Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca13-19-01570/USCOURTS-ca13-19-01570-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Deep Green Wireless LLC
Appellant
Ooma, Inc.
Appellee

Document Text:

NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.

United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit ______________________

DEEP GREEN WIRELESS LLC,

Appellant

v.

OOMA, INC.,

Appellee

______________________

2019-1570

______________________

Appeal from the United States Patent and Trademark 

Office, Patent Trial and Appeal Board in No. IPR2017-

01541.

______________________

Decided: March 31, 2020

______________________

MICHAEL DEVINCENZO, King & Wood Mallesons LLP, 

New York, NY, argued for appellant. Also represented by 

ANDREA PACELLI, ROBERT WHITMAN, CHARLES WIZENFELD. 

 JEFFREY C. MORGAN, Barnes & Thornburg LLP, Atlanta, GA, argued for appellee. Also represented by 

MICHAEL ANTHONY CARRILLO, JONATHAN FROEMEL, JOSEPH 

H. PAQUIN, JR., Chicago, IL; L. RACHEL LERMAN, Los Angeles, CA. 

 ______________________

Case: 19-1570 Document: 46 Page: 1 Filed: 03/31/2020
2 DEEP GREEN WIRELESS LLC v. OOMA, INC.

Before LOURIE, MOORE, and CHEN, Circuit Judges.

Opinion for the court filed by Circuit Judge CHEN. 

Dissenting opinion filed by Circuit Judge MOORE. 

CHEN, Circuit Judge.

Deep Green appeals from the final written decision of 

the United States Patent and Trademark Office Patent 

Trial and Appeal Board (the Board) in the above-captioned 

inter partes review (IPR) proceeding holding claims 35, 37–

39, 43, 44, 46–48, 52, 53, and 55–57 of U.S. Patent No. 

RE42,714 (the ’714 patent) as obvious over U.S. Patent No. 

6,600,734 (Gernert) and U.S. Patent No. 6,452,923 (AT&T)

based on the Board’s claim construction of “incoming voice 

signals.” Because we agree with the Board’s construction 

of “incoming voice signals” under the broadest reasonable 

interpretation (BRI) standard, we affirm.

BACKGROUND

The ’714 patent describes a device for sharing telephone lines among connected telecommunications equipment such as modems, telephones, and fax machines. ’714 

patent at col. 2, ll. 24–35. The equipment can be connected 

to the line-sharing device via wire or wirelessly. Id. at col. 

6, ll. 8–20. The specification contemplates that the linesharing device sends and receives voice and data signals 

between the telecommunications equipment and the 

shared telephone lines, for example employing telephony 

circuitry for voice calls, id. at col. 3, l. 62–col. 4, l. 23, or a 

modem to access the Internet. Id. at col. 5, ll. 63–65. Claim 

35 is representative for the purposes of this appeal:

35. An apparatus for routing digital data signals 

among a plurality of telecommunications devices 

over a network, the apparatus comprising:

a network interface for connection to at least one 

network communication line, wherein the network 

interface receives digital data signals over the at 

Case: 19-1570 Document: 46 Page: 2 Filed: 03/31/2020
DEEP GREEN WIRELESS LLC v. OOMA, INC. 3

least one network communication line, the digital 

data signals comprising at least one voice signal;

a discrimination circuit connected to the network 

interface for detecting incoming voice signals from 

among other digital data signals;

a wireless interface, wherein the wireless interface 

communicates the digital data signals between a 

plurality of wireless telecommunications devices; 

and

a processor for executing instructions to route the 

digital data signals between the network interface, 

the wireless interface, and the plurality of wireless 

telecommunications devices for communication 

over the network; and

a circuit for routing voice communication sessions 

to specific telecommunications devices.

Id. at claim 35 (emphasis added).

The parties’ dispute focuses on the functionality of the 

claimed “discrimination circuit”—specifically, whether “detecting incoming voice signals” requires that the voice signals are incoming from the claimed “network interface” to 

the “plurality of wireless telecommunications devices,” as 

Deep Green urges. Under its proposed construction, Deep 

Green alleges that Gernert fails to disclose the claimed “incoming voice signals” because, in Deep Green’s view, 

Gernert’s corresponding “discrimination circuit” only discloses detection of outgoing voice signals traveling from 

Gernert’s telecommunications devices to the network line.

