Case 1:16-cv-00455-RGA Document 414-1 Filed 03/16/18 Page 1 of 62 PageID #: 31301
`Case 1:16-cv-00455-RGA Document 414-1 Filed 03/16/18 Page 1 of 62 PagelD #: 31301
`
`
`
`
`
`EXHIBIT 103
`EXHIBIT 103
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:16-cv-00455-RGA Document 414-1 Filed 03/16/18 Page 2 of 62 PageID #: 31302
`Inter Partes Review
`United States Patent No. 6,701,344
`IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`Attorney Docket No.:
`109869-0003-655
`Customer No.: 28120
`
`Petitioners: Activision Blizzard,
`Inc.; Electronic Arts Inc.; Take-
`Two Interactive Software, Inc.;
`2K Sports, Inc.; and Rockstar
`Games, Inc.
`
`§§§§§§§§§
`
`
`United States Patent No.: 6,701,344
`Inventors: Fred B. Holt, Virgil E. Bourassa
`Formerly Application No.: 09/629,042
`Issue Date: March 2, 2004
`Filing Date: July 31, 2000
`Former Group Art Unit: 2153
`Former Examiner: B. Edelman
`
`
`For: DISTRIBUTED GAME ENVIRONMENT
`
`MAIL STOP PATENT BOARD
`Patent Trial and Appeal Board
`United States Patent and Trademark Office
`Post Office Box 1450
`Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450
`
`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW OF
`UNITED STATES PATENT NO. 6,701,344
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:16-cv-00455-RGA Document 414-1 Filed 03/16/18 Page 3 of 62 PageID #: 31303
`Inter Partes Review
`United States Patent No. 6,701,344
`
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`
`
`V. 
`
`INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................... 1 
`I. 
`II.  MANDATORY NOTICES UNDER § 42.8 ................................................... 3 
`III. 
`PETITIONERS HAVE STANDING .............................................................. 6 
`A.  Grounds for Standing Under § 42.104(a) .............................................. 6 
`B. 
`Claims and Statutory Grounds Under §§ 42.22 and 42.104(b) ............. 6 
`IV.  SUMMARY OF THE ’344 PATENT AND ITS TECHNICAL FIELD ........ 7 
`A.  Overview of the ’344 Patent .................................................................. 7 
`B. 
`Overview of the Prosecution History .................................................... 9 
`C. 
`Overview of the Technical Field ......................................................... 10 
`THERE IS A REASONABLE LIKELIHOOD THAT PETITIONERS
`WILL PREVAIL WITH RESPECT TO AT LEAST ONE CLAIM ............ 12 
`A. 
`Claim Construction Under § 42.104(b)(3) .......................................... 13 
`B. 
`Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art and State of the Art ....................... 15 
`C. 
`Grounds for Unpatentability ................................................................ 15 
`1. 
`Ground 1: Claims 1-19 Are Obvious in View of the
`Teachings of DirectPlay and Lin .............................................. 16 
`Ground 2: Claims 1-11 and 16-19 Are Obvious in View
`of Lin and the Knowledge of a POSITA .................................. 57 
`VI.  CONCLUSION .............................................................................................. 60 
`
`
`
`2. 
`
`
`
`
`
`ii
`
`

`

`Case 1:16-cv-00455-RGA Document 414-1 Filed 03/16/18 Page 4 of 62 PageID #: 31304
`Inter Partes Review
`United States Patent No. 6,701,344
`
`
`
`LIST OF EXHIBITS
`
`
`Exhibit Description
`Ex. 1001 U.S. Patent No. 6,701,344 to Fred B. Holt et al. (“’344 patent”).
`Ex. 1002 Declaration of David K. Lin and the Certified File Wrapper for U.S.
`Patent No. 6,701,344.
`Ex. 1003 Bradley Bargen & Peter Donnelly, INSIDE DIRECTX, (Microsoft Press,
`1998) (“DirectPlay”).
`Ex. 1004 Declaration of Glenn Little and, as Exhibit B, Meng-Jang Lin, et al.,
`Gossip versus Deterministic Flooding: Low Message Overhead and
`High Reliability for Broadcasting on Small Networks, Technical Report
`No. CS1999-0637 (Univ. of Cal. San Diego, 1999) (“Lin”).
`Ex. 1005 Peter J. Shoubridge & Arek Dadej, Hybrid Routing in Dynamic Net-
`works, in 3 IEEE INT’L CONF. ON COMMC’NS CONF. REC. 1381-86
`(Montreal, 1997) (“Shoubridge”).
`Ex. 1006 Reserved
`John M. McQuillan, et al., The New Routing Algorithm for the AR-
`Ex. 1007
`PANET, COM-28, No. 5 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON COMMC’NS, 711-19
`(1980) (“McQuillan”).
`Ex. 1008 Yogen Kantilal Dalal, Broadcast Protocols in Packet Switched Com-
`puter Networks (Ph.D. Thesis, Stanford University 1977) and support-
`ing (“Dalal”)
`Ex. 1009 S. Alagar, et al., Reliable Broadcast in Mobile Wireless Networks, Mil-
`itary Communications Conference, 1 IEEE MILCOM ’95 CONF. REC.,
`236-40 (San Diego, Cal., 1995) (“Alagar”).
`Ex. 1010 Certificate of Authenticity and a Press Release, Microsoft Boosts Ac-
`cessibility to Internet Gaming Zone with Latest Release (Apr. 27, 1998)
`(PR Newswire) (“IGZ”).
`Ex. 1011 Donald M. Topkis, Concurrent Broadcast for Information Dissemina-
`tion, SE-11, No. 10 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON SOFTWARE ENGINEERING,
`1107-11 (1985) (“Topkis”).
`Ex. 1012 Dimitri Bertsekas & Robert Gallager, DATA NETWORKS (Prentice Hall,
`2d ed. 1992) (“Bertsekas”).
`Ex. 1013 Kuo-Jui Raymond Lin, Routing and Broadcasting in Two-dimensional
`Linear Congruential Graphs of Degree Four, Master’s Thesis (Con-
`cordia Univ. Montreal, Canada, 1994) (“Kuo-Jui Lin”).
`
`
`
`iii
`
`

