Case 1:16-cv-02690-AT Document 121-5 Filed 08/05/16 Page 1 of 850
`
`Exhibit D
`
`

`

`Case 1:16-cv-02690-AT Document 121-5 Filed 08/05/16 Page 2 of 850
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
`ATLANTA DIVISION
`
`
`
`EMERSON ELECTRIC CO., FISHER-
`ROSEMOUNT SYSTEMS, INC., and
`ROSEMOUNT INC.,
`
`Plaintiffs,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`v.
`
`SIPCO LLC, and
`IP CO., LLC (d/b/a INTUS IQ)
`
`
`
`
`
`Civil Action No. 1:15-cv-00319-AT
`
`
`
`Defendants.
`
`PLAINTIFFS’ JOINT INVALIDITY
`CONTENTIONS
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:16-cv-02690-AT Document 121-5 Filed 08/05/16 Page 3 of 850
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`I.
`
`Introduction ...................................................................................................... 1
`
`II.
`
`RESERVATIONS ........................................................................................... 2
`
`III.
`
`IDENTIFICATION OF PRIOR ART PURSUANT TO PATENT L.R.
`4.3(a)(1) ........................................................................................................... 6
`
`A.
`
`Prior Art Patents .................................................................................... 6
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`Prior Art Publications ............................................................................ 8
`
`Prior Art Public Uses/Sales/Offers for Sales Under § 102(b) or
`Prior Invention Under § 102(g) ........................................................... 16
`
`D.
`
`Prior Art Based on Derivation Under § 102(f) ................................... 20
`
`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.............................................27
`
`A. Wireless Network Limitations ............................................................ 30
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`D.
`
`E.
`
`“server”/“plurality of clients”/“network”/“housekeeping” ................. 33
`
`“maintaining a send/receive data buffer in digital memory”/“a
`send and receive data buffer maintenance step” ................................. 35
`
`“said client process of each of said clients initiates and selects a
`radio transmission path to said server” ............................................... 36
`
`“server process further includes logic that maintains a client link
`tree having client link entries” ............................................................ 39
`
`F.
`
`Comparing a link and updating a client link tree ................................ 41
`
`G. Authentication of clients ..................................................................... 42
`
`H. Admitted Prior Art............................................................................... 44
`
`-i-
`
`

`

`Case 1:16-cv-02690-AT Document 121-5 Filed 08/05/16 Page 4 of 850
`
`I.
`
`Examples of Prior Art Combinations .................................................. 45
`
`VI.
`
`IDENTIFICATION OF INVALIDITY ARGUMENTS UNDER 35
`U.S.C. § 112 PURSUANT TO PATENT L.R. 3-3(d) ..................................51
`
`VII.
`
`IDENTIFICATION OF INVALIDITY ARGUMENTS UNDER 35
`U.S.C. § 101 PURSUANT TO PATENT L.R. 3-3(d) ..................................72
`
`A.
`
`The Law of Subject Matter Ineligibility .............................................. 72
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`D.
`
`E.
`
`F.
`
`G.
`
`H.
`
`I.
`
`J.
`
`K.
`
`L.
`
`Claim 1 of the ‘511 Patent is Patent Ineligible under 35 U.S.C.
`§101 ..................................................................................................... 76
`
`Claim 8 of the ‘511 Patent is Patent Ineligible under 35 U.S.C.
`§101 ..................................................................................................... 82
`
`Claim 27 of the ‘511 Patent is Patent Ineligible under 35 U.S.C.
`§101 ..................................................................................................... 89
`
`Claim 44 of the ‘511 Patent is Patent Ineligible under 35 U.S.C.
`§101 ..................................................................................................... 95
`
`Claims 3, 10, and 46 of the ‘511 Patent are Patent Ineligible under
`35 U.S.C. §101 .................................................................................. 101
`
`Claims 4, 11 and 47 of the ‘511 Patent are Patent Ineligible under
`35 U.S.C. §101 .................................................................................. 103
`
`Claim 9 of the ‘511 Patent are Patent Ineligible under 35 U.S.C.
`§101 ................................................................................................... 105
`
`Claims 28 and 29 of the ‘511 Patent is Patent Ineligible under 35
`U.S.C. §101 ....................................................................................... 107
`
`Claims 33 and 56 of the ‘511 Patent is Patent Ineligible under 35
`U.S.C. §101 ....................................................................................... 109
`
`Claims 34, 35, 57 and 58 of the ‘511 Patent are Patent Ineligible
`under 35 U.S.C. §101 ........................................................................ 110
`
`Claim 2 of the ‘062 Patent is Patent Ineligible under 35 U.S.C.
`§101 ................................................................................................... 112
`
`-ii-
`
`