The Board rejected Deep Green’s proposed construction

of “incoming voice signals.” J.A. 23. The Board explained 

that the claim only requires the discrimination circuit to be

connected to the network interface, which does not impose 

the additional requirement that these voice signals are incoming from the network interface. Id. Rather, the Board 

Case: 19-1570 Document: 46 Page: 3 Filed: 03/31/2020
4 DEEP GREEN WIRELESS LLC v. OOMA, INC.

determined that this limitation encompasses voice signals 

“incoming” to the discrimination circuit from the other direction as well—that is, from the recited telecommunication devices. Based on this understanding of “incoming 

voice signals,” the Board concluded that the claims at issue 

would have been obvious over Gernert and AT&T. J.A. 34.

Deep Green appeals, and we have jurisdiction under 28 

U.S.C. § 1295(a)(4)(A). 

DISCUSSION

We review the Board’s claim construction1 here de 

novo because it relied only on evidence intrinsic to the ’714

patent. Jazz Pharm., Inc. v. Amneal Pharm., LLC, 895 

F.3d 1347, 1360 (Fed. Cir. 2018).

When an IPR is instituted from a petition filed before 

November 13, 2018, as here, the claims are given the 

“broadest reasonable interpretation” consistent with the 

specification. Cuozzo Speed Techs., LLC v. Lee, 136 S. Ct. 

2131, 2142 (2016); Changes to the Claim Construction 

Standard for Interpreting Claims in Trial Proceedings Before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, 83 Fed. Reg. 51340 

(Oct. 11, 2018). Thus, the Board’s construction must be 

reasonable in light of the record evidence and the understanding of one skilled in the art. See Knowles Elecs. LLC 

v. Iancu, 886 F.3d 1369, 1374 (Fed. Cir. 2018). 

Our analysis begins with the language of the claim itself. Homeland Housewares, LLC v. Whirlpool Corp., 865 

F.3d 1372, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2017). Claim 35 recites “a discrimination circuit connected to the network interface for 

detecting incoming voice signals from among other digital 

data signals.” ’714 patent at claim 35. As the Board noted,

1 Although the Board did not purport to conduct any 

claim construction, it effectively did so when it interpreted 

“incoming voice signals” as not limited to voice signals from 

the network interface.

Case: 19-1570 Document: 46 Page: 4 Filed: 03/31/2020
DEEP GREEN WIRELESS LLC v. OOMA, INC. 5

the “discrimination circuit” is “connected to the network interface” and its purpose is “for detecting incoming voice signals from among other digital data signals,” but the claim 

does not specify that the incoming voice signals detected by 

the discrimination circuit must be conveyed from the network interface to the wireless telecommunications devices. 

J.A. 23. The claim only requires that the “incoming voice 

signals” are “detect[ed] . . . from among other digital data 

signals.” ’714 patent at claim 35. And it is not clear that, 

in the context of the claim, these “other digital data signals” must be conveyed only in the particular direction that 

Deep Green urges.

The term “digital data signals” first appears in the preamble of claim 35, which introduces “[a]n apparatus for 

routing digital data signals among a plurality of telecommunications devices over a network.” Id. But the function 

of routing digital data signals over a network is agnostic as 

to the direction in which they are routed. Thus, the preamble imposes no constraints on the directionality of the digital data signals routed by the claimed apparatus. Stated 

differently, the preamble does not exclude the apparatus 

from routing digital data signals from the network line to 

the telecommunications devices or from the telecommunications devices to the network line.

Next, the claim requires “a network interface” that “receives digital data signals over . . . [a] network communication line.” Id. The claim does not specify whether these 

digital data signals are the same as those introduced in the 

preamble. For example, the network interface limitation

could have but did not recite “said digital data signals.” 

That these digital data signals mentioned in this network 

interface limitation are received in a particular direction—

i.e., by the network interface from a network communication line—still leaves open a permissible reading of the preamble as contemplating a claimed apparatus that may also 

route digital data signals in the opposite direction—from 

Case: 19-1570 Document: 46 Page: 5 Filed: 03/31/2020
6 DEEP GREEN WIRELESS LLC v. OOMA, INC.

the telecommunications devices to the network communication line.

Claim 35 then recites the discrimination circuit limitation at issue: “a discrimination circuit connected to the network interface for detecting incoming voice signals from 

among other digital data signals.” Id. While the claim limitation requires the discrimination circuit to detect voice 

signals from among other digital data signals “incoming” to 

the discrimination circuit, the limitation does not limit

these signals as coming from any particular direction, e.g., 

the digital data signals received at the network interface

from the network communication line. Again, where the 

claim could have referred to “said” or “the” digital data signals received at the network interface—thereby indicating 

that these digital data signals are the same as the digital 

data signals referenced in the network interface limitation—the claim limitation instead simply detects incoming 

voice signals from among “other” digital data signals. The 

claim, as written, lacks any requirement that the incoming 

voice signals detected by the discrimination circuit must be 

coextensive with voice signals received at the network interface. Rather, the breadth of the claim reasonably supports the conclusion that, like the preamble, the 

discrimination circuit is agnostic as to whether these voice 

signals are received from the network communication line

or from the telecommunications devices. 

