!072694 Help sought in filing a patent reexamination against ATT It seems that there is an effort to overturn a telecommunications owned by ATT. Some of the lawyers organizing this effort are seeking public help to locate relevant prior art. Attached are some files that they have posted to the Internet explaining their case. If you want to help out, contact the lawyers. The following messages are also a good example of the preparation needed for filing a reexamination. Greg Aharonian Internet Patent News Service ==================== From: berryh@huey.udel.edu (Dr. John Berryhill) Subject: AT&T True Voice Patent Re-Examination - Announcement Some time ago, in comp.dcom.telecom and related groups, there was a discussion of a particular patent, which some believe to relate to AT&T True Voice speech enhancement. The identified patent was U.S. Patent No. 5,195,132 entitled "Telephone Network Speech Signal Enhancement" to Duane Bowker et al., and assigned to AT&T Bell Laboratories (hereinafter the Bowker patent). This patent refers, generically, to the idea of providing "true voice signals." The Bowker patent is NOT the patent that claims, inter alia, a long-distance communication system that includes: "...compensating means at a receiving point for effectively emphasizing the low frequency components of waves as received over said path...." No, THAT patent, No. 1,844,424, was obtained by AT&T in 1932. An example of such "low frequency components" is given therein as including signals of 150 Hz. The Bowker patent, obtained in 1993, is the one that claims, inter alia, a telecommunications system which performs a method including: "...increasing the amplitude of those of said received audio signals in the bass range relative to the remaining range of said received audio signals...." The "bass range" appears to be defined therein as including signals in the 100 Hz to 300 Hz range. Among the many things that people said on USENET about the Bowker patent is that it should not have issued. Of course, if you have a genuine concern about this particular patent, you need to seek the advice of competent counsel. I am not an attorney, and so nothing I say should be construed as legal advice nor as incitement to infringe an issued U.S. patent. Only a fool would mistake a USENET posting for legal advice. I am, however, registered to practice before the Patent Office in patent matters, and I can certainly quote from a public document which I have prepared and can discuss certain aspects of that document. My boss and I agreed that this patent should not have issued, and so we decided to do something about it. Moreover, we would like to encourage you to participate in having this patent withdrawn, as explained below and in related postings. If you are in the telecommunications industry, you may wish to pass this notice along to your legal department. A Request for Reexamination of U.S. Patent No. 5,195,132 is being filed today with the U.S. Patent Office and is being served upon AT&T. The text of the Request will soon be available via anonymous ftp at a location to be announced. The requesters are Mr. Roger W. Herrell and Dr. John Berryhill (yours truly). The official fee which we are paying in order to submit our request is $2,200. However, our filing of this request gives you the rare opportunity to have your arguments against the patent considered by the patent office AT NO COST TO YOU (other than two postage stamps). In accordance with 37 C.F.R. 1.501, any person may cite to the Patent Office any prior art patents or publications which that person states to be pertinent or applicable to the patent and believes to have a bearing on the patentability of any claim of a particular patent. THERE IS NO FEE FOR SUBMITTING A PRIOR ART CITATION AGAINST THIS PATENT. You must, however, submit your citation prior to such time as Reexamination is ordered, if the Patent Office decides that the Request raises substantial new questions of the patentability of the claims. This may take a few months, but you should get your citation in as soon as you can, in order to ensure its consideration. I have included instructions for submitting your prior art in the related posting entitled, "True Voice Re-Exam - How to Submit Prior Art". Alternatively, you may obtain a prior art citation "kit" by sending a self-addressed stamped envelope to me at the address in my .signature. If you have any questions, I may be reached at (215) 563-4100. In case you are wondering why I am doing this, the reasons include: 1. While I believe we have included many good references in our Request, you may be aware of additional material that would be helpful to the Patent Office in re-examining this patent. I've spent plenty of my spare time studying pertinent technical material dating back to 1893. You might have something good that we missed. The more, the merrier. 