Case 1:16-cv-02690-AT Document 121-10 Filed 08/05/16 Page 1 of 350
`
`Exhibit E
`
`

`

`Case 1:16-cv-02690-AT Document 121-10 Filed 08/05/16 Page 2 of 350
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
`TYLER DIVISION
`
`
`
`
`
`
` Civil Action No. 6:15-cv-907
`
`
`
`
`
`Plaintiffs,
`
`
`
`
`SIPCO, LLC, and IP CO, LLC
`(d/b/a INTUS IQ),
`
`
`
` v.
`
`EMERSON ELECTRIC CO., EMERSON
`PROCESS MANAGEMENT LLLP, FISHER-
`ROSEMOUNT SYSTEMS, INC.,
`ROSEMOUNT INC., BP, p.l.c., BP
`AMERICA, INC., and BP AMERICA
`PRODUCTION COMPANY,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Defendants.
`
`
`
`
`DEFENDANTS’ JOINT INVALIDITY CONTENTIONS
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:16-cv-02690-AT Document 121-10 Filed 08/05/16 Page 3 of 350
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................................. 1
`
`II. RESERVATIONS ................................................................................................................... 2
`
`III. IDENTIFICATION OF PRIOR ART PURSUANT TO PATENT L.R. 3-3(A) .................... 9
`
`A. Prior Art Patents .................................................................................................................... 9
`
`B. Prior Art Publications .......................................................................................................... 11
`
`C. Prior Art Public Uses/Sales/Offers for Sales Under § 102(b) or Prior Invention Under §
`102(g) .................................................................................................................................. 18
`
`D. Prior Art Based on Derivation Under § 102(f) .................................................................... 21
`
`IV. REPRESENTATIVE CLAIM CHARTS IDENTIFYING WHERE EACH CLAIM
`ELEMENT IS FOUND IN THE PRIOR ART OR RENDERED OBVIOUS PURSUANT
`TO PATENT L.R. 3-3(B) AND (C) ..................................................................................... 21
`
`V. ADDITIONAL OBVIOUSNESS CONSIDERATIONS AND REASONS TO COMBINE
`THE PRIOR ART ................................................................................................................. 25
`
`A. Asserted Brownrigg Patents ................................................................................................ 27
`
`1. Wireless Network and Gateway Limitations .................................................................. 28
`
`a)
`
`b)
`
`c)
`
`“Server”/“Plurality of Clients”/“Network”/ “Housekeeping”/“Node”/“Gateway” ....32
`
`Protocol Translation and Formatting ..........................................................................33
`
`“Maintaining a Send/Receive Data Buffer in Digital Memory”/“A Send and
`Receive Data Buffer Maintenance Step” ....................................................................34
`
`2. Client Link or Path Selection ......................................................................................... 35
`
`3. Map or Tree Limitations ................................................................................................. 37
`
`a) Maintaining a Map of Data Packet Transmission Paths or a “Link Tree” .................37
`
`b)
`
`c)
`
`Server Operations to Change Transmission Paths ......................................................39
`
`Comparing a Link and Updating a Client Link Tree ..................................................44
`
`4. Authentication of Clients ................................................................................................ 45
`
`B. Asserted Petite Patents ........................................................................................................ 46
`
`1. Admitted Prior Art .......................................................................................................... 46
`
`2. Examples of Prior Art Combinations ............................................................................. 48
`
`VI. IDENTIFICATION OF INVALIDITY ARGUMENTS UNDER 35 U.S.C. § 112
`PURSUANT TO PATENT L.R. 3-3(D) ............................................................................... 56
`
`A. The Asserted Petite Patents ................................................................................................. 56
`
`1. The ‘492 Patent ............................................................................................................... 56
`
`2. The ‘692 Patent ............................................................................................................... 59
`
`-i-
`
`

`

`Case 1:16-cv-02690-AT Document 121-10 Filed 08/05/16 Page 4 of 350
`
`3. The ‘893 Patent ............................................................................................................... 61
`
`4. The ‘661 Patent ............................................................................................................... 62
`
`5. The ‘780 Patent ............................................................................................................... 63
`
`6. The ‘842 Patent ............................................................................................................... 64
`
`7. The ‘732 Patent ............................................................................................................... 64
`
`B. Asserted Brownrigg Patents ................................................................................................ 64
`
`VII. IDENTIFICATION OF INVALIDITY ARGUMENTS UNDER 35 U.S.C. § 101
`PURSUANT TO PATENT L.R. 3-3(D) ............................................................................... 65
`
`A. The Law of Subject Matter Ineligibility .............................................................................. 65
`
`B. The Asserted Petite Patents ................................................................................................. 68
`
`C. Asserted Brownrigg Patents ................................................................................................ 68
`
`D. Double Patenting ................................................................................................................. 69
`
`VIII. DOCUMENT PRODUCTION PURSUANT TO PATENT L.R. 3-4 .................................. 69
`
`A. Additional Prior Art ............................................................................................................ 69
`
`
`
`-ii-
`
`

