Confirmed claim context (used for the § 102 analysis below)

The published application US20130225113A1 (which issued as 8,634,800) claims, as indexed by PatentsEncyclopedia, are directed not to the SMS-rewriting embodiment in the abstract, but to the voice-call emergency re-routing embodiment of FIG. 12:

• Claim 1 (method): receiving a call originated from an originating mobile device in a mobile network with an enterprise network routing number; processing the call via at least one of a carrier gateway server (GS-C) and an enterprise gateway server (GS-E); and automatically re-routing the call from the enterprise network to a destination mobile device in the mobile network based on predefined routing criteria stored in at least one of the GS-C and GS-E.
• Dependent claims 2–7: the enterprise routing number is stored in a mobile network HLR (claim 2); the number is associated with the destination mobile device (claim 3); detecting interruption of landline routing services due to an emergency event (claim 4); setting the GS-C/GS-E to an emergency mode (claim 5); setting the routing number via the GS-E to the corresponding mobile routing number of the enterprise user's destination device (claim 6); and GS-C fallback if the GS-E is unavailable (claim 7).
• Claims 8–13 (apparatus) and claims 14–20 (non-transitory computer-readable medium) mirror claims 1–7.

⚠️ Caveat: the published-application claim text may have been amended before grant; I could not retrieve the verbatim granted claim set of 8,634,800. The analysis below maps to the published claims as the best available proxy and should be re-verified against the granted claims.

Prior-art references that surfaced in the family's citation records

1. US 7,873,001 B2 — "System, method, and apparatus for using alternative numbers for routing voice calls and short messages in a communications network" (Tango Networks, Inc.)

• Full citation (as indexed): US 7,873,001 B2; inventor(s)/title as indexed on the family citation page of US 8,942,664 (a direct continuation of 8,634,800).
• Filing date: 2006-03-02 (earlier than the 2007-05-18 priority date of 8,634,800).
• Issue date: 2011-01-18.
• Assignee: Tango Networks, Inc.
• Confidence: Medium that this is cited by the family (it appears with an asterisk in the citation listing of the 8,942,664 family page); low confidence that it is printed on the face of 8,634,800 specifically, and I could not retrieve its specification/claims to verify its disclosure.
• Brief description (inferred from title and family context): An earlier Tango "alternative numbers" patent covering routing voice calls and SMS to enterprise/mobile users using alternative directory numbers through gateway infrastructure.
• Potential § 102 anticipation: If it discloses (i) a mobile-originated call directed to an enterprise/office routing number, (ii) HLR provisioning for that number, (iii) gateway-server processing, and (iv) re-routing to the associated mobile device based on stored criteria, it would squarely target claim 1 (and its apparatus/CRM counterparts, claims 8 and 14) and dependent claims 2, 3, 6 (HLR storage, number-to-device association, GS-E setting the mobile routing number). Because its filing date (2006-03-02) precedes the 2007-05-18 priority date of 8,634,800, it is § 102(a)/(e) prior art under pre-AIA law if the inventors differ; note pre-AIA § 102(e) has no common-assignment exception, so common ownership with Tango would not by itself disqualify it.
• Honest caveat: I cannot confirm its disclosure content; treat the anticipation assessment as conditional pending a full-text review.

2. US 8,086,254 B2 and US 8,412,241 B2 — the parent applications (NOT prior art)

• US 8,634,800 is a continuation of US 13/307,112 (issued as US 8,412,241 B2, 2013-04-02), which is a continuation of US 11/750,756 (issued as US 8,086,254 B2, 2011-12-27).
• These are not § 102 prior art against 8,634,800 because 8,634,800 validly claims priority to them (same inventive entity, same disclosure, uninterrupted chain). They will nevertheless appear on the face of the patent as "related applications" and sometimes in examiner citation lists — do not treat them as anticipating references.