`

`Case 1:16-cv-00455-RGA Document 414-1 Filed 03/16/18 Page 5 of 62 PageID #: 31305
`Inter Partes Review
`United States Patent No. 6,701,344
`
`
`Ex. 1014 William S. Davis and David C. Yen, THE INFORMATION SYSTEM CON-
`SULTANT’S HANDBOOK: SYSTEMS ANALYSIS AND DESIGN (CRC Press,
`1998) (“Davis”).
`Ex. 1015 V. G. Cerf, et al., Topological Design Considerations in Computer
`Commc’n Networks, COMPUTER COMMC’N NETWORKS (R. L. Grims-
`dale et al. eds., 1975) (“Cerf”).
`Ex. 1016 U.S. Patent No. 6,122,277 to Derrick Garmire et al. (“Garmire”).
`Ex. 1017 U.S. Patent No. 5,181,017 to Alexander H. Frey, Jr. et al. (“Frey”).
`Ex. 1018 Flaviu Cristian et al., Atomic Broadcast: From Simple Message Diffu-
`sion to Byzantine Agreement, 118 INFORMATION AND COMPUTATION
`158-79 (Albert R. Meyer ed., 1995) (“Cristian”).
`Ex. 1019 Expert Declaration of David R. Karger
`Ex. 1020 Reserved
`Ex. 1021 SUPPORTING MICROSOFT WINDOWS 95, Vol. 1 (Microsoft Press 1995)
`(“Supporting Windows 95”).
`Ex. 1022 Declaration of Matthew R. Shapiro
`Ex. 1023 Declaration of Julian D. Moore
`
`
`
`iv
`
`

`

`Case 1:16-cv-00455-RGA Document 414-1 Filed 03/16/18 Page 6 of 62 PageID #: 31306
`Inter Partes Review
`United States Patent No. 6,701,344
`
`
`VI. CONCLUSION
`Because this Petition, if unrebutted, shows that there is a reasonable likeli-
`
`hood that these claims are unpatentable, Petitioners request this Petition be institut-
`
`ed and the Challenged Claims be found unpatentable and canceled. Per 37 C.F.R.
`
`§§ 1.33(c), 42.105, and 42.100, a copy of the present Request, in its entirety, is be-
`
`ing served on Patent Owner at the address of record as reflected in the publicly
`
`available records of the PTO as designated in the PAIR system. The Director is
`
`hereby authorized to charge any deficiency in the fees filed, asserted to be filed or
`
`which should have been filed herewith (or with any paper hereafter filed in this
`
`proceeding by this firm) to Deposit Account 18-1945, under Order No. 109869-
`
`0003-655.
`
`Respectfully submitted by: /J. Steven Baughman / September 25, 2015
`
`
`J. Steven Baughman (lead counsel)
`Reg. No. 47,414
`ROPES & GRAY LLP
`2099 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
`Washington, DC 20006-6807
`P: 202-508-4606 / F: 202-383-8371
`steven.baughman@ropesgray.com
`
`Andrew N. Thomases (backup counsel)
`Reg. No. 40,841
`ROPES & GRAY LLP
`1900 University Avenue, 6th Floor
`East Palo Alto, CA 94303
`P: 650-617-4712 / F: 650-566-4275
`andrew.thomases@ropesgray.com
`
`Gene Lee (backup counsel)
`Reg. No. 55,369
`ROPES & GRAY LLP
`1211 Avenue of the Americas
`New York, NY 10036-8704
`P: 212-596-9053/F: 646-728-2562
`gene.lee@ropesgray.com
`
`Mailing address for all PTAB corre-
`spondence: ROPES & GRAY LLP
`IPRM – Floor 43, Prudential Tower, 800
`Boylston Street, Boston, MA 02199-
`3600.
`
`
`
`60
`
`