`

`Case 1:16-cv-02690-AT Document 121-5 Filed 08/05/16 Page 5 of 850
`
`M. Claim 6 of the ‘062 Patent is Patent Ineligible under 35 U.S.C.
`§101 ................................................................................................... 116
`
`N.
`
`O.
`
`P.
`
`Q.
`
`Claim 10 of the ‘062 Patent is Patent Ineligible under 35 U.S.C.
`§101 ................................................................................................... 120
`
`Claim 14 of the ‘062 Patent is Patent Ineligible under 35 U.S.C.
`§101 ................................................................................................... 124
`
`Claims 3, 7, 11, and 15 of the ‘062 Patent are Patent Ineligible
`under 35 U.S.C. §101 ........................................................................ 128
`
`Claims 4, 8, 12, and 16 of the ‘062 Patent are Patent Ineligible
`under 35 U.S.C. §101 ........................................................................ 130
`
`VIII. DOCUMENT PRODUCTION PURSUANT TO PATENT L.R. 3-4 ........132
`
`A.
`
`Patent L.R. 4.3(b) .............................................................................. 132
`
`B.
`
`Additional Prior Art........................................................................... 132
`
`
`
`
`
`-iii-
`
`

`

`Case 1:16-cv-02690-AT Document 121-5 Filed 08/05/16 Page 6 of 850
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`Pursuant to Patent L.R. 4.3 of the United States District Court for the
`
`Northern District of Georgia and the Court’s Scheduling Order (Dkt. 25),
`
`Declaratory Judgement Plaintiffs Emerson Electric Co., Fisher-Rosemount
`
`Systems, Inc. and Rosemount Inc. (collectively “Emerson” or “Plaintiffs”) submit
`
`the following Joint Invalidity Contentions. In their infringement contentions,
`
`Defendants SIPCO LLC and IP Co., LLC (collectively, “SIPCO” or “Defendants”)
`
`assert that Emerson infringes: (i) claims 1, 3, 4, 8, 9, 10, 11, 27, 28, 29, 33, 34, 35,
`
`44, 46, 47, 56, 57, and 58 of U.S. Patent No. 7,103,511 (“the ‘511 Patent”); and (ii)
`
`claims 2, 3, 4, 6, 7, 8, 10, 11, 12, 14, 15, and 16 of U.S. Patent No. 6,044,062 (“the
`
`‘062 Patent”), which are collectively referred to as “the Asserted Claims” of the
`
`“Asserted Patents.” In accordance with Patent L.R. 4.3(a)(1)–(4), Plaintiffs
`
`hereby: (a) identify each item of prior art that allegedly anticipates each Asserted
`
`Claim or renders it obvious; (b) specify whether each such 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 limitation of each asserted
`
`claim is found; and (d) identify any grounds of invalidity based on 35 U.S.C. § 112
`
`of any of the Asserted Claims. Plaintiffs also identify any grounds of invalidity
`
`based on 35 U.S.C. § 101.
`
`-1-
`
`