Deep Green argues that the Board erroneously interpreted “incoming” to encompass both “incoming” and “outgoing” signals. But signals are only understood as

“incoming” or “outgoing” when viewed against a particular 

reference point. Although it might be reasonable to interpret “incoming” signals from the perspective of the telecommunications devices, such that signals are incoming to 

those devices after having been initially received from the 

network communication line by the network interface, the 

broadly written claim language also supports the interpretation of “incoming” as incoming from the view of the 

Case: 19-1570 Document: 46 Page: 6 Filed: 03/31/2020
DEEP GREEN WIRELESS LLC v. OOMA, INC. 7

discrimination circuit, without regard from where the signals come. And Deep Green does not allege that the “other” 

digital data signals of the discrimination circuit must refer 

to the “digital data signals” received at the network interface. Thus, as the Board concluded, the claim “only requires that the discrimination circuit be connected to the 

network interface, not that the signals being detected are 

incoming from that interface.” J.A. 23. 

The Board’s interpretation does not, as Deep Green 

contends, render “incoming” superfluous. Instead, it identifies voice signals that are incoming to the discrimination 

circuit from external sources, as opposed to voice signals 

produced by or outgoing from the discrimination circuit.

Deep Green also argues that a skilled artisan would 

read “incoming” with a particular conception in mind in 

light of the specification. It is true that the specification 

uses “incoming” when describing calls received from a telephone line, and “outgoing” when connecting a telephone 

device to a telephone line. But the directionality of these

calls is described in the particular context of the telephone 

devices making and receiving the calls. ’714 patent at col. 

2, ll. 38–42 (describing “incoming calls to the equipment,” 

defined as “modems, telephones, fax machines, answering 

machines, or any other device that needs access to a telephone line”); id. at col. 4, ll. 24–28 (processing “outgoing 

calls” according to the “priority in which communication 

lines are accessed by a device”); id. at col. 4, ll. 57–60. In 

contrast, claim 35 is silent as to the source or destination 

of the “incoming voice signals.” With the claim lacking that 

concomitant context laid out in the specification, the 

Board’s interpretation of “voice signals” as incoming to the 

discrimination circuit is not inconsistent with the specification’s disclosure, but instead reflects the broad scope of 

the claim.

Deep Green next argues that the specification’s description of the discrimination circuit in the context of 

Case: 19-1570 Document: 46 Page: 7 Filed: 03/31/2020
8 DEEP GREEN WIRELESS LLC v. OOMA, INC.

processing incoming calls from the network interface mandates that “incoming” be read as incoming from the network interface. The specification describes the 

discrimination circuit in a single sentence: “[o]ptionally, 

the invention can be fitted with a discrimination circuit 

that can detect the type of call and automatically route the 

communication line to the corresponding DO.”2 ’714 patent 

at col. 5, ll. 8–10. But disclosure of one embodiment does 

not mean that broadly written claim language must be limited to that embodiment. Innova/Pure Water, Inc. v. Safari 

Water Filtration Sys., Inc., 381 F.3d 1111, 1117 (Fed. Cir. 

2004). The specification never defines the word “incoming,” nor does it explicitly require that incoming be measured against any particular perspective. And, as explained 

above, nothing in the claim preamble restricts the data signals to being conveyed in any particular direction, nor does 

Deep Green argue to the contrary.

In light of the broad language of the claim, which does 

not demand identity between the digital data signals received at the network interface and the “other” digital data 

signals from which the “incoming voice signals” are detected, it was reasonable for the Board to decline to read in 

to the claim a particular network direction to the “incoming 

voice signals.” Although Deep Green’s interpretation of 

“incoming” with respect to the flow of network traffic to the 

telephone equipment might also be reasonable,3 the Board 

2 “DO,” or device order setting, refers to the order in 

which downstream equipment is polled to connect incoming calls from the communications line. For example, the 

line-sharing device begins by ringing the first device listed 

in the device order setting, then the second device, and so 

on. Id. at col. 4, l. 57–col. 5, l. 4.

3 It may very well be that Deep Green’s construction 

better reflects the meaning of “incoming” as understood in 

view of the networking technology disclosed in the 

Case: 19-1570 Document: 46 Page: 8 Filed: 03/31/2020
DEEP GREEN WIRELESS LLC v. OOMA, INC. 9

did not err in adopting the broadest of the two reasonable 

constructions. 