`

`Case 1:16-cv-00455-RGA Document 414-1 Filed 03/16/18 Page 7 of 62 PageID #: 31307
`Inter Partes Review
`United States Patent No. 6,701,344
`IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`Attorney Docket No.:
`109869-0003-655
`Customer No.: 28120
`
`Petitioners: Activision Blizzard,
`Inc.; Electronic Arts Inc.; Take-
`Two Interactive Software, Inc.;
`2K Sports, Inc.; and Rockstar
`Games, Inc.
`
`§§§§§§§§§
`
`
`United States Patent No.: 6,701,344
`Inventors: Fred B. Holt, Virgil E. Bourassa
`Formerly Application No.: 09/629,042
`Issue Date: March 2, 2004
`Filing Date: July 31, 2000
`Former Group Art Unit: 2153
`Former Examiner: B. Edelman
`
`
`For: DISTRIBUTED GAME ENVIRONMENT
`
`MAIL STOP PATENT BOARD
`Patent Trial and Appeal Board
`United States Patent and Trademark Office
`Post Office Box 1450
`Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450
`
`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW OF
`UNITED STATES PATENT NO. 6,701,344
`
`
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`It is certified that a copy of the following documents has been served in its
`
`entirety on the patent owner as provided in 37 CFR § 42.205:
`
`1.
`
`Petition For Inter Partes Review of United States Patent No.
`
`6,701,344 Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 321, 37 C.F.R. § 42.304 and accompanying ex-
`
`hibits:
`
`Exhibit Description
`Ex. 1001 U.S. Patent No. 6,701,344 to Fred B. Holt et al. (“’344 patent”).
`Ex. 1002 Declaration of David K. Lin and the Certified File Wrapper for U.S.
`Patent No. 6,701,344.
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:16-cv-00455-RGA Document 414-1 Filed 03/16/18 Page 8 of 62 PageID #: 31308
`Inter Partes Review
`United States Patent No. 6,701,344
`Ex. 1003 Bradley Bargen & Peter Donnelly, INSIDE DIRECTX, (Microsoft Press,
`1998) (“DirectPlay”).
`Ex. 1004 Declaration of Glenn Little and, as Exhibit B, Meng-Jang Lin, et al.,
`Gossip versus Deterministic Flooding: Low Message Overhead and
`High Reliability for Broadcasting on Small Networks, Technical Report
`No. CS1999-0637 (Univ. of Cal. San Diego, 1999) (“Lin”).
`Ex. 1005 Peter J. Shoubridge & Arek Dadej, Hybrid Routing in Dynamic Net-
`works, in 3 IEEE INT’L CONF. ON COMMC’NS CONF. REC. 1381-86
`(Montreal, 1997) (“Shoubridge”).
`Ex. 1006 Reserved
`John M. McQuillan, et al., The New Routing Algorithm for the AR-
`Ex. 1007
`PANET, COM-28, No. 5 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON COMMC’NS, 711-19
`(1980) (“McQuillan”).
`Ex. 1008 Yogen Kantilal Dalal, Broadcast Protocols in Packet Switched Com-
`puter Networks (Ph.D. Thesis, Stanford University 1977) and support-
`ing (“Dalal”)
`Ex. 1009 S. Alagar, et al., Reliable Broadcast in Mobile Wireless Networks, Mil-
`itary Communications Conference, 1 IEEE MILCOM ’95 CONF. REC.,
`236-40 (San Diego, Cal., 1995) (“Alagar”).
`Ex. 1010 Certificate of Authenticity and a Press Release, Microsoft Boosts Ac-
`cessibility to Internet Gaming Zone with Latest Release (Apr. 27, 1998)
`(PR Newswire) (“IGZ”).
`Ex. 1011 Donald M. Topkis, Concurrent Broadcast for Information Dissemina-
`tion, SE-11, No. 10 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON SOFTWARE ENGINEERING,
`1107-11 (1985) (“Topkis”).
`Ex. 1012 Dimitri Bertsekas & Robert Gallager, DATA NETWORKS (Prentice Hall,
`2d ed. 1992) (“Bertsekas”).
`Ex. 1013 Kuo-Jui Raymond Lin, Routing and Broadcasting in Two-dimensional
`Linear Congruential Graphs of Degree Four, Master’s Thesis (Con-
`cordia Univ. Montreal, Canada, 1994) (“Kuo-Jui Lin”).
`Ex. 1014 William S. Davis and David C. Yen, THE INFORMATION SYSTEM CON-
`SULTANT’S HANDBOOK: SYSTEMS ANALYSIS AND DESIGN (CRC Press,
`1998) (“Davis”).
`Ex. 1015 V. G. Cerf, et al., Topological Design Considerations in Computer
`Commc’n Networks, COMPUTER COMMC’N NETWORKS (R. L. Grims-
`dale et al. eds., 1975) (“Cerf”).
`Ex. 1016 U.S. Patent No. 6,122,277 to Derrick Garmire et al. (“Garmire”).
`Ex. 1017 U.S. Patent No. 5,181,017 to Alexander H. Frey, Jr. et al. (“Frey”).
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:16-cv-00455-RGA Document 414-1 Filed 03/16/18 Page 9 of 62 PageID #: 31309
`Inter Partes Review
`United States Patent No. 6,701,344
`Ex. 1018 Flaviu Cristian et al., Atomic Broadcast: From Simple Message Diffu-
`sion to Byzantine Agreement, 118 INFORMATION AND COMPUTATION
`158-79 (Albert R. Meyer ed., 1995) (“Cristian”).
`Ex. 1019 Expert Declaration of David R. Karger
`Ex. 1020 Reserved
`Ex. 1021 SUPPORTING MICROSOFT WINDOWS 95, Vol. 1 (Microsoft Press 1995)
`(“Supporting Windows 95”).
`Ex. 1022 Declaration of Matthew R. Shapiro
`Ex. 1023 Declaration of Julian D. Moore
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:16-cv-00455-RGA Document 414-1 Filed 03/16/18 Page 10 of 62 PageID #: 31310
`Inter Partes Review
`United States Patent No. 6,701,344
`
`
`
`The copy has been served on September 25, 2015 by causing the aforemen-
`
`tioned documents to be deposited in the United States Postal Service as Express
`
`Mail postage pre-paid in an envelope addressed to:
`
`Correspondence Address:
`
`Litigation Counsel:
`
`
`Perkins Coie LLP – Boeing
`PO Box 1247
`Patent – SEA
`Seattle, WA 98111-1247
`Express Mail Label No:
`EF 070 060 712 US
`
`
`Paul J. Andre
`Kramer Levin Naftalis & Frankel LLP
`990 Marsh Road
`Menlo Park, CA 94025
`(650) 752-1700
`Express Mail Label No:
`EF 070 060 553 US
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`ROPES & GRAY LLP
`
` /Matthew R. Shapiro
`Matthew R. Shapiro
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:16-cv-00455-RGA Document 414-1 Filed 03/16/18 Page 11 of 62 PageID #: 31311
`Case 1:16-cv-00455-RGA Document 414-1 Filed 03/16/18 Page 11 of 62 PagelD #: 31311
`
`
`
`
`
`EXHIBIT 104
`EXHIBIT 104
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:16-cv-00455-RGA Document 414-1 Filed 03/16/18 Page 12 of 62 PageID #: 31312
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`ACTIVISION BLIZZARD, INC. ELECTRONIC ARTS INC.,
`TAKE-TWO INTERACTIVE SOFTWARE, INC.,
`2K SPORTS, INC. AND ROCKSTAR GAMES, INC.
`Petitioners
`
`v.
`
`ACCELERATION BAY, LLC
`Patent Owner
`
`Case: IPR2016-00724
`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW OF
`CLAIMS 1, 3-5, 7-9 AND 16 OF U.S. PATENT NO. 6,920,497
`
`Mail Stop PATENT BOARD
`Patent Trial and Appeal Board
`United States Patent and Trademark Office
`PO Box 1450
`Alexandria, Virginia 22313–1450
`Submitted Electronically via the Patent Review Processing System
`
`