`

`Case 1:16-cv-02690-AT Document 121-5 Filed 08/05/16 Page 7 of 850
`
`II. RESERVATIONS
`
`The contentions provided herein by Plaintiffs 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 Plaintiffs’ current knowledge, understanding, and belief as to the facts
`
`and information available at this time. Plaintiffs have not yet completed their
`
`investigation, collection of information, discovery, or analysis relating to this
`
`action, and additional facts and information may lead Plaintiffs to supplement or
`
`amend these contentions. Plaintiffs fully reserve the right to so amend these
`
`contentions.
`
`Moreover, Defendants’ Infringement Contentions are materially deficient,
`
`and thus, do not provide Plaintiffs with sufficient notice of the bases for their
`
`infringement allegations or the alleged scope of the claims. The lack of complete
`
`infringement contentions have hindered Plaintiffs’ ability to fully identify
`
`applicable prior art, and Plaintiffs, therefore, reserve the right to supplement or
`
`amend these Joint Invalidity Contentions when Defendants have produced
`
`infringement contentions that fully comply with Patent L.R. 4.1.
`
`Plaintiffs also have not had the opportunity to take the depositions of the
`
`named inventors of the Asserted Patents and/or other persons having potentially
`
`relevant information. Plaintiffs are in the process of investigating prior art from
`
`-2-
`
`

`

`Case 1:16-cv-02690-AT Document 121-5 Filed 08/05/16 Page 8 of 850
`
`third parties believed to have knowledge or information relating to invalidity or
`
`prior art. It is likely that Plaintiffs will hereafter discover additional prior art
`
`pertinent to the Asserted Claims of the Asserted Patents, and Plaintiffs 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.
`
`Similarly, Plaintiffs have had little or no discovery concerning the claimed
`
`priority dates for the Asserted Claims of the Asserted Patents. Defendants have
`
`not provided evidence supporting their asserted priority dates. Thus, Plaintiffs 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. 4.5(c). 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.
`
`-3-
`
`

`

`Case 1:16-cv-02690-AT Document 121-5 Filed 08/05/16 Page 9 of 850
`
`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. 4.3. 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 Plaintiffs have waived any objections regarding the
`
`admissibility of such documents.
`
`Pursuant to Patent L.R. 4.3, Plaintiffs also identify specific portions of prior
`
`art references that disclose limitations of the Asserted Claims. 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, Plaintiffs 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
`
`-4-
`
`

`

`Case 1:16-cv-02690-AT Document 121-5 Filed 08/05/16 Page 10 of 850
`
`reference, along with other publications and their scientific or engineering
`
`knowledge. Plaintiffs 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. Plaintiffs 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 Plaintiffs
`
`identify a particular figure in a prior art reference, the identification should be
`
`understood to encompass the caption and description of the figure and any text
`
`relating to the figure in addition to the figure itself. Similarly, where a specified
`
`portion of text refers to a figure, the specified portion should be understood to
`
`include the corresponding figure as well.
`
`Plaintiffs 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 Defendants
`
`-5-
`
`

`

`Case 1:16-cv-02690-AT Document 121-5 Filed 08/05/16 Page 11 of 850
`
`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.
`
`III.
`
`IDENTIFICATION OF PRIOR ART PURSUANT TO PATENT L.R.
`4.3(A)(1)
`
`Subject to Plaintiffs’ reservations, listed below is prior art that Plaintiffs
`
`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, Plaintiffs 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
`
`Plaintiffs 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:
`
`PRIOR ART PATENTS
`
`Abbreviation Patent No.
`
`Country
`of Origin
`
`Date of Issue
`
`Exhibit
`
`-6-
`
`