`

`Case 1:16-cv-02690-AT Document 121-10 Filed 08/05/16 Page 5 of 350
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`Pursuant to the Amended Docket Control Order (Dkt. 73) entered in this case and Patent
`
`Local Rule 3-3, Defendants Emerson Electric Co., Emerson Process Management LLLP, Fisher-
`
`Rosemount Systems, Inc., Rosemount Inc., BP, p.l.c., BP America, Inc., and BP America
`
`Production Company (“Defendants”). BP, p.l.c provisionally makes these contentions to preserve
`
`its rights, notwithstanding and without waiving its rights to answer, tender any Rule 12 motion,
`
`or otherwise plead in response to the Amended Complaint served on April 4, 2016.
`
`In its Local Patent Rule 3-1 and 3-2 Disclosures (“Infringement Contentions”), served on
`
`Defendants on February 29, 2016, Plaintiff SIPCO, LLC asserted claims 1-4, 6, 8-11, 13-21, and
`
`25 of U.S. Patent No. 7,697,492 (“the ‘492 patent”); claims 1, 3-8, 11-14, 24-32, 34, 36-38, 42,
`
`43, 46-49, 51-57, and 59-64 of U.S. Patent No. 6,437,692 (“the ‘692 patent”); claims 1, 5, 6, 8-
`
`12, and 14 of U.S. Patent No. 7,468,661 (“the ‘661 patent”); claims 1-3, 10, 17, 18, and 37 of
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,914,893 (“the ‘893 patent”); claims 1, 2, and 4-8 of U.S. Patent No. 8,754,780
`
`(“the ‘780 patent”); claims 1, 7, 9, 16, and 17 of U.S. Patent No. 8,908,842 (“the ‘842 patent”);
`
`and claims 1, 13, 14, 16-19, and 31-35 of U.S. Patent No. 8,013,732 (“the ‘732 patent”)
`
`(collectively, “Asserted Petite Patents” and “Asserted Petite Claims”).
`
`In its Local Patent Rule 3-1 and 3-2 Disclosures (“Infringement Contentions”), served on
`
`Defendants on February 29, 2016, Plaintiff IPCO, LLC asserted claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 10, 11, 13, and
`
`14 of U.S. Patent No. 6,249,516 (“the ‘516 patent”); claims 1, 4, 10, and 12-14 of U.S. Patent
`
`No. 8,000,314 (“the ‘314 patent”); claims 2-4, 6-8, 10-12, 14-22, 31-36, 40, and 41 of U.S.
`
`Patent No. 8,233,471 (“the ‘471 patent”); and claims 1-5, 7-27, 33-42, 44, and 45 of U.S. Patent
`
`No. 8,625,496 (“the ‘496 patent”) (collectively, “Asserted Brownrigg Patents” and “Asserted
`
`Brownrigg Claims”). The Asserted Petite Patents and the Asserted Brownrigg Patents are,
`
`-1-
`
`