`

`Case 1:16-cv-00455-RGA Document 414-1 Filed 03/16/18 Page 13 of 62 PageID #: 31313
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION ...........................................................................................1
`
`II. MANDATORY NOTICES – 37 C.F.R. § 42.8...............................................2
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`D.
`
`Real Party-In-Interest Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(1)............................2
`
`Related Matters Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(2) .....................................2
`
`Lead and Back-Up Counsel Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(3) ..................3
`
`Service Information Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(4)...............................3
`
`III.
`
`PAYMENT OF FEES – 37 C.F.R. § 42.103...................................................3
`
`IV. REQUIREMENTS FOR IPR – 37 C.F.R. § 42.104........................................4
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`Grounds for Standing Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(a).............................4
`
`Identification of Challenge Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b) and Relief
`Requested ..............................................................................................4
`
`Claim Construction Under 37 C.F.R. §§ 42.100(b), 42.104(b)(3)........5
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`“A component in a computer system for locating a call-in port
`of a portal computer” ..................................................................6
`
`Means plus function elements.....................................................6
`
`a.
`
`b.
`
`c.
`
`“means for identifying the portal computer . . . .”
`(claim 9)............................................................................8
`
`“means for identifying the call-in port of the identified
`portal computer by repeatedly trying to establish a
`connection with the identified portal computer through
`contacting a communications port or communications
`ports until a connection is successfully established”
`(claim 9)............................................................................8
`
`“means for selecting the call-in port of the identified
`portal computer using a port-ordering algorithm”
`(claim 9)..........................................................................10
`
`i
`
`