2. After filing our Request, the regulations severely limit any further submissions from us. You, on the other hand, are not subject to such limitations. 3. People often complain about patents that they don't like, such as the Compton Multimedia patent, but they don't often take advantage of simple ways in which they can do something about them. I would like to encourage people to do more than gripe. This is an opportunity to do something simple and cheap in order to deep-six a patent that many people have found to be offensive. 4. I don't think many people were sufficiently aware of the citation procedure when the Compton's Multimedia re- examination was announced. Although reexamination is one of the very few areas of the US patent system where people can take inexpensive action against what they perceive to be outrageous patents, that is likely to change soon. In the near future, it is likely that US patent applications will be published prior to issue. This is an opportunity to get some practice at venting your steam to the Patent Office. 5. I want people in the telecommunications industry to be aware of this Request. For the legal types out there, I've included a lot of section 102(b) references. You might have difficulty if you have to litigate the issues raised by these references at some time in the future. You might therefore conclude, despite the known problems with present re-examination procedure, that it would be desirable to give the PTO ample material to work with. For fans of the Cold War, you should recognize this as the "use it or lose it" doctrine. -- John Berryhill 1601 Market St., Suite 720, Philadelphia PA 19103 ==================== Subject: True Voice Re-Exam - How to Submit Prior Art The following instructions should enable you to properly submit a prior art citation in the file of U.S. Patent No. 5,195,132, popularly known as "the True Voice Patent". If you've ever mail-ordered tickets to a Grateful Dead concert, then submitting prior art should be a breeze. To obtain a more detailed set of written instructions, and some useful (but not mandatory) forms, send a self-addressed stamped envelope to: Dr. John Berryhill 1601 Market St., Suite 720 Philadelphia, PA 19103 - 2307 In a nutshell, you must do as follows: 1. Read the claims of the patent. I am posting the claims under "True Voice Re-exam - The Claims." Laughing at them is optional. It is also optional to read the entire patent, which may be obtained from numerous places such as the patent office, your local patent depository library, or by sending a SASE to me. 2. Obtain a relevant patent or printed publication, having a publication date PRIOR TO DECEMBER 3, 1989. This date is important for two reasons: (i) it is one year prior to the filing date of the patent, and hence the earliest date to which the inventors can "swear back" to overcome a reference, and (ii) it is my first wedding anniversary. In order to avoid duplication, I am posting a list of patents and publications being submitted with our Request, entitled "True Voice Re-exam - Cited References". 4. If your reference is not in English, you will have to translate it into English, and you will have to submit the translation along with the original document. There are some good references out there in Swedish. 3. Write a concise explanation as to why you believe that the patent or publication either discloses or renders obvious the subject matter of at least one of the claims. You may apply your reference to as many of the claims as you believe appropriate. However, you MUST identify at least one claim to which your reference applies. You can say, "I believe that claim X is either disclosed or rendered obvious by the publication because the publication shows as claimed in claim X." Explain as much as you believe necessary to make your point clear. 4. Make two copies of your reference and your explanation. 5. Mail one of the copies of your reference and your explanation to: Mr. P.V.D. Wilde / General Attorney / AT&T Bell Laboratories / 600 Mountain Ave. / P.O. Box 636 / Murray Hill, NJ 07974 - 0636. You have to do this. The Patent Office wants the patent owner to know what people are submitting. It is, after all, only fair. YOU CAN DO THIS ANONYMOUSLY IF DESIRED. 