`

`Case 1:16-cv-02690-AT Document 121-10 Filed 08/05/16 Page 6 of 350
`
`collectively, the “Asserted Patents.” The Asserted Petite Claims and the Asserted Brownrigg
`
`Claims are, collectively, the “Asserted Claims.”
`
`In accordance with Patent L.R. 3-3(a)-(d), Defendants hereby: (a) identify of each item of
`
`prior art that allegedly anticipates each asserted claim or renders it obvious; (b) state whether
`
`each item of prior art anticipates each asserted claim or renders it obvious; (c) submit charts
`
`identifying where specifically in each alleged item of prior art each element of each asserted
`
`claim is found; and (d) state any grounds of invalidity based on indefiniteness under 35 U.S.C. §
`
`112(b) or enablement or written description under 35 U.S.C. § 112(a) of any of the asserted
`
`claims. Although not required by the Patent Local Rules, Defendants also identify exemplary
`
`grounds of invalidity based on 35 U.S.C. § 101 subject matter ineligibility and double patenting.
`
`II.
`
`RESERVATIONS
`
`At this early stage in the case, Defendants’ investigation and analysis of prior art is not
`
`yet complete, and Defendants reserve the right to modify, amend, or supplement their invalidity
`
`contentions, identification of prior art, and accompanying document production as additional
`
`information becomes available during the course of this lawsuit. Accordingly, the contentions
`
`provided herein by Defendants are provisional and subject to revision as provided in the Local
`
`Rules, the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and/or any Order of this Court. For example, these
`
`Joint Invalidity Contentions are based on Defendants’ current knowledge, understanding, and
`
`belief as to the facts and information available at this time. Defendants have not yet completed
`
`their investigation, collection of information, discovery, or analysis relating to this action, and
`
`additional facts and information may lead Defendants to supplement or amend these contentions.
`
`Defendants fully reserve the right to so amend these contentions. Moreover, Plaintiffs’
`
`Infringement Contentions are materially deficient, and thus, do not provide Defendants with
`
`sufficient notice of the bases for their infringement allegations or the alleged scope of the claims.
`
`-2-
`
`

`

`Case 1:16-cv-02690-AT Document 121-10 Filed 08/05/16 Page 7 of 350
`
`The lack of complete infringement contentions have hindered Defendants’ ability to fully
`
`identify applicable prior art, and Defendants, therefore, reserve the right to supplement or amend
`
`these Joint Invalidity Contentions when Plaintiffs have produced infringement contentions that
`
`fully comply with Patent L.R. 3-1 and 3-2.
`
`Similarly, Defendants have had little or no discovery concerning the claimed priority
`
`dates for the Asserted Claims of the Asserted Patents. Plaintiffs have not provided evidence
`
`supporting their asserted priority dates. Thus, Defendants may not be collecting all relevant prior
`
`art.
`
`Emerson also reserves their right to supplement and/or amend these Joint Invalidity
`
`Contentions after the Court has construed disputed claim terms, in accordance with Local P.R. 3-
`
`6. Emerson’s contentions concerning the validity of the Asserted Claims of the Asserted Patents
`
`may change based upon the Court’s construction of the claims or upon positions that SIPCO may
`
`take concerning infringement or validity issues after such construction. The analysis provided in
`
`these Joint Invalidity Contentions in some instances uses SIPCO’s proposed (or implied) claim
`
`constructions which Emerson does not believe will be sustained by the Court. Moreover,
`
`SIPCO’s deficient Infringement Contentions have impeded Emerson’s ability to understand how
`
`SIPCO is construing the Asserted Claims and applying that construction to prior art.
`
`Nothing contained in these Invalidity Contentions or any accompanying exhibits or claim
`
`charts, should be understood or deemed to be an express or implied admission or contention with
`
`respect to the proper construction or scope of any terms in the Asserted Claims, nor should they
`
`be understood to adopt Defendants’ stated or implied claim construction or their proposed scope
`
`of the Asserted Claims to the extent discernible. Emerson provides the information below and in
`
`the attached charts and document production in order to comply with Patent L.R. 3-3 and 3-4.
`
`-3-
`
`

`

`Case 1:16-cv-02690-AT Document 121-10 Filed 08/05/16 Page 8 of 350
`
`The production of documents that have been identified in these Joint Invalidity Contentions shall
`
`not be deemed an admission that such documents are admissible or that Defendants have waived
`
`any objections regarding the admissibility of such documents.
`
`Defendants incorporate, in full, all prior art references cited in the Asserted Patents and
`
`any patents or applications to which the Asserted Patents claim priority, and the Asserted
`
`Patents’ respective prosecution histories. Defendants reserve the right to identify other art or to
`
`supplement the disclosure for the following reasons:
`
`i. Defendants’ positions on the invalidity of the Asserted Claims will depend in part on
`
`how those claims are construed by the Court. Because claim construction has not yet occurred,
`
`Defendants cannot take a final position on the bases for invalidity of the Asserted Claims
`
`because the Court may construe those claims to mean something different from what Defendants
`
`assumes them to mean for purposes of these invalidity contentions. As reflected in Plaintiffs’
`
`Infringement Contentions, to the extent they can be understood, Plaintiffs have adopted apparent
`
`claim constructions for certain claim terms that Defendants dispute but applies herein in order to
`
`identify the potentially relevant prior art known to Defendants. By applying any of Plaintiffs’
`
`apparent claim constructions herein, Defendants do not concede in any way that those
`
`constructions are correct, but rather assert the fundamental principle that whatever infringes a
`
`claim if later in time anticipates if earlier in time. Plaintiffs are estopped for the purposes of
`
`invalidity from denying that a product it accuses of infringement does not, if that product is prior
`
`art, invalidate all claims the product is asserted to infringe. At least under Plaintiffs’ apparent
`
`infringement theories, all of the elements underlying the alleged invention of the Asserted
`
`Claims were already known or obvious before the respective alleged priority date of each of the
`
`-4-
`
`