`

`Case 1:16-cv-00455-RGA Document 414-1 Filed 03/16/18 Page 14 of 62 PageID #: 31314
`
`d.
`
`“means for re-ordering the communications ports
`selected by the port-ordering algorithm” (claim 9) ........11
`
`D.
`
`E.
`
`How the Construed Claims are Unpatentable Under 37 C.F.R. §
`42.104(b)(4).........................................................................................11
`
`Supporting Evidence Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(5) .......................11
`
`V.
`
`VI.
`
`TECHNOLOGY BACKGROUND...............................................................11
`
`THE ALLEGED INVENTION OF THE ’497 PATENT .............................14
`
`VII. LEVEL OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART...........................................16
`
`VIII. DETAILED EXPLANATION UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(B) ..................17
`
`A.
`
`All References Relied Upon As Grounds for Trial Are Prior Art to the
`’497 Patent Under § 102......................................................................17
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`4.
`
`5.
`
`6.
`
`7.
`
`Applicable Legal Standards ......................................................17
`
`Smart Clients is A Printed Publication .....................................17
`
`ONE-IP is A Printed Publication ..............................................18
`
`Naugle is A Printed Publication................................................18
`
`Vahdat is A Printed Publication................................................18
`
`Karger is a Printed Publication .................................................19
`
`Kegel is A Printed Publication..................................................19
`
`B.
`
`Ground 1: Claims 1 and 7 are Invalid Under § 103(a) as Obvious Over
`the Smart Clients Paper Alone or In View of Vahdat.........................20
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`Technical Overview of Smart Clients.......................................20
`
`Claim 1 Would Have Been Obvious Over Smart Clients Alone
`or In View of Vahdat ................................................................22
`
`Claim 7 Would Have Been Obvious Over Smart Clients Alone
`or In View of Vahdat ................................................................32
`
`C.
`
`Ground 2: Claims 3-5 are Invalid Under § 103(a) as Obvious Over
`ii
`
`

`

`Case 1:16-cv-00455-RGA Document 414-1 Filed 03/16/18 Page 15 of 62 PageID #: 31315
`
`Smart Clients In view of ONE-IP and Karger, or Over Smart Clients
`In View of Vahdat and Further in view of ONE-IP and Karger.........36
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`Claim 3 Would Have Been Obvious Under § 103(a) Over
`Smart Clients In View of ONE-IP and Karger, or Over Smart
`Clients In View of Vahdat and Further In View of ONE-IP and
`Karger........................................................................................36
`
`Claim 4 Would Have Been Obvious Under § 103(a) Over
`Smart Clients In View of ONE-IP and Karger, or Over Smart
`Clients In View of Vahdat and Further In View of ONE-IP and
`Karger........................................................................................38
`
`Claim 5 Would Have Been Obvious Under § 103(a) Over
`Smart Clients In View of ONE-IP and Karger, or Over Smart
`Clients In View of Vahdat and Further In View of ONE-IP and
`Karger........................................................................................39
`
`D.
`
`E.
`
`Ground 3: Claim 8 is Invalid Under § 103(a) as Obvious Over Smart
`Clients In view of Naugle or Smart Clients In View of Vahdat and
`Further In View of Naugle ..................................................................40
`
`Ground 4: Claims 1, 7-9, and 16 are Invalid Under § 103(a) as
`Obvious Over Kegel In View of Naugle.............................................42
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`4.
`
`5.
`
`Technical Overview of Kegel ...................................................42
`
`Claim 1 Would Have Been Obvious Over Kegel In View of
`Naugle .......................................................................................44
`
`Claim 7 Would Have Been Obvious Over Kegel In View of
`Naugle .......................................................................................52
`
`Claim 9 Would Have Been Obvious Over Kegel In View of
`Naugle .......................................................................................53
`
`Claims 8 and 16 Would Have Been Obvious Over Kegel In
`View of Naugle .........................................................................59
`
`IX. CONCLUSION..............................................................................................60
`
`iii
`
`