CONCLUSION

We have considered Deep Green’s remaining arguments and find them unpersuasive. Deep Green relies 

solely on its claim construction argument in appealing the 

Board’s conclusion that the challenged claims would have 

been obvious over Gernert and AT&T. Significantly, Deep 

Green does not dispute that Gernert and AT&T teach “incoming voice signals” under the Board’s construction. 

Thus, for the reasons stated above, we affirm the Board’s 

construction of “incoming voice signals” and the Board’s 

conclusion that the claims at issue are unpatentable.

AFFIRMED

specification. But claim construction in this IPR is not governed by the framework laid out in Phillips v. AWH Corp., 

415 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc), and the Board’s 

construction here is not unreasonable, nor is it inconsistent 

with the specification.

Case: 19-1570 Document: 46 Page: 9 Filed: 03/31/2020
NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.

United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit ______________________

DEEP GREEN WIRELESS LLC,

Appellant

v.

OOMA, INC.,

Appellee

______________________

2019-1570

______________________

Appeal from the United States Patent and Trademark 

Office, Patent Trial and Appeal Board in No. IPR2017-

01541.

______________________

MOORE, Circuit Judge, dissenting.

The majority does not contend that the Board’s construction of “incoming voice signals” is correct, and it is not. 

Instead, the majority holds that the Board’s construction is 

not wrong enough to be unreasonable. I respectfully dissent.

The broadest reasonable interpretation standard, 

while certainly broad, does not give the Board an unfettered license to interpret claim terms without regard for 

the full claim language and the specification. Trivascular, 

Inc. v. Samuels, 812 F.3d 1056, 1062 (Fed. Cir. 2016). Even 

under the broadest reasonable construction, “claim 

Case: 19-1570 Document: 46 Page: 10 Filed: 03/31/2020
2 DEEP GREEN WIRELESS LLC v. OOMA, INC.

language should be read in light of the specification as it 

would be interpreted by one of ordinary skill in the art.” In 

re Suitco Surface, Inc., 603 F.3d 1255, 1260 (Fed. Cir. 

2010). Indeed, the Board must give claims their broadest

reasonable construction in view of the specification, not 

their broadest possible construction. The Board therefore 

erred in construing the claim term “incoming voice signals” 

as not requiring that the claimed voice signals be the voice 

signals incoming from the claimed network interface. 

The ’714 patent is directed to a telephony device with a 

telephone line distribution system enabling connected devices to share telephone lines. ’714 patent at Abstract. The 

claimed device assigns outgoing usage of the telephone line 

according to a priority system. Id. at 4:24–26. Incoming 

calls, on the other hand, are processed in accordance with 

a Device Order (DO) establishing the order in which the 

devices are signaled by a communications line. Id. at 4:57–

60. The claimed device utilizes a “discrimination circuit” 

that can detect the type of call and automatically route the 

communication line to the corresponding telecommunications device. Id. at 5:8–10. Claim 35 is representative and

recites: 

35. An apparatus for routing digital data signals

among a plurality of telecommunications devices 

over a network, the apparatus comprising:

a network interface for connection to at 

least one network communication line, 

wherein the network interface receives digital data signals over the at least one network communication line, the digital data 

signals comprising at least one voice signal; 

a discrimination circuit connected to the 

network interface for detecting incoming 

voice signals from among other digital data 

signals;

Case: 19-1570 Document: 46 Page: 11 Filed: 03/31/2020
DEEP GREEN WIRELESS LLC v. OOMA, INC. 3

a wireless interface, wherein the wireless 

interface communicates the digital data 

signals between a plurality of wireless telecommunications devices; and 

a processor for executing instructions to 

route the digital data signals between the 

network interface, the wireless interface, 

and the plurality of wireless telecommunications devices for communication over the 

network; and 

a circuit for routing voice communication 

sessions to specific telecommunications devices.

Claim 35 recites routing digital data signals among a 

plurality of telecommunications devices over a network. 

The claim refers to the digital data signals 6 times as it 

routes them through the system. I believe that these digital data signals are the same digital data signals being 

routed through the system. The Board’s construction is basically that 5 of the mentioned digital data signals are the 

same because most of them are preceded by the word “the” 

and thus are the same digital data signals mentioned in 

the preamble. However, because the word “the” does not 

appear before the use of “digital data signals” routed 

through the discrimination circuit (one component within 

the system), the Board concludes these can be any digital 

data signals and therefore do not have to be the same digital data signals being passed through the rest of the system. 