`

`Case 1:16-cv-02690-AT Document 121-10 Filed 08/05/16 Page 9 of 350
`
`Asserted Patents as alleged in the Infringement Contentions. Defendants expressly reserve the
`
`right to oppose those constructions at the appropriate time specified in the Docket Control Order.
`
`ii. Defendants reserve the right to prove the invalidity of the Asserted Claims on bases
`
`other than those required to be disclosed in these disclosures pursuant to Patent Local Rule 3-3.
`
`iii. Defendants reserve the right to present additional items of prior art under 35 U.S.C.
`
`§§ 102(a), (b), (e), and/or (g), and/or § 103, located during the course of such discovery or
`
`further investigation, and to assert invalidity under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102(c), (d), or (f), to the extent
`
`that such discovery or investigation yields information forming the basis for such invalidity.
`
`Defendants have not completed its discovery from Plaintiff. Depositions of the named
`
`inventors, for instance, will likely reveal information that affects the disclosures and contentions
`
`herein. Defendants have not yet received discovery from third parties who may have information
`
`concerning additional prior art. Such discovery may also reveal information that affects the
`
`disclosures and contentions herein. In particular, for prior art patents and publications identified
`
`in these invalidity contentions, Defendants reserve the right to rely on the public use, offer for
`
`sale, sale, and/or actual products embodying the methods and systems described therein
`
`uncovered during discovery. Should Defendants hereafter discover additional prior art pertinent
`
`to the Asserted Claims of the Asserted Patents, and Defendants reserve their right to seek to
`
`amend and/or supplement these Joint Invalidity Contentions within a reasonable time after
`
`becoming aware of additional prior art.
`
`iv. Defendants reserve the right to serve additional or modified invalidity contentions if
`
`Plaintiff asserts or is found to be entitled to priority dates different from those upon which
`
`Plaintiff currently asserts. All patents disclosed in these contentions are U.S. patents unless
`
`-5-
`
`

`

`Case 1:16-cv-02690-AT Document 121-10 Filed 08/05/16 Page 10 of 350
`
`otherwise noted. On information and belief, each listed publication, product, or system became
`
`prior art at least as early as the dates given.
`
`v. Pursuant to Patent L.R. 3-3, Defendants also identify specific portions of prior art
`
`references that disclose limitations of the Asserted Claims. The accompanying invalidity claim
`
`charts provide examples of prior art that discloses, either expressly or inherently, every limitation
`
`of certain claims and/or teachings, suggestions, and motivations through which a person of
`
`ordinary skill at the time of the alleged inventions would have considered the limitations obvious
`
`in view of the state of the art at the time, the differences between the claimed inventions and the
`
`state of the art, and the foreseeability from a technical perspective and/or marketing and/or
`
`natural and expected evolution of the art. Each and every portion of a reference that corresponds
`
`to a limitation in the Asserted Claims is not necessarily specified. In an effort to focus the issues,
`
`Defendants specify only exemplary portions of cited references. Persons of ordinary skill in the
`
`art generally read a prior art reference as a whole and in the context of other publications and
`
`literature and in light of the knowledge of one of ordinary skill in the art. To understand and
`
`interpret any specific statement or disclosure within a prior art reference, such persons would
`
`rely on other information within the reference, along with other publications and their scientific
`
`or engineering knowledge. Defendants consequently reserve the right to rely upon other
`
`unspecified portions of the prior art references and on other publications and expert testimony as
`
`to the knowledge of a person of ordinary skill to provide context, and as aids to understanding
`
`and interpreting the portions that are identified. Defendants also reserve the right to rely on other
`
`portions of the prior art references, other publications, and the testimony of experts to establish
`
`that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to modify or combine certain
`
`of the cited references so as to render the claims obvious. Further, where Defendants cite to a
`
`-6-
`
`