6. Mail the other copy of your reference, and your explanation, to: Hon. Commissioner of Patents and Trademarks / Washington, DC 20231 / Attention: Box Re-Exam. In the copy that you send to the Patent Office, you must certify that you have served a copy on Mr. Wilde of AT&T. You may do this by saying: "A copy of this citation has been served, by first class mail, on the patent owner. The name and address of the party served is as follows: " Again, this can be done anonymously. According to the Manual of Patent Examining Procedure, section 2203, "Persons citing art who desire to remain confidential are therefore advised to not identify themselves anywhere in their papers." It will help to put a header on your letter that clearly identifies the patent, U.S. Patent No. 5,195,132, and that you are submitting a "Prior Art Citation under 37 CFR 1.501" (that last bit is a reference to the federal regulation that says you can do this). You may also include a self-addressed pre-paid postcard that the PTO will stamp with the date of receipt and send back to you. Simply write a note on it saying, "Please stamp with the date of receipt and place in the outgoing mail. Contents: 1 prior art citation." You can use a picture postcard if you wish, with the text, "Having a wonderful time, wish you were here. Love, the Commish." 7. Feel Smug. I will provide updates on the progress of the Re-exam, so that you can be sure your citation was considered. John Berryhill 1601 Market St., Suite 720, Philadelphia PA 19103 ******************** Subject: True Voice Re-exam - References Cited in Request The following is a list of all of the references which are cited in the Request for Reexamination of U.S. Pat. No. 5,195,132. Some of these references are applied to the claims, some of these references are used to provide technical background information, and others are used in support of other arguments made in the Request. Following the list is the manner in which certain references are applied to the claims of the patent in the Request. Bloy, US Patent No. 4,457,014 Chance et al., U.S. Pat. No. 4,628,157 Duttweiler et al., U.S. Patent No. 4,731,834 Horton Jr., U.S. Pat. No. 1,844,424 Kahn, U.S. Pat. No. 4,217,661 Kahn, U.S. Pat. No. 3,684,838 Kahn et al., U.S. Pat. No. 3,696,298 Lu et al., U.S. Pat. No. 4,652,703 Cupo et al., U.S. Patent No. 4,853,581 Young et al., U.S. Pat. No. 4,879,746. Wesel, U.S. Pat. No. 5,280,525 M Arsac et al., "SICOFI - A Filter for Every SLIC", Siemens Components, v23 n1, Feb 1988, pp. 8-13. GJ Barnes, "Handset Telephone Characteristics in the Telecommunication Network," 1979 National Telecommunications Conference Record, pp. 51.1.1 - 51.1.5 J Bellamy, Digital Telephony, Wiley, 1982, pp. 65-71. RB Blake et al., "Voice Frequency Transmission Treatment for Special Service Telephone Circuits", Bell Syst. Tech. J., v60 n7, Sept. 1981, pp. 1585-1619. HW Bode, "Variable Equalizers", Bell Syst. Tech. J., v17 n2, April 1938, pp. 229-244. RA Bruce et al., "No. 4 ESS - Evolution of a Digital Switching System", IEEE Trans. Commun., vCOM-27 n7, July 1979, pp. 1001-1011. AH Inglis, "Transmission Features of New Telephone Sets", Bell Syst. Tech. J., v18 n5, July 1938, pp. 359-380 IEE Radio Section Discussion, "To What Extent Does Distortion Really Matter in the Transmission of Speech and Music?", Journal of the IEE, v95 pt. III n38, November 1948, pp. 471-472, continued in Proceedings of the IEE, v96 pt. III n41, May 1949, pp. 235-236. M. Izsak, ed., Telecommunication Engineering, 2nd ed., Budavox Telecommunication Foreign Trading Co. Ltd., 1969, pp. 363-369. KS Johnson, Transmission Circuits for Telephonic Communication, van Nostrand, 1927, pp. 1-5. LR Kahn et al., "Enhancement of Telephone Line Performance", Tech. Papers NAB Engineering Conference, March 23-26, 1969, pp. 113-116. L Lerach et al., "Digital Duo Boosts Flexibility and Function of Telephone Lines", Electronic Design, January 23 1986, pp. 115-120. KB Miller, Telephone Theory and Practice, McGraw- Hill 1930, pp. 183-185, 239-250. W Neu et al., "Project for a Digital Telephone Network", IEEE Trans. Comm. Tech., vCOM-16 n5, Oct. 1968, pp. 633-646. PW Blye et al., "A Revised Telephone Transmission Rating Plan", Bell Syst. Tech. J., v34 n3, May 1955. DO Bowker et al., "Speech Transmission Quality of Wideband Packet Technology," IEEE/IEICE Global Telecommunications Conference 1987, v3, pp. 47.7.1 - 47.7.3 SP Chakravarti "On Negative Resistance Equalizers for Telephone Transmission Systems", The