`

`Case 1:16-cv-00455-RGA Document 414-1 Filed 03/16/18 Page 16 of 62 PageID #: 31316
`
`Abbreviation
`’497 patent
`
`Abst.
`critical date
`effective filing date
`
`Kayashima
`
`Karger
`
`Kegel
`
`Naugle
`
`ONE-IP
`
`Petitioners
`
`Smart Clients
`
`Vahdat
`
`TABLE OF ABBREVIATIONS
`
`Meaning
`U.S. Patent No. 6,920,497 B1 to Bourassa, et al. (Ex.
`1001)
`Abstract
`July 31, 1999
`July 31, 2000
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,195,366 B1 to Kayashima et al. (Ex.
`1004)
`David Karger, et al., “Web Caching with Consistent
`Hashing,” WWW ’99 Proceedings of the Eighth Int’l
`Conf. on World Wide Web (May 1999) (Ex. 1012)
`Dan Kegel, “NAT and Peer-to-Peer networking,”
`http//alumnus.caltech.edu/ ~dank/peer-nat.html (Jul.
`17, 1999) (Ex. 1010)
`Matthew Naugle, NETWORK PROTOCOL HANDBOOK
`(McGraw-Hill 1994) (Ex. 1008)
`Om P. Damani, “ONE-IP: techniques for hosing a
`service on a cluster of machines,” Computer Networks
`and ISDN Systems, No. 29, pp. 1019-27 (1997) (Ex.
`1009)
`Activision Blizzard, Inc., Electronic Arts Inc., Take-
`Two Interactive Software, Inc., 2K Sports, Inc., and
`Rockstar Games, Inc.
`Chad Yoshikawa, et al., “Using Smart Clients to Build
`Scalable Services,” Proceedings of the 1997 USENIX
`Technical Conference (Jan. 1997) (Ex. 1005)
`Amin M. Vahdat, et al., “WebFS: A Global Cache
`Coherent File System,” December 1996 (Ex. 1007)
`
`i
`
`

`

`Case 1:16-cv-00455-RGA Document 414-1 Filed 03/16/18 Page 17 of 62 PageID #: 31317
`
`PETITIONERS’ EXHIBIT LIST
`
`Exhibit Description
`
`Ex. 1001 U.S. Patent No. 6,920,497 (“’497 patent”)
`
`Ex. 1002 File History for U.S. Patent No.
`Ex. 1003 Declaration of David R. Karger Ph.D. in Support of the Petition for
`Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 6,920,497
`
`Ex. 1004 U.S. Patent No. 6,195,366 to Kayashima et al.
`
`Ex. 1005
`
`Chad Yoshikawa, et al, “Using Smart Clients to Build Scalable
`Services,” Proceedings of the 1997 USENIX Technical Conference
`(Jan. 1997) (“Smart Clients”)
`Ex. 1006 Harry Newton, NEWTON’S TELECOM DICTIONARY, (Elsevier Science
`Ltd.) (16th Ed. 2000)
`Ex. 1007 Amin M. Vahdat, et al., “WebFS: A Global Cache Coherent File
`System,” December 1996 (“Vahdat”)
`Ex. 1008 Matthew Naugle, NETWORK PROTOCOL HANDBOOK (McGraw-Hill
`1994) (“Naugle”)
`
`Ex. 1009
`
`Om P. Damani, “ONE-IP: techniques for hosing a service on a cluster
`of machines,” Computer Networks and ISDN Systems, No. 29, pp.
`1019-27 (1997) (“ONE-IP”)
`Ex. 1010 Dan Kegel, “NAT and Peer-to-Peer networking,”
`http//alumnus.caltech.edu/~dank/peer-nat.html (Jul. 17, 1999)
`Ex. 1011 George S. Lueker & Mariko Molodowitch, “More Analysis of Double
`Hashing,” COMBINATORICA 13(1), pp. 83-96 (1993)
`
`Ex. 1012
`
`David Karger, et al., “Web Caching with Consistent Hashing,”
`WWW ’99 Proceedings of the Eighth Int’l Conf. on World Wide Web
`(May 1999) (“Karger”)
`
`Ex. 1013 Declaration of Scott Bennett, Ph.D
`
`ii
`
`

`

`Case 1:16-cv-00455-RGA Document 414-1 Filed 03/16/18 Page 18 of 62 PageID #: 31318
`
`Exhibit Description
`
`Ex. 1014 Declaration of Daniel R. Kegel
`Ex. 1015 R. Srinivasan, Binding Protocols for ONC RPC Version 2, RFC 1833
`(Aug. 1995)
`Ex. 1016 P. Suisuresh & M. Holdrege, IP Network Address Translator (NAT)
`Terminology and Considerations, RFC 2663 (Aug. 1999)
`
`iii
`
`