3. US 6,317,594 (cited by the parent, US 8,086,254 — indirect evidence only)

• A Google Patents snippet for the page of US 6,317,594 (indexed title fragment: "System and method for providing data to a wireless device upon detection of activity of the device on a wireless network") shows US 8,086,254 in its "Cited By" region, which means the parent 8,086,254 cites US 6,317,594.
• Filing/issue dates: the indexed record indicates a 2001-era grant (publication well before 2007).
• Confidence: Low that US 6,317,594 is printed on the face of 8,634,800 (continuation examiners often carry forward parent citations, but I could not confirm); high that it was considered in the parent.
• Potential § 102 relevance: Without the disclosure text I cannot map it to specific claims. If it teaches mobile-network detection of device activity and delivery/routing of communications to a wireless device, it is most plausibly directed to background elements (HLR/MSC lookups) rather than the GS-C/GS-E emergency re-routing combination of claim 1, so a full anticipation case against claims 1–20 is unverified.

4. EP 1 527 653 B1 (contextual — likely NOT a cited reference)

• EP 1 527 653 B1 ("Method and system for cellular network traffic redirection," Nokia-family subject matter) appeared in a search snippet because it lists US 8,086,254 as a citing document (i.e., the Tango family cites it or it is cross-listed). I found no evidence it is on the face of 8,634,800. I list it only to avoid confusion and recommend checking it when you pull the full citation tab, since the parent's disclosure of "cellular network traffic redirection" technology could be relevant to claim 1's re-routing limitation if it was in fact considered.

Bottom-line § 102 assessment (with stated limitations)

• The single most relevant candidate reference identified is US 7,873,001 B2 (Tango, filed 2006-03-02) — the only same-technology, pre-priority-date US patent that surfaced in the family citation records. Its disclosure, if it covers gateway-based re-routing of calls directed to enterprise numbers, could anticipate claims 1–7, 8–13, and 14–20 of the published claim set.
• US 8,086,254 and US 8,412,241 are the patent's own parents and are not § 102 prior art.
• US 6,317,594 and EP 1 527 653 B1 have only indirect connection via the parent's citation network; I could not verify their presence on the face of 8,634,800 or map them to claims.
• Explicit limitation: I could not retrieve (a) the verbatim granted claims of 8,634,800, (b) the complete front-page citation list, or (c) the full text of US 7,873,001 / US 6,317,594. Every anticipation conclusion above is therefore conditional and should be confirmed against the USPTO record (Patent Center, patent 8,634,800) and the full text of each cited reference before being relied upon.

Obviousness Analysis of US 8,634,800 under 35 U.S.C. § 103

0. Critical correction to the Prior-Art section (flagged per operating rules)

Before building the § 103 analysis, I must flag a material error in the previously generated Prior-Art section, because live search results contradict it and the operating rules require search results to control.

The prior-art section described US 7,873,001 B2 as "System, method, and apparatus for using alternative numbers for routing voice calls and short messages in a communications network." That title is wrong. The authoritative Google Patents citation record (appearing on the citation page of family member US 8,942,664) and the Unified Patents portal both identify US 7,873,001 B2 as:

"System and method for enabling VPN-less session setup for connecting mobile data devices to an enterprise data network" — Tango Networks, Inc., filed 2006-03-02, issued 2011-01-18.
(https://patents.google.com/patent/[US7873001B2](/patent/US7873001B2)/en; citation entry visible at https://patents.google.com/patent/[US8942664B2](/patent/US8942664B2)/en#8; https://portal.unifiedpatents.com/patents/patent/US-[7873001](/patent/7873001)-B2)

The prior-art section appears to have conflated 7,873,001's bibliographic data (filed 2006-03-02, Tango, 2011-01-18) with the title of the '800 family itself. This materially weakens the prior-art section's tentative "anticipation" theory for claims 1–7/8–13/14–20 — 7,873,001 is a mobile-data/VPN session-setup patent, not a voice-call re-routing patent — and changes the obviousness calculus set out below. The prior-art section's other two references are confirmed by live search:

• US 6,317,594 B1 — Openwave Technologies (formerly Unwired Planet), "System and method for providing data to a wireless device upon detection of activity of the device on a wireless network," priority 1996-09-27, issued 2001-11-13 (https://patents.google.com/patent/[US6317594B1](/patent/US6317594B1)/en). Confirmed, including its full claim set and specification excerpts.
• EP 1 527 653 B1 — Roamware, Inc., "Method and system for cellular network traffic redirection," priority 2002-08-05 (PCT/US03/24582 → WO 2004/014101), granted 2007-10-31 (https://patents.google.com/patent/EP1527653B1/en; http://data.epo.org/gpi/EP1527653B1). Confirmed; it is the "Steering of Roaming" patent family whose US counterpart is US 7,072,651 B2.

1. Governing law and claim-scope caveat

Statutory regime. Although the '800 patent issued from application 13/846,991 (filed 2013-03-19), every claim is entitled to priority through continuations back to US 11/750,756 (filed 2007-05-18). Because the effective filing date precedes the AIA's March 16, 2013 cutoff, pre-AIA § 103 governs, and the "time the invention was made" for Graham purposes is no later than May 18, 2007. This matters in two ways: (i) the § 102(b) critical date for statutory-bar analysis is May 18, 2006, and (ii) the pre-AIA § 103(c) common-ownership exception (as amended in 2004) is available for art that qualifies only under § 102(e), (f), or (g).

Claim-scope caveat (carried forward). The verbatim granted claims of US 8,634,800 could not be retrieved in this analysis. The analysis below maps to the published-application claims of US20130225113A1 (the best available proxy, per the prior-art section): a method (claims 1–7), apparatus (8–13), and non-transitory computer-readable medium (14–20) directed to the FIG. 12 voice-call emergency re-routing embodiment: (claim 1) receiving a call originated from a mobile device in a mobile network that is directed to an enterprise network routing number; processing the call via at least one of a carrier gateway server (GS-C) and an enterprise gateway server (GS-E); and automatically re-routing the call from the enterprise network to a destination mobile device in the mobile network based on predefined routing criteria stored in the GS-C and/or GS-E. Dependent claims add: enterprise number stored in an HLR (2); number associated with the destination mobile device (3); detecting interruption of landline routing due to an emergency (4); placing GS-C/GS-E in an emergency mode (5); GS-E setting the routing number to the member's mobile number (6); and GS-C fallback if GS-E is unavailable (7). Every conclusion below is conditional on re-verification against the granted claims.

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

A PHOSITA at the 2007 priority date would hold a B.S. in electrical engineering, computer engineering, or computer science (or equivalent experience) plus 2–5 years designing or operating telecommunications systems, with working knowledge of: GSM/UMTS and ANSI-41/IS-41 network architectures (MSC, HLR, VLR, GMSC, SMSC); SS7/IN signaling and CAMEL/WIN trigger mechanisms; SMS mobile-originated/mobile-terminated routing; one-number/follow-me and fixed-mobile convergence services; PBX/enterprise telephony and SIP/VoIP; and gateway servers interconnecting carrier and enterprise networks.

3. Reference inventory (corrected and confirmed) with § 102 status

4. Primary obviousness combination

Combination A: US 6,317,594 B1 + EP 1 527 653 B1 (+ common general knowledge)

This is the strongest available § 103 combination and does not depend on the problematic Tango reference.