`

`Case 1:16-cv-02690-AT Document 121-5 Filed 08/05/16 Page 12 of 850
`
`Cunningham
`
`PRIOR ART PATENTS
`6,366,217
`US
`Apr. 2, 2002
`
`Canada
`
`5,907,491
`
`Simionescu
`
`5,963,650
`
`McMillin
`
`7,027,773
`
`Mason
`
`6,100,817
`
`Shuey
`
`Shuey
`
`5,874,903
`
`6,073,169
`
`US
`
`US
`
`US
`
`US
`
`US
`
`US
`
`Flanagan
`
`5,506,838
`
`US
`
`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)
`
`Perlman
`
`5,323,394
`
`US
`
`Jun. 21, 1994
`
`Eng ‘783
`
`5,757,783
`
`US
`
`Ayanoglu ‘309
`
`5,822,309
`
`US
`
`Eng ‘495
`
`5,623,495
`
`US
`
`Ayanoglu ‘689
`
`5,717,689
`
`US
`
`Ayanoglu ‘759
`
`6,122,759
`
`US
`
`Hyden
`
`5,774,461
`
`US
`
`Meier ‘436
`
`5,394,436
`
`Meier ‘154
`
`5,295,154
`
`US
`
`US
`
`May 26, 1998
`(filed Jun. 15,
`1995)
`
`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
`
`-7-
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`

`

`Case 1:16-cv-02690-AT Document 121-5 Filed 08/05/16 Page 13 of 850
`
`PRIOR ART PATENTS
`
`Meier ‘942
`
`WO
`95/12942
`
`Shpancer
`
`5,282,204
`
`US
`
`US
`
`Ciotti
`
`6,421,731
`
`US
`
`Sherman ‘236
`
`5,974,236
`
`US
`
`Hayashi
`
`5,907,540
`
`US
`
`Natarajan
`
`5,608,721
`
`US
`
`Jednacz
`
`5,726,644
`
`US
`
`Dinkins
`
`5,592,491
`
`US
`
`May 11, 1995
`
`Jan. 25, 1994
`
`July 16, 2002
`(filed Oct. 29,
`1996)
`
`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)
`
`Flanders
`
`5,239,294
`
`Toh
`
`5,987,011
`
`US
`
`US
`
`Aug. 24, 1993
`
`Nov. 16, 1999
`
`
`
`B. Prior Art Publications
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`241
`
`54
`
`55
`
`56
`
`Plaintiffs 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 35 U.S.C. § 103:
`
`1 Exhibits 1-53 have been previously provided to Defendants.
`
`-8-
`
`

`

`Case 1:16-cv-02690-AT Document 121-5 Filed 08/05/16 Page 14 of 850
`
`PRIOR ART PUBLICATIONS
`
`
`
`Abbreviation
`
`Pub. No./Name
`
`Burchfiel
`
`Jubin
`
`Kahn
`
`“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
`
`Country
`of
`Origin
`
`Date of
`Publication
`
`Exhibit
`
`US
`
`1975
`
`25
`
`US
`
`Jan. 1987
`
`26
`
`US
`
`Nov. 1978
`
`27
`
`Kantronics
`
`“KPC-3 Plus Users
`Guide”
`
`US
`
`1997
`
`Ultrix
`
`Mobile
`Computing
`
`Johnson and
`Maltz
`
`“Adding Packet Radio
`to the Ultrix Kernel,”
`Neuman
`
`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.
`
`-9-
`
`28
`
`29
`
`US
`
`Dec. 1987,
`Feb. 1988
`
`US
`
`Feb. 1996
`
`30
`
`31
`
`US
`
`prior to
`Feb. 1996
`(Emerson
`will
`conduct
`discovery
`concerning
`a more
`
`

`

`Case 1:16-cv-02690-AT Document 121-5 Filed 08/05/16 Page 15 of 850
`
`PRIOR ART PUBLICATIONS
`
`
`
`exact date,
`including
`whether it
`is prior to
`Dec. 6,
`1995)
`
`US
`
`Dec. 1994
`
`32
`
`US
`
`Feb. 1992
`
`33
`
`US
`
`Feb. 27,
`1995
`
`34
`
`US
`
`May 1996
`
`35
`
`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 Goldstein, F., “The
`Radio Shortest Path
`First (RSPF) Routing
`protocol for Internet
`Protocol over Amateur
`Packet Radio,” Version
`2.2
`
`Varadhan
`
`Estrin
`
`
`
`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
`
`-10-
`
`

`

`Case 1:16-cv-02690-AT Document 121-5 Filed 08/05/16 Page 16 of 850
`
`PRIOR ART PUBLICATIONS
`
`
`
`US
`
`Sept.-Oct.
`1990
`
`36
`
`US
`
`Sept. 1984
`
`37
`
`US
`
`1987
`
`38
`
`US
`
`Mar. 1986
`
`39
`
`US
`
`1981
`
`40
`
`Layer Net
`
`Brownrigg,
`Lynch, and
`Pepper
`
`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 Press)
`RFC 981 Mills, D.L., “An
`Experimental Multiple-
`Path Routing
`Algorithm,” RFC 981
`
`
`Packet Radio
`Networks
`
`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-
`
`-11-
`
`

`

`Case 1:16-cv-02690-AT Document 121-5 Filed 08/05/16 Page 17 of 850
`
`PRIOR ART PUBLICATIONS
`
`
`
`Pomalaza-
`Ráez
`
`Garcia-Luna-
`Aceves
`
`Brayer
`
`editor.org/ien/ien144.txt.
`
`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)
`
`Schwartz Mischa Swartz,
`“Telecommunication
`Networks: Protocols,
`Modeling and Analysis”
`“NETROM + TheNet
`User Manual”
`Geier, DeSimio, and
`
`NET/ROM
`
`Geier
`
`-12-
`
`US
`
`May 1994
`
`41
`
`US
`
`Apr. 1986
`
`42
`
`US
`
`July 1983
`
`43
`
`US
`
`1987
`
`44
`
`US
`
`US
`
`July 2,
`1988
`1990
`
`45
`
`46
`
`

`

`Case 1:16-cv-02690-AT Document 121-5 Filed 08/05/16 Page 18 of 850
`
`PRIOR ART PUBLICATIONS
`
`
`
`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
`
`-13-
`
`Network
`3000 CUG
`
`WINGS
`
`Cerf 78
`
`Cerf 74
`
`Fullmer
`
`Tornow
`
`US
`
`Feb. 5,
`1993
`
`US
`
`1997
`
`47
`
`48
`
`US
`
`Nov. 1978
`
`49
`
`US
`
`May 1974
`
`50
`
`US
`
`June 1998
`
`51
`
`US
`
`Sept. 1986
`
`52
`
`

`

`Case 1:16-cv-02690-AT Document 121-5 Filed 08/05/16 Page 19 of 850
`
`PRIOR ART PUBLICATIONS
`
`
`
`the DARPA SURAP1
`Network,” DARPA
`(Sept. 1986)
`Network 3000 Server
`Configuration Manual,
`June 1992
`L. Kleinrock, F.
`Kamoun, “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)
`Algorithms in SNOBOL
`4, by James F. Gimpel,
`Bell Telephone
`Laboratories, John
`Wiley & Sons, a Wiley
`Interscience Publication,
`© 1976.
`SNOBOL 4: Techniques
`
`Network
`3000 SCM
`
`Kleinrock
`
`Davis
`
`Wey
`
`Gimpel
`
`Griswald
`
`-14-
`
`US
`
`June 1992
`
`53
`
`US
`
`Jan. 1977
`
`57
`
`US
`
`Oct. 1992
`
`58
`
`US
`
`July 1995
`
`59
`
`US
`
`1976
`
`Cited in ‘062
`patent
`
`US
`
`1975
`
`Cited in ‘062
`
`

`

`Case 1:16-cv-02690-AT Document 121-5 Filed 08/05/16 Page 20 of 850
`
`PRIOR ART PUBLICATIONS
`
`
`
`and Applications, by
`Ralph E. Griswald,
`Department of
`Computer Science,
`University of Arizona,
`Prentiss-Hall, Inc.,
`.COPYRGT. 1975,
`ISBN 0-13-853010-6.
`
`patent
`
`
`
`In addition, Emerson may rely upon the references and information provided
`
`by SIPCO LLC, IP CO., LLC and by other defendants in other cases involving the
`
`same or related patents, including the list of references cited and the analysis of
`
`those references, and their contentions: IP CO, LLC v. Oncor