`

`Case 1:16-cv-00455-RGA Document 414-1 Filed 03/16/18 Page 19 of 62 PageID #: 31319
`
`TCP.”); Ex. 1003, ¶ 200. Therefore, Kegel discloses this additional feature.
`
`IX. CONCLUSION
`
`For the foregoing reasons, Petitioners respectfully request that the Board
`
`institute inter partes review of claims 1, 3-5, 7-9, and 16 of the ’497 patent and
`
`ultimately cancel those claims as being unpatentable.
`
`Dated: March 11, 2016
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`/Andrew R. Sommer/
`Andrew R. Sommer
`Reg. No. 53,932
`
`Lead Counsel for Petitioners Activision
`Blizzard, Inc., Electronic Arts Inc.,
`Take-Two Interactive Software, Inc., 2K
`Sports, Inc., and Rockstar Games, Inc.
`
`60
`
`

`

`Case 1:16-cv-00455-RGA Document 414-1 Filed 03/16/18 Page 20 of 62 PageID #: 31320
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. §§ 42.6(e) and 42.105(a), this is to certify that on
`
`March 11, 2016, I caused to be served a true and correct copy of the foregoing
`
`“PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW OF U.S. PATENT NO. 6,920,497,”
`
`POWER OF ATTORNEY, and Exhibits 1001 to 1016 by EXPRESS MAIL on the
`
`alleged Patent Owner at the correspondence address of record for U.S. Patent No.
`
`6,920,497, as follows:
`
`Correspondence Address:
`
`Litigation Counsel:
`
`Perkins Coie LLP – Boeing
`PO Box 1247
`Patent – SEA
`Seattle, WA 98111-1247
`
`Paul J. Andre
`Kramer Levin Naftalis & Frankel LLP
`990 Marsh Road
`Menlo Park, CA 94025
`(650) 752-1700
`
`Electronic copies of the Exhibits are provided on a thumb drive. The
`
`password for the thumb drive is: winstonIPRs*
`
`1
`
`

`

`Case 1:16-cv-00455-RGA Document 414-1 Filed 03/16/18 Page 21 of 62 PageID #: 31321
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`Andrew R. Sommer/
`Andrew R. Sommer
`(Reg. No. 53,932)
`Counsel for Petitioners Activision
`Blizzard, Inc., Electronic Arts Inc.,
`Take-Two Interactive Software, Inc.,
`2K Sports, Inc., and Rockstar Games,
`Inc.
`
`Dated: March 11, 2016
`
`WINSTON & STRAWN LLP
`1700 K Street NW
`Washington, DC 20006
`
`2
`
`

`

`Case 1:16-cv-00455-RGA Document 414-1 Filed 03/16/18 Page 22 of 62 PageID #: 31322
`Case 1:16-cv-00455-RGA Document 414-1 Filed 03/16/18 Page 22 of 62 PagelD #: 31322
`
`
`
`
`
`EXHIBIT 105
`EXHIBIT 105
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:16-cv-00455-RGA Document 414-1 Filed 03/16/18 Page 23 of 62 PageID #: 31323
`Case 1:16-cv-00455-RGA Document 414-1 Filed 03/16/18 Page 23 of 62 PagelD #: 31323
`
`THIS EXHIBIT HAS BEEN
`THIS EXHIBIT HAS BEEN
`REDACTED ,IN ITS ENTIRETY
`REDACTEDIN ITS ENTIRETY
`
`

`

`Case 1:16-cv-00455-RGA Document 414-1 Filed 03/16/18 Page 24 of 62 PageID #: 31324
`Case 1:16-cv-00455-RGA Document 414-1 Filed 03/16/18 Page 24 of 62 PagelD #: 31324
`
`
`
`
`
`EXHIBIT 106
`EXHIBIT 106
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:16-cv-00455-RGA Document 414-1 Filed 03/16/18 Page 25 of 62 PageID #: 31325
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`______________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`______________________
`
`Activision Blizzard, Inc., Electronic Arts Inc., Take-Two Interactive Software, Inc.,
`2K Sports, Inc., and Rockstar Games, Inc.,
`Petitioners
`
`v.
`
`Acceleration Bay, LLC,
`Patent Owner
`______________________
`
`Case No. IPR2016-00747
`
`______________________
`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW OF
`UNITED STATES PATENT NO. 6,732,147
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`MAIL STOP PATENT BOARD
`Patent Trial and Appeal Board
`United States Patent and Trademark Office
`Post Office Box 1450
`Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450
`Submitted Electronically via the Patent Review Processing System
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:16-cv-00455-RGA Document 414-1 Filed 03/16/18 Page 26 of 62 PageID #: 31326
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`I.
`INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................... 1
`II. MANDATORY NOTICES UNDER § 42.8 ................................................... 2
`III.
`PETITIONERS HAVE STANDING .............................................................. 3
`A. Grounds For Standing Under § 42.104(A) ............................................ 3
`B.
`Claims And Statutory Grounds Under §§ 42.22 And 42.104(b) .......... 3
`IV. SUMMARY OF THE ’147 PATENT AND ITS TECHNICAL FIELD ........ 4
`A. Overview Of The ’147 Patent ............................................................... 4
`B.
`Overview Of The Prosecution History .................................................. 6
`C.
`Overview Of The Technical Field And Brief Discussion Of
`Some Of The Relevant Prior Art ........................................................... 7
`CLAIM CONSTRUCTION UNDER § 42.104(B)(3) .................................. 12
`V.
`VI. LEVEL OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART AND STATE OF THE
`ART ............................................................................................................... 13
`VII. THERE IS A REASONABLE LIKELIHOOD THAT PETITIONERS
`WILL PREVAIL WITH RESPECT TO AT LEAST ONE CLAIM ............ 13
`A. Overview Of Shoubridge .................................................................... 13
`B.
`Overview Of Denes ............................................................................. 15
`C.
`Overview Of Rufino ............................................................................ 16
`D.
`Combination Of Shoubridge, Denes, And Rufino .............................. 17
`E.
`Ground 1: Claims 1-16 ........................................................................ 19
`1.
`Independent Claim 1 ................................................................. 19
`2.
`Dependent Claim 2 ................................................................... 26
`3.
`Dependent Claim 3 ................................................................... 27
`4.
`Dependent Claims 4 and 5 ........................................................ 28
`5.
`Independent Claim 6 ................................................................. 29
`6.
`Dependent Claim 7 ................................................................... 37
`7.
`Dependent Claim 8 ................................................................... 39
`8.
`Dependent Claim 9 ................................................................... 40
`9.
`Dependent Claim 10 ................................................................. 41
`10.
`Independent Claim 11 ............................................................... 42
`
`
`
`ii
`
`