London, Edinburgh, and Dublin Philosophical Magazine and Journal of Science, v23, Jan-June 1937, pp 897-919. EH Colpitts "Scientific Research Applied to the Telephone Transmitter and Receiver", Bell Syst. Tech. J., v16 n3, July 1937, pp. 251-274. DL Duttweiler, "Bell's Echo-Killer Chip," IEEE Spectrum, Oct. 1980, pp. 34-37. Electronic Industries Association Standard EIA-470-A, "Telephone Instruments With Loop Signalling." pp. 8-12. WC Jones, "Instruments for the New Telephone Sets", Bell Syst. Tech. J., v18 n5, July 1938, pp. 338-357. J Mills, Signals and Speech in Electrical Communication, Harcourt Brace Jovanovich 1934, pp. 12-21, 122-135. JE Needham, "Standardization of Telephone Set Transmission Characteristics," 1979 National Telecommunications Conference Record, pp. 51.2.1 - 51.2.6 EF O'Neill, ed., A History of Engineering and Science in the Bell System: Transmission Technology (1925-1975), AT&T Bell Laboratories 1985, pp. 675-685, 688-689, 695-697, 727. YAMAHA Digital Equalizer DEQ-7, advertising brochure. "R-'i'-P for AT&T Campaign," Advertising Age, vol. 65, no. 1, Jan. 3, 1993. "Long Distance Telcos Reach Out and Touch Everyone - With Ads," Broadcasting and Cable, vol. 123, no. 3, p. 131, Jan 17, 1994. "Hi-Fidelity is Enlisted in Long-Distance Battle," The New York Times, vol. 142, p. D5(L), July 14, 1993. The manner in which selected references have been applied to the claims is as follows. I am not rendering a legal opinion to anyone here. I am merely quoting from a public document: "Claims 1-24 are considered to be anticipated by Chance et al. or Blake et al. under 35 U.S.C 102(b)." "Claims 1-3, 5-12, 14-17, 19-22, and 24 are considered to be anticipated by Horton Jr. under 35 U.S.C. 102(b)." "Claims 1, 5-7, 8-11, 14-18, 19-21 and 24 are considered to be anticipated by Young et al. under 35 U.S.C 102(b)." "Claims 1, 5-7, 8-11, 14-17, 19-21, and 24 are considered to be anticipated by Bloy under 35 U.S.C. 102(b)." "Claims 1, 5-7, 8-11, 14-17, and 19-21 are considered to be obvious under 35 U.S.C. 103 in view of Bode and Barnes." "Claims 1, 5-7, 8-11, 14-17, 19-21, and 24 are considered to be obvious under 35 U.S.C. 103 in view of any of (i) the IEE Discussion, Kahn et al. (1969), Miller, Izsak, or Inglis, in combination with any of (ii) Bode, Arsac et al. Duttweiler et al., Lerach et al., or Lu et al." "Claims 2-4, 12-13, 18, and 22-23 are considered to be obvious under 35 U.S.C. 103 in view of any of (i) the IEE Discussion, Kahn et al. (1969), Miller, Izsak, or Inglis in combination with any of (ii) Bode, Arsac et al., Duttweiler et al., Lerach et al., or Lu et al. in further view of (iii) Bellamy or both Neu et al. and Bruce et al." "Claims 4, 12-13, 18, and 23 are considered to be obvious under 35 U.S.C. 103 in view of Horton Jr. in combination with Bellamy or Bruce et al." "Claims 2-4, 12-13, 18, and 22-23 are considered to be obvious under 35 U.S.C. 103 in view of Young et al. in combination with Bellamy or Bruce et al." ******************** Subject: True Voice Re-exam - Foreign Equivalent Applications I wouldn't want people in countries other than the US to miss out on all the fun, so here is a list of foreign applications that are equivalent to U.S. Patent No. 5,195,132. You may or may not be able to file citations in these various countries or regions, depending on when you act. If you need to know the current legal status of these applications, send e-mail. Europeans should be aware that the European Search Report was published much later than the application was published (one of the A3 type of publications). Foreign equivalents of US 5,195,132: Applications: Australia 9187885 Canada 2052253 Japan 4287523 Europe: EP 489543 designating: Germany France Great Britain Italy Sweden ******************** Subject: True Voice Re-exam - The Claims The following are the claims from U.S. Patent No. 5,195,132. If you need a legal interpretation of these claims, then you need to hire a lawyer. I am not professionally qualified to interpret a legal document for another person outside of certain buildings in Crystal City, Virginia. I do, however, enjoy the same first amendment rights as any other citizen of this fine country. Very basically, the claims of a patent are highly formalistic sentences that are placed at the end of a patent, and which define what it is that is patented. The claims of the Bowker patent each define a method. So, what it is that is patented is any method that falls within the language of any of the claims (in the most basic case). I am putting claim 24 first, because it is the easiest to read, and it is a prime example of what makes this patent smell bad. As any phone phreak knows, Plantronics has been making tone control attachments for years. Similarly, there is a wealth of various telephone tone control devices for the hearing impaired. In fact, one of Plantronics' patents shows a telephone line device for amplifying signals in the 100 Hz to 300 Hz range, and it is included in the Request for Reexamination. Claims 1, 8, 14, 19, and 24 are what are called "independent claims" in that they do not incorporate the limitations of any of the other claims. The remaining claims are dependent claims, which incorporate all of the limitations of the claims to which they refer. Very basically, the independent claims of the Bowker patent list two steps: (i) connecting together two phones and (ii) selectively amplifying certain signals transmitted between the phones. There's a lot of verbiage in the claims about certain attenuation characteristics of one or both of the phones. For example, the phones are said to attenuate certain signals by a "predetermined rate" and so forth. That language appears to be their way of referring to the frequency roll-off at the band edges of a phone. Standard telephones have corner frequencies on the order of 300 Hz and 3500 Hz. Of course, ANY telephone attenuates frequencies in some portion of the spectrum. Most telephones have used carbon microphones, which naturally limit the low frequency response. If you find the claims to be somewhat redundant, you are not alone. In fact, the AT&T attorney who wrote the claimsm said the following to the Patent Office: "Amended independent claims 8, 14 and 19 recite similar language [as claim 1]." The claims are as follows: 24. A method for use in a telecommunications system comprising the steps of establishing a connection between first and second telephone station sets, in which each of said first and second telephone station sets is arranged to convert speech into audio signals and to then transmit said audio signals over said connection, and responding to receipt from one of said station sets said audio signals by increasing the amplitude of those of said received audio signals in the bass range relative to the remaining range of said received audio signals and then supplying said audio signals to said connection for delivery to the other one of said station sets. [Claim 1 was corrected by a Certificate of Correction issued April 12, 1994, to read as follows.] 1. A method of enhancing the quality of speech signals exchanged between first and second telephone station sets, said method comprising the steps of responding to receipt of a request originated by either one of said first or second telephone station sets by establishing a communication path between said first and second telephone station sets, wherein at least one of said first and second telephone station sets is arranged to attenuate by a predetermined attenuation rate those of said speech signals having frequencies below a predetermined frequency and to transmit said speech signals over said communications path, and responding to receipt of said speech signals transmitted by said one of said first and second telephone station sets by selectively increasing the amplitude level of said attenuated speech signals and then supplying to the other one of said first and second telephone sets via said communication path the resulting speech signals. 2. The method set forth in claim 1 wherein said step of increasing is performed by a telecommunications system operative for establishing said communication path. 3. The method set forth in claim 2 wherein said step of increasing is performed by a toll office within said telecommunications system. 4. The method set forth in claim 3 wherein said step of increasing is performed by echo cancellation circuitry associated with said toll office. 