Opinion ID: 4540299
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: A method for processing a telephony communi-

Text: cation comprising: associating an initial URI with a telephony end- point; initiating a telephony voice session for a telephony communication to the telephony endpoint; mapping the initial URI to the telephony session; sending an application layer protocol request to an application resource specified by the URI and 5 Twilio’s challenges on appeal are limited to the limitations of claim 1 of the ’465 patent. Case: 19-1842 Document: 59 Page: 9 Filed: 06/10/2020 TWILIO INC. v. TELESIGN CORPORATION 9 embedding state information of the telephony voice session in the request; receiving a response to the application layer protocol request sent to the application resource, wherein the response includes a document of te- lephony instructions; and executing telephony actions during the telephony voice session according to a sequential processing of at least a subset of the telephony instructions of the response. (emphasis added). The Board held claims 1–6, 9, and 13 of the ’465 patent obvious in view of the combination of Maes and Ransom. Twilio argues that substantial evidence does not support the Board’s findings that the mapping and sending limitations were taught by the combination of Maes and Ransom, or that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine the references. Substantial evidence supports the Board’s findings. A. The Mapping Limitation The Board found that “the combination of Maes and Ransom teaches sending a message that includes both the URI specifying the assigned application and information about the telephony session, thereby mapping the URI to the telephony session.” J.A. 13. Twilio argues that the Board did not address how Maes’ message to an application maps the initial URI to the telephony session. We do not agree. Maes teaches assigning an application to take a call, and when the application is assigned, the TEL address is passed to the application for the duration of the call. J.A. 5218 at 15:58–62. Ransom teaches that the URI “defines the resource that is being accessed,” and that it was well known to send information over the Internet to an application using a URI. J.A. 5282 at [0162]–[0163]. The application, which may be defined by a URI, is mapped to the telephony session when it is assigned to take the call and Case: 19-1842 Document: 59 Page: 10 Filed: 06/10/2020 10 TWILIO INC. v. TELESIGN CORPORATION when the TEL address (the telephony gateway address containing information about the telephony session) is passed to the same application for the call’s duration. In other words, the combination of Maes and Ransom teach “assigning an application specified by a URI to incoming call information (i.e., a telephony endpoint), thereby associating a URI with a telephony endpoint,” which meets the mapping limitation. J.A. 17. Accordingly, we conclude that substantial evidence supports the Board’s finding. B. The Sending Limitation The Board found that Maes teaches “sending an application layer protocol request to an application resource specified by the URI and embedding state information of the telephony voice session in the request” as required by claim 1. J.A. 15. Twilio argues that substantial evidence does not support the Board’s finding because Maes does not teach or suggest that the duration of the call is “embedd[ed] state information” as claimed. 6 Contrary to Twilio’s position, Maes teaches passing the TEL address to the application for the duration of the call. J.A. 5218 at 15:58–62. The Board found that the TEL address, which is the telephony gateway address, is state information akin to the examples of state information referenced in the ’465 patent—“[s]tate information included with each request may include a unique call identifier, call status data such as whether the call is in-progress or completed, the caller ID of the caller, the phone number called, geographic data about the callers, and/or any suitable data.” J.A. 18; ’465 patent at 5:33– 6 Twilio separately argues that even if the TEL ad- dress is state information, it was not “embedded” within the request. We hold that Twilio waived this argument by failing to raise it before the Board, and we will not consider it for the first time on appeal. See HTC Corp. v. Cellular Commc’ns Equip., LLC, 877 F.3d 1361, 1368 n.3 (Fed. Cir. 2017). Case: 19-1842 Document: 59 Page: 11 Filed: 06/10/2020 TWILIO INC. v. TELESIGN CORPORATION 11 37. Because Maes teaches passing the TEL address to the application for the duration of the call, we conclude that substantial evidence supports the Board’s finding that Maes teaches the sending limitation. C. Motivation to Combine The Board found that a person of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to combine Maes and Ransom to achieve the invention claimed in the ’495 patent. J.A. 24– 26. Twilio argues that the Board failed to sufficiently articulate a motivation to combine Maes with Ransom to achieve the associating and mapping limitations in claim 1. We conclude that substantial evidence supports the Board’s motivation-to-combine finding. The Board found that a person of ordinary skill in the art would understand Ransom as explicit support of the understanding that it was well known to use a URI to send a message to an ap- plication over the Internet, as disclosed in Maes. J.A. 26. The Board was not relying on Ransom to modify the architecture disclosed in Maes, but instead to show that the combination expressly teaches using a URI to achieve the embodiment claimed in the ’465 patent. As Dr. Nielson explained, a person of ordinary skill in the art would consider Ransom’s express disclosure of use of URIs to better achieve Maes’ goals of using Web APIs and Internet-based technologies. See J.A. 5417. Accordingly, substantial evidence supports the Board’s finding that a person of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to consider Maes and Ransom as a combination that expressly discloses the limitations of claim 1 of the ’465 patent.