`

`Case 1:16-cv-02690-AT Document 121-10 Filed 08/05/16 Page 11 of 350
`
`particular figure in a reference, the citation should be understood to encompass the caption and
`
`description of the figure and any text relating to the figure. Conversely, where Defendants cite to
`
`particular text referring to a figure, the citation should be understood to include the figure as
`
`well. As discovery progresses and the scope and focus of the liability issues become more clear,
`
`Defendants may rely on uncited portions of the prior art. Given the volume of prior art and the
`
`number of relevant passages within each prior art reference, Defendants expressly reserves the
`
`right to rely upon additional portions of the cited prior art references.
`
`vi. Defendants further may rely on any Plaintiff’s or any inventor’s admissions
`
`concerning the scope of prior art relevant to the Asserted Patents; the patent prosecution history
`
`for the Asserted Patents; any deposition testimony of the named inventors on the Asserted
`
`Patents; and the papers filed and any evidence submitted by Plaintiffs in connection with this
`
`litigation. For example, Defendants reserve the right to assert that the Asserted Claims are
`
`invalid under 35 U.S.C. § 102(f) in the event that Defendants obtains evidence that the named
`
`inventors did not invent (either alone or in conjunction with others) the subject matter claimed in
`
`the Asserted Patents. Should Defendants obtain such evidence, it will provide the name of the
`
`person(s) from whom and the circumstances under which the claimed invention or any part of it
`
`was derived.
`
`Defendants also hereby identifies, as prior art upon which it may rely to show the
`
`invalidity of the asserted claims, the prior art references disclosed by defendants in any other
`
`litigation involving the patents-in-suit or involving any other patent claiming priority to any
`
`application in the families of the Asserted Patents (“Other Plaintiff Litigations”). Defendants
`
`incorporate, in full, the invalidity contentions disclosed by defendants in the Other Plaintiff
`
`Litigations. Plaintiff has a duty to produce to Defendants all relevant documents from the Other
`
`-7-
`
`

`

`Case 1:16-cv-02690-AT Document 121-10 Filed 08/05/16 Page 12 of 350
`
`Plaintiff Litigations, including all inventor depositions, prior art, invalidity contentions, and
`
`expert reports on invalidity (among other relevant items) from the Other Plaintiff Litigations, but
`
`Plaintiff has not yet produced all such documents to Defendants. Accordingly, Defendants
`
`expressly reserve their right to supplement these contentions based on the information contained
`
`therein.
`
`Defendants further intend to rely on prior art, arguments, and other information regarding
`
`the Asserted Patents found in, inter alia: the Asserted Patents themselves, the prosecution
`
`histories of the Asserted Patents and related patents and applications, reexamination proceedings
`
`of the Asserted Patents and related patents, or Inter Partes Reviews of the Asserted Patents and
`
`related patents and/or patent applications; and the papers filed and any evidence submitted by
`
`Plaintiffs in connection with this litigation or other of its past, current or future litigations or
`
`administrative proceedings concerning or relating to one or more of the Asserted Patents and
`
`related patents and/or patent applications.
`
`vii. Defendants also reserves the right to further contend that one or more Asserted
`
`Claims are invalid because they are directed to ineligible subject matter and thus fail to comply
`
`with 35 U.S.C. § 101.
`
`viii. Defendants reserve the right to contend that one or more of the Asserted Patents is
`
`invalid for double patenting and/or for being assigned to two different entities while subject to a
`
`terminal disclaimer.
`
`ix. Defendants further reserve the right to modify or add additional contentions in the
`
`event that Plaintiff provides amended infringement contentions and to the extent the Court orders
`
`or allows Plaintiff to amend its infringement contentions.
`
`-8-
`
`