`

`Case 1:16-cv-00455-RGA Document 414-1 Filed 03/16/18 Page 27 of 62 PageID #: 31327
`
`11. Dependent Claim 12 ................................................................. 50
`12. Dependent Claim 13 ................................................................. 52
`13. Dependent Claims 14 and 16 .................................................... 53
`14. Dependent Claim 15 ................................................................. 54
`Ground 2: Claims 4-5, 14, 16 .............................................................. 55
`F.
`G. Ground 3: Claims 8 and 13 ................................................................. 56
`H. Ground 4: Claims 1-16 ........................................................................ 59
`VIII. CONCLUSION .............................................................................................. 60
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`iii
`
`

`

`Case 1:16-cv-00455-RGA Document 414-1 Filed 03/16/18 Page 28 of 62 PageID #: 31328
`
`LIST OF EXHIBITS
`
`Exhibit Description
`Ex. 1001 U.S. Patent No. 6,732,147 (“the ’147 patent”)
`Ex. 1002 U.S. Patent No. 6,732,147 File History
`Ex. 1003 Expert Declaration of David R. Karger (“Karger”)
`Ex. 1004 Declaration of Scott Bennett, Ph.D
`Ex. 1005 Peter J. Shoubridge & Arek Dadej, “Hybrid Routing in Dynamic Net-
`works,” IEEE International Conference on Communications, Montreal,
`1997 (“Shoubridge”)
`Ex. 1006 Declaration of Steven Silvio Pietrobon attaching as Exhibit F Peter J.
`Shoubridge, “Adaptive Strategies for Routing in Dynamic Networks”
`(Ph.D. Thesis, University of South Australia, December 1996)
`(“Shoubridge Thesis”)
`Ex. 1007 John M. McQuillan, et al., “The New Routing Algorithm for the AR-
`PANET,” IEEE Transactions Comms., Vol. 28, No. 5, 1980 (“McQuil-
`lan”)
`Ex. 1008 Yogen Kantilal Dalal, “Broadcast Protocols in Packet Switched Com-
`puter Networks,” (Ph.D. Thesis, Stanford University 1977) (“Dalal”)
`Ex. 1009 Katia Obraczka, et al., “A Tool for Massively Replicating Internet Ar-
`chives: Design, Implementation, and Experience,” Proceedings of the
`16th International Conference on Distributed Computing Systems, 27-
`30 May 1996, Hong Kong (New York, NY: 1996), 657-664 (“Obraczka
`Paper”)
`Ex. 1010 Katia Obraczka, “Massively Replicating Services In Wide-Area Inter-
`networks,” (Ph.D. Thesis, University of Southern California December
`1994) (“Obraczka”)
`Ex. 1011 Jose Rufino, et al., “A Study On The Inaccessibility Characteristics Of
`ISO 8802/4 Token-Bus LANs,” IEEE INFOCOM ’92: The Conference
`on Computer Communications. One World through Communications.
`Eleventh Annual Joint Conference of the IEEE Computer and Commu-
`nication Societies, Florence, Italy, Vol. 2 (Picataway, NJ: IEEE Service
`Center, 1992), 0958-0967 (“Ru