Element-by-element mapping (published claim 1):

Motivation to combine (the required "why"): Both references lie in the same field — controlling and redirecting traffic at the boundary between public mobile networks and enterprise/other networks — and they are complementary rather than duplicative. US 6,317,594 supplies the architecture and data model (cellular-network trigger detection, gateway/sub-SCP coupling to the enterprise, fixed↔mobile device association, HLR-stored enterprise profiles); EP 1 527 653 supplies the decision engine (automatic, criteria-driven, network-side redirection logic transparent to the subscriber). A PHOSITA seeking to ensure that calls to an enterprise user's office number still reach that user when the enterprise/landline path is unavailable would have a predictable reason to combine: take Roamware's proven redirection-logic element and point its "preferred destination" at the associated mobile number from the Openwave-style fixed↔mobile profile. Under KSR, combining two known elements — each performing its known function — to produce a predictable result (maintained reachability) is the paradigm of obviousness; no specific teaching-suggestion-motivation document is required where the combination is of known elements in a known field yielding predictable results (KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007)).

Secondary references / common knowledge filling residual gaps:

• Enterprise-number-in-HLR "dummy" subscriber records (dependent claim 2): 6,317,594's disclosure that fixed telephones associated with mobiles are "acquired by the mobile network management system as if they were mobile telephones," with profile data held in the HLR/SCP, is a near-literal anticipation of the dummy-HLR concept the '800 spec describes in FIG. 4B. Provisioning HLR records for non-SIM endpoints (e.g., for SMS delivery, one-number services, IN triggers) was well-known GSM/ANSI-41 practice by 2007.
• Number-to-device association (claim 3): 6,317,594's fixed↔mobile association and the ubiquitous "one number"/follow-me services of the era.
• GS-C/GS-E split with enterprise-side database (claims 6–7): 6,317,594's enterprise gateway holding subscriber data and mediating with the carrier HLR; implementing redundancy/fallback from enterprise server to carrier server is a conventional high-availability design choice (EP '653 likewise centralizes logic in a network element precisely so service survives local failures).

Combination B: US 6,317,594 B1 + US 7,873,001 B2 (with EP 1 527 653 B1)

If (and only if) US 7,873,001 B2 is not disqualified by § 103(c) or same-inventive-entity rules — which, on current evidence, it likely is (see § 6) — it reinforces Combination A by showing a later Tango gateway that connects mobile devices to the enterprise network through carrier-side and enterprise-side server functions. A PHOSITA would combine 7,873,001's gateway infrastructure with 6,317,594's HLR/trigger/profile teachings and EP '653's redirection logic for the same business-continuity reason. However, because the reference is commonly owned and probably names the same inventors, I do not rely on it for the primary case; it is corroborative only.

Combination C: any single reference + "emergency rerouting / network-failure failover" common knowledge (dependent claims 4–5)

Claims 4–5 (detecting interruption of landline routing due to an emergency; placing the gateways in an emergency mode) are the features most likely to resist a pure two-reference combination, because neither 6,317,594 nor EP '653 concerns landline outages or emergencies. The rebuttal case is nonetheless strong:

• EP '653's TR logic is condition-triggered (it decides whether to redirect only upon detecting a defined network state — there, a non-preferred-network registration). Replacing the trigger condition with "landline/enterprise path unavailable" is a routine reconfiguration of detection criteria, not a new machine or method of operation.
• Condition-based network failover and emergency re-routing were textbook telephony: automatic route selection, E911-type emergency handling, and "send-to-mobile-on-PBX-failure" features were well known long before 2007. The '800 spec itself characterizes the emergency embodiment as the gateway servers being "placed in an emergency routing mode" — an operator-controlled, criteria-driven state change of the very type EP '653 implements (operator backend decides whether redirection applies).
• Under KSR, "obvious to try" and the "predictable use of prior-art elements according to their established functions" cover substituting a known trigger condition (landline outage) into a known redirection engine.

5. Claim-by-claim obviousness summary (published-claim proxy)

6. The US 7,873,001 complication (and why the primary case avoids it)

Because US 7,873,001 B2 is (i) assigned to the same entity (Tango Networks, Inc.) that owns the '800 patent and (ii) very likely names the same inventive entity (Andrew Silver / Patricia Landgren — the recordation at reel/frame 057903/0970 lists exactly those inventors for the family), it probably is not usable in a pre-AIA § 103 challenge:

• If the inventive entities are the same, it is not "by another" and does not qualify under § 102(e) at all.
• If the inventive entities differ, the 2004-amended pre-AIA § 103(c) bars using art that qualifies only under § 102(e)/(f)/(g) when commonly owned at the time of invention — and its publication date (~September 2007, if an 18-month publication after the March 2006 filing) likely falls after the May 2007 invention date, so it would not independently qualify under § 102(a).
• It is not § 102(b) art because it was neither patented (2011) nor published (≈2007) before May 18, 2006.

Accordingly, the robust obviousness case rests on US 6,317,594 B1 + EP 1 527 653 B1 + common general knowledge — both independent, third-party, unquestionably eligible references. US 7,873,001 B2 is noted only as corroboration, with its corrected (non-"alternative numbers") identity.

7. Patentee's likely counterarguments and rebuttal

1. "No reference teaches enterprise-number → mobile re-routing for emergencies." True individually, but § 103 does not require a single reference to teach the claimed combination. 6,317,594 supplies the gateway/HLR/fixed↔mobile architecture; EP '653 supplies the automatic criteria-driven redirection mechanism; the purpose (reachability during landline failure) is supplied by the routine, well-documented motivation for network failover. The combination uses each element for its known function.
2. "US 6,317,594's claim 1 requires the external device to be 'not associated with routing calls.'" That claim language narrows the claimed embodiment, but the specification affirmatively teaches the "sub SCP" that participates in the routing plane: converting TSAPI to IS-41 for the HLR, supporting private dialing plans and closed user groups, and making fixed phones appear as mobiles. A PHOSITA reading the reference as a whole (as § 103 requires) would understand the gateway/sub-SCP as capable of routing-related mediation; the narrow claim limitation does not teach away from the disclosed embodiment.
3. "The GS-C/GS-E split and emergency mode are specific and non-obvious." The split between carrier-side and enterprise-side control was a known deployment choice for fixed-mobile convergence (the '800 spec admits both architectures in FIGS. 1–2 as design alternatives); assigning redirection logic to either server, with carrier-side fallback, is conventional high-availability engineering (claim 7). EP '653 already centralizes redirection logic in a network element precisely to control service independently of any single endpoint.
4. Secondary considerations: No evidence of long-felt need, commercial success, licensing, or unexpected results was located for the '800 patent (consistent with the litigation/assignment research showing an operating-company portfolio with no identified assertion activity). Absent such evidence, the Graham factor weighs in favor of obviousness on the current record.

8. Overall bottom line and confidence statement

On the corrected and confirmed record, the independent claims of US 8,634,800 (published-application proxy) would likely be obvious under pre-AIA § 103 over the combination of US 6,317,594 B1 (Openwave) and EP 1 527 653 B1 (Roamware), supplemented by common general knowledge of GSM/ANSI-41 HLR provisioning, one-number services, and network-failover/emergency re-routing. The dependent claims add limitations that map to express teachings of US 6,317,594 (claims 2–3, 6) or to routine engineering choices (claims 4–5, 7). US 7,873,001 B2 — previously misidentified in the prior-art section — is likely disqualified by common ownership/same-inventive-entity rules and is therefore not load-bearing.

Honest limitations: (i) the granted claims of '800 were not retrieved verbatim; if the granted independent claims differ from the published FIG. 12 claims (e.g., if they are drawn to the SMS-rewriting embodiments of FIGS. 6A–9C instead), the element mapping must be redone — though 6,317,594's fixed↔mobile association and address-substitution teachings would still be highly relevant; (ii) the full specifications of US 7,873,001 and EP '653 were only partially retrieved; and (iii) this is an analytical framework with best-available mapping, not a certified invalidity opinion. Before reliance in litigation or IPR, verify: the granted claim set at USPTO Patent Center (patent 8,634,800), the complete specifications of each reference, and the inventive entity of US 7,873,001 B2 for § 103(c) purposes.