`

`Case 1:16-cv-02690-AT Document 121-10 Filed 08/05/16 Page 13 of 350
`
`III.
`
`IDENTIFICATION OF PRIOR ART PURSUANT TO PATENT L.R. 3-3(A)
`
`Subject to Defendants’ reservations, listed below is prior art that Defendants contend
`
`anticipates, renders obvious, or otherwise evidences invalidity of each Asserted Claim of the
`
`Asserted Patents. The following prior art is also illustrative of the knowledge of one of ordinary
`
`skill in the art at the alleged time of invention. In addition, Defendants further reserve the right
`
`to rely upon U.S. and foreign prosecution histories and prior art cited in the file histories of the
`
`Asserted Patents and related patents, applications, and any documents related to reexamination or
`
`Inter Partes Reviews of the Asserted Claims of the Asserted Patents, or related patents.
`
`A.
`
`Prior Art Patents
`
`Defendants hereby identify the following prior art patents that anticipate or render
`
`obvious the Asserted Claims of the Asserted Patents under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102(a), (b), and/or (e)
`
`and/or 35 U.S.C. § 103:
`
`Abbreviation
`
`Patent No.
`
`Country of
`Origin
`
`Date of Issue
`
`Exhibit
`
`PRIOR ART PATENTS
`
`Cunningham
`
`6,366,217
`
`Canada
`
`5,907,491
`
`Simionescu
`
`5,963,650
`
`McMillin
`
`7,027,773
`
`Mason
`
`Shuey
`
`Shuey
`
`6,100,817
`
`5,874,903
`
`6,073,169
`
`Flanagan
`
`5,506,838
`
`Perlman
`
`5,323,394
`
`Eng ‘783
`
`5,757,783
`
`Apr. 2, 2002
`
`May 25, 1999
`
`Oct. 5, 1999
`
`Apr. 11, 2006
`
`Aug, 8, 2000
`
`Feb. 23, 1999
`
`Jun. 6, 2000
`
`Apr. 9, 1996 (filed
`Dec. 29, 1994)
`
`Jun. 21, 1994
`
`May 26, 1998 (filed
`Jun. 15, 1995)
`
`US
`
`US
`
`US
`
`US
`
`US
`
`US
`
`US
`
`US
`
`US
`
`US
`
`-9-
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`

`

`Case 1:16-cv-02690-AT Document 121-10 Filed 08/05/16 Page 14 of 350
`
`PRIOR ART PATENTS
`
`Ayanoglu ‘309
`
`5,822,309
`
`Eng ‘495
`
`5,623,495
`
`Ayanoglu ‘689
`
`5,717,689
`
`Ayanoglu ‘759
`
`6,122,759
`
`Hyden
`
`5,774,461
`
`Meier ‘436
`
`5,394,436
`
`Meier ‘154
`
`5,295,154
`
`Meier ‘942
`
`WO 95/12942
`
`Shpancer
`
`5,282,204
`
`Ciotti
`
`6,421,731
`
`US
`
`US
`
`US
`
`US
`
`US
`
`US
`
`US
`
`US
`
`US
`
`US
`
`Oct. 13, 1998 (filed
`Jun. 15, 1995)
`
`Apr. 22, 1997 (filed
`Jun. 15, 1995)
`
`Feb. 10, 1998 (filed
`Oct. 10, 1995)
`
`Sept. 19, 2000 (filed
`Oct. 10, 1995)
`
`Jun. 30, 1998 (filed
`Sept. 27, 1995)
`
`Feb. 28, 1995
`
`Mar. 15, 1994
`
`May 11, 1995
`
`Jan. 25, 1994
`
`July 16, 2002 (filed
`Oct. 29, 1996)
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`Sherman ‘236
`
`5,974,236
`
`Hayashi
`
`5,907,540
`
`Natarajan
`
`5,608,721
`
`Jednacz
`
`5,726,644
`
`Dinkins
`
`5,592,491
`
`Flanders
`
`5,239,294
`
`Toh
`
`5,987,011
`
`Johnson
`
`5,673,252
`
`Brownrigg
`
`6,044,062
`
`Perkins
`
`5,442,633
`
`US
`
`US
`
`US
`
`US
`
`US
`
`US
`
`US
`
`US
`
`US
`
`US
`
`Oct. 26, 1999 (filed
`Aug. 17, 1995)
`
`May 25, 1999 (filed
`Sept. 19, 1995)
`
`Mar. 4, 1997 (filed
`Apr. 3, 1995)
`
`Mar. 10, 1998 (filed
`Jun. 30, 1995)
`
`Jan. 7, 1997 (filed
`Dec. 2, 1994; § 120,
`Oct. 26, 1992)
`
`Aug. 24, 1993
`
`Nov. 16, 1999
`
`Sep. 30, 1977
`
`Mar. 28, 2000
`
`Aug. 15, 1995
`
`
`1 Exhibits 1-53 have been previously provided to Defendants.
`
`-10-
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`241
`
`54
`
`55
`
`56
`
`67
`
`68
`
`74
`
`