The claimed discrimination circuit is connected to the 

network interface and detects “incoming voice signals from 

among other digital data signals.” In light of the claim as 

a whole, the only reasonable reading of this limitation is 

that the digital data signals received by the discrimination 

circuit are the same data signals (comprising at least one 

Case: 19-1570 Document: 46 Page: 12 Filed: 03/31/2020
4 DEEP GREEN WIRELESS LLC v. OOMA, INC.

voice signal) received by the network interface. That the 

claimed incoming voice and data signals are not modified 

by the words “said” or “the” does not mean that we can ignore the plain language of the claims. The remaining limitations further reveal the error in the Board’s 

construction. The third limitation recites a “wireless interface” that “communicates the digital data signals between 

a plurality of wireless telecommunications devices.” Id.

Likewise, the fourth limitation recites “a processor for executing instructions to route the digital data signals between the network interface, the wireless interface, and 

the plurality of wireless telecommunications devices . . . .” 

Id. Lastly, the claim recites a circuit for “routing voice communication sessions to specific telecommunications devices.” Id. When read as a whole, the functional 

relationship between the claim elements is clear: the system elements are recited in the order in which the data signals flow. Data signals, including at least one voice signal, 

are received by the network interface. The discrimination 

circuit is used to detect voice signals from among the other 

digital data signals incoming from the network interface. 

The wireless interface then communicates the data signals 

between a plurality of connected telecommunication devices according to the instructions executed by the processor. Voice signals, in particular, are routed to specific 

telecommunications devices. Based on the plain language 

of the claim, the Board’s construction that the digital data 

signals routed through the discrimination circuit need not 

be the same digital data signals routed through the rest of 

the system is unreasonable. 

The specification strongly reinforces Deep Green’s proposed construction that the digital data signals processed 

by the discrimination circuit are the same digital data signals flowing through the rest of the system. The claimed

“incoming voice signals” are incoming from the network interface. The specification describes the signals as traveling 

Case: 19-1570 Document: 46 Page: 13 Filed: 03/31/2020
DEEP GREEN WIRELESS LLC v. OOMA, INC. 5

in two directions: “incoming” and “outgoing.” Every use in 

the specification of “incoming” (and this term is used 21 

times in the patent) is compatible with only one view – that 

the incoming signals are from a network communication 

line toward the telecommunications devices. See, e.g., ’714 

patent at Abstract, Fig. 4, 1:48–50, 2:30–32, 2:43–45, 2:62–

63, 4:57–62, 5:14–17; see also id. at Claims 26, 35, 44, 53, 

62, 67, 72, 77, 82, 87, 121, 126. Every use of the term “outgoing” (and this term is used 5 times) likewise reflects the 

direction from a telecommunications device to a network 

communication line. See, e.g., ’714 patent at Fig. 3, 2:38–

42, 2:60–61, 4:24–29. “Outgoing” signals are processed in 

accordance with a Communications Line Use Priority 

(CLUP) setting. Id. at 4:24–26. When transmitting outgoing signals, a device accesses the communication lines 

according to the priority established by the CLUP and independently of the type of signal being sent. Id. at 4:26–

27. In contrast, the specification states that the invention 

“may process incoming calls” according to a DO, which “establishes the order in which the devices are signaled by a 

communication line.” Id. at 4:60–5:19. In the sole embodiment in which a discrimination circuit is used, it is contemplated that the discrimination circuit “can detect the 

type of call and automatically route the communication 

line to the corresponding DO.” Id. at 5:8–17. 

The specification and the claims only discuss a discrimination circuit in connection with calls that are incoming 

over the network communication line. And the claims 

make clear that the incoming voice signals are transmitted 

“over the at least one network communication line” and are 

“rout[ed] . . . to specific telecommunications devices.” See, 

e.g., Id. at Claim 35. Deep Green’s construction is the only

construction that accurately reflects the meaning of “incoming” in view of the networking technology disclosed in 

the specification and claimed in the asserted claims.

I am not certain exactly where the line is. How wrong 

must a construction be before it becomes unreasonable? 

Case: 19-1570 Document: 46 Page: 14 Filed: 03/31/2020
6 DEEP GREEN WIRELESS LLC v. OOMA, INC.

For me, this one crosses that line. I would hold that the 

claimed “digital data signals” are the same throughout the 

claim and thus the “incoming voice signals” are among the 

digital data signals which as claimed are incoming from the 

network interface. I respectfully dissent. 

Case: 19-1570 Document: 46 Page: 15 Filed: 03/31/2020