5. The method set forth in claim 1 wherein said predetermined frequency is substantially 300 Hz. 6. The method set forth in claim 1 wherein said predetermined frequency is substantially 400 Hz. 7. The method set forth in claim 1 wherein said frequencies are substantially within a range of 100 Hz to 300 Hz. 8. A method for use in a telecommunications system comprising the steps of establishing a telephone connection between at least first and second telephone station sets, wherein at least one of said first and second telephone stations sets is arranged to attenuate speech signals having frequencies within a predetermined range of frequencies, and to then transmit said speech signals over said connection, and responding to receipt of said speech signals from said one telephone station set by selectively increasing the amplitude levels of said attenuated speech signals in accordance with a predetermined rate of compensation and by supplying said compensated speech signals to said connection for delivery to the other one of said first and second telephone station sets, in which said step of increasing is disposed at a point along said connection external to said first and second telephone station sets. 9. The method set forth in claim 8 wherein said predetermined range of frequencies is below a frequency of substantially 300 Hz. 10. The method set forth in claim 8 wherein said range of frequencies is below a frequency of substantially 400 Hz. 11. The method set forth in claim 8 wherein said range of frequencies is substantially between 100 Hz and 300 Hz. 12. The method set forth in claim 8 wherein said point is in a toll office contained in said telecommunications system. 13. The method set forth in claim 12 wherein said point is in echo cancellation circuitry associated with said toll office. 14. A method for use in a telecommunication systems comprising the steps of establishing between at least first and second telephone station sets a connection, wherein each of said first and second telephone station sets is arranged to receive speech signals at an input such that the amplitude levels of those of the received speech signals having frequencies within a predetermined range of frequencies are attenuated by a predetermined rate of loss and to then transmit said received speech signals over said connection, and processing speech signals received from one of said first and second telephone station sets as a function of a predetermined frequency response selected such that, within said predetermined frequency range, the rate of gain relative to the remaining speech passband is substantially opposite to that of said first and second telephone sets, and then supplying to the other one of said first and second telephone station sets said processed speech signals. 15. The method set forth in claim 14 wherein said predetermined frequency range is below a frequency of substantially 300 Hz. 16. The method set forth in claim 14 wherein said predetermined frequency range is below a frequency of substantially 400 Hz. [Claim 17 was mis-printed in the issued patent. As reproduced hereinbelow, the bracketed text represents an amendment made during prosecution which was not reflected in the printed patent, nor corrected in the Certificate of Correction. For the rulemeisters, this would have been a freebie to have corrected.] 17. The method set forth in claim 14 wherein said step of establishing and said step of [for] processing are disposed in said telecommunications system. 18. The method set forth in claim 17 wherein said step of processing is disposed in echo cancellation circuitry contained in said telecommunications system. 19. A method for use in a telecommunications system comprising the steps of establishing between first and second telephone station sets a communications path, in which said first and second telephone station sets are arranged to receive at an input terminal speech signals and to decrease by a predetermined rate the amplitude levels of those of received speech signals having frequencies within a predetermined range of frequencies before transmitting said speech signals over said communications path, and responding to receipt of said speech signals transmitted over said communication path by either one of said first and second telephone station sets by processing said speech signals such that at least the amplitude levels of said speech signals having frequencies within said predetermined range of frequencies are selectively increased in accordance with a predetermined level and by then supplying to the other one of said first and second telephone station sets the processed speech signals. 20. The method set forth in claim 19 wherein said predetermined frequency range is below a frequency of substantially 300 Hz. 21. The method set forth in claim 19 wherein said predetermined frequency range is below a frequency of substantially 400 Hz. 22. The method set forth in claim 21 wherein the step of processing is disposed in a toll office contained in said telecommunications system. 23. The method set forth in claim 22 wherein the step of processing is disposed in echo cancellation circuitry associated with said toll office.