`

`Case 1:16-cv-02690-AT Document 121-10 Filed 08/05/16 Page 15 of 350
`
`
`
`B.
`
`Prior Art Publications
`
`Defendants hereby identify the following prior art publications that anticipate or render
`
`obvious the Asserted Claims of the Asserted Patents under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102(a), (b), (g) and/or
`
`PRIOR ART PUBLICATIONS
`
`
`
`35 U.S.C. § 103:
`
`Abbreviation
`
`Burchfiel
`
`Jubin
`
`Kahn
`
`Pub. No./Name
`
`“Functions and structure of a
`packet radio station,” AFIPS
`Conf. Proc., vol. 44
`“The DARPA Packet Radio
`Network Protocols,”
`Proceedings of the IEEE
`
`“Advances in Packet Radio
`Technology,” Proceedings
`of the IEEE
`
`Kantronics
`
`“KPC-3 Plus Users Guide”
`
`Ultrix
`
`“Adding Packet Radio to the
`Ultrix Kernel,” Neuman
`
`Mobile
`Computing
`
`Johnson and
`Maltz
`
`D.B. Johnson and D. Maltz,
`“Dynamic Source Routing
`in Ad Hoc Wireless
`Networks,” Mobile
`Computing, Chapter 5, pp.
`153-181 (Imielinski and
`Korth, eds.)
`
`
`D.B. Johnson and D. Maltz,
`“Dynamic Source Routing
`in Ad Hoc Wireless
`Networks,” Paper.
`
`Country
`of Origin
`
`Date of
`Publication
`
`Exhibit
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`29
`
`30
`
`31
`
`US
`
`1975
`
`US
`
`Jan. 1987
`
`US
`
`Nov. 1978
`
`US
`
`US
`
`1997
`
`Dec. 1987,
`Feb. 1988
`
`US
`
`Feb. 1996
`
`US
`
`prior to Feb.
`1996
`(Emerson will
`conduct
`discovery
`concerning a
`more exact
`date,
`including
`whether it is
`prior to Dec.
`
`-11-
`
`

`

`Case 1:16-cv-02690-AT Document 121-10 Filed 08/05/16 Page 16 of 350
`
`PRIOR ART PUBLICATIONS
`
`
`
`6, 1995)
`
`US
`
`Dec. 1994
`
`32
`
`US
`
`Feb. 1992
`
`33
`
`US
`
`Feb. 27, 1995
`
`34
`
`US
`
`May 1996
`
`35
`
`US
`
`Sept.-Oct.
`1990
`
`36
`
`US
`
`Sept. 1984
`
`37
`
`US
`
`1987
`
`38
`
`Johnson 1994 D. B. Johnson, “Routing in
`Ad Hoc Networks of Mobile
`Hosts,” Proc. of the IEEE
`Workshop on Mobile
`Computing Systems and
`Applications at 158-163
`(Dec. 8-9, 1994)
`Goldstein, F., “The Radio
`Shortest Path First (RSPF)
`Routing protocol for Internet
`Protocol over Amateur
`Packet Radio,” Version 2.2
`
`
`Goldstein
`
`Varadhan
`
`Estrin
`
`Layer Net
`
`Brownrigg,
`Lynch, and
`Pepper
`
`Packet Radio
`Networks
`
`Varadhan, Estrin, and Hotz,
`“SDRP Route
`Construction,” Internet Draft
`draft-ietf-sdr-route-
`construction-01.{ps.txt}
`
`
`
`Estrin, Li, Varadhan,
`Zappala, “Source Demand
`Routing: Packet Format and
`Forwarding Specification,”
`RFC 1940
`
`Bhatnagar, A. and
`Robertson, T., “Layer Net:
`A New Self-Organizing
`Network Protocol,”
`MILCOM 90, 1990 IEEE
`Military Comm. Conf. 845
`Brownrigg, Lynch, and
`Pepper, “Packet Radio for
`Library Automation,” 3 Inf.
`Tech. and Libraries 229
`(Sept. 1984) (Brownrigg,
`Lynch, and Pepper)
`Lynch, C. and Brownrigg,
`E., “Packet Radio Networks:
`Architectures, Protocols,
`Technologies and
`Applications” (Pergamon
`
`-12-
`
`

`

`Case 1:16-cv-02690-AT Document 121-10 Filed 08/05/16 Page 17 of 350
`
`PRIOR ART PUBLICATIONS
`
`
`
`US
`
`Mar. 1986
`
`39
`
`US
`
`1981
`
`40
`
`US
`
`May 1994
`
`41
`
`US
`
`Apr. 1986
`
`42
`
`US
`
`July 1983
`
`43
`
`RFC 981
`
`Press)
`Mills, D.L., “An
`Experimental Multiple-Path
`Routing Algorithm,” RFC
`981
`
`
`
`Saltzer
`
`J. Saltzer, D. Reed, and D.
`Clark, “Source Routing for
`Campus-Wide Internet
`Transport,” Local Networks
`for Computer
`Communications, North-
`Holland, Amsterdam, pp. 1-
`23 (1981) (Saltzer); see also
`https://www.rfc-
`editor.org/ien/ien144.txt.
`
`Pomalaza- Ráez Pomalaza-Ráez, C., “A
`Distributed Routing
`Algorithm for Multihop
`Packet Radio Networks with
`Uni- and Bi-Directional
`Links,” Tactical
`Communications
`Conference, 1994. Vol. 1.
`Digital Technology for the
`Tactical Communicator.,
`Proceedings of the 1994 at
`365-370.
`
`Garcia-Luna-Aceves, J., “A
`Fail-Safe Routing
`Algorithm,” IEEE Infocom
`’86
`Brayer, K., “Implementation
`and Performance of
`Survivable Computer
`Communication with
`Autonomous Decentralized
`Control,” IEEE Comm.
`Mag. 34 (July 1983)
`(Brayer)
`
`
`Garcia-Luna-
`Aceves
`
`Brayer
`
`-13-
`
`

`

`Case 1:16-cv-02690-AT Document 121-10 Filed 08/05/16 Page 18 of 350
`
`PRIOR ART PUBLICATIONS
`
`
`
`Schwartz
`
`NET/ROM
`
`Geier
`
`Network 3000
`CUG
`
`WINGS
`
`Cerf 78
`
`Cerf 74
`
`Fullmer
`
`Tornow
`
`Network 3000
`SCM
`
`Kleinrock
`
`Mischa Swartz,
`“Telecommunication
`Networks: Protocols,
`Modeling and Analysis”
`“NETROM + TheNet User
`Manual”
`Geier, DeSimio, and Welsh,
`“Network Routing
`Techniques and Their
`Relevance to Packet Radio
`Networks,” ARRL/CRRL
`Amateur Radio 9th
`Computer Networking
`Conference, pages 105-117
`Network 3000:
`Communications Users
`Guide
`Garcia-Luna-Aceves, JJ.,
`“Wireless Internet Gateways
`(WINGS),” IEEE
`Cerf, Vinton, “Issues in
`Packet-Network
`Interconnection,”
`Proceedings of the IEEE,
`Vol. 66, No. 11 (Nov. 1978)
`Cerf, Vinton, “A Protocol
`for Packet Network
`Intercommunication,” IEEE
`Transactions on
`Communications, Vol. com-
`22, No. 5 (May 1974)
`Fullmer, Chane, “Collision
`Avoidance Techniques for
`Packet-Radio Networks,”
`Univ. of California, Santa
`Cruz (June 1998)
`Tornow, Janet, “Functional
`Summary of the DARPA
`SURAP1 Network,”
`DARPA (Sept. 1986)
`Network 3000 Server
`Configuration Manual, June
`1992
`L. Kleinrock, F. Kamoun,
`
`US
`
`1987
`
`US
`
`July 2, 1988
`
`US
`
`1990
`
`US
`
`Feb. 5, 1993
`
`US
`
`1997
`
`US
`
`Nov. 1978
`
`44
`
`45
`
`46
`
`47
`
`48
`
`49
`
`US
`
`May 1974
`
`50
`
`US
`
`June 1998
`
`51
`
`US
`
`Sept. 1986
`
`52
`
`US
`
`June 1992
`
`US
`
`Jan. 1977
`
`53
`
`57
`
`-14-
`
`

`

`Case 1:16-cv-02690-AT Document 121-10 Filed 08/05/16 Page 19 of 350
`
`PRIOR ART PUBLICATIONS
`
`
`
`Davis
`
`Wey
`
`“Hierarchical Routing for
`Large Networks,” 1
`Computer Networks 155-
`174 (1977)
`A. Davis, S. Goyal,
`“Knowledge-Based
`Management of Cellular
`Clone Fraud,” Proceedings
`of Third IEEE International
`Symposium on Personal,
`Indoor and Mobile Radio
`Communications, pp. 230-
`34 (Oct. 1992)
`J. Wey et al., “Clone
`Terminator: An
`Authentication Service for
`Advanced Mobile Phone
`System,” 45th IEEE
`Vehicular Technology
`Conference, pp. 175-79
`(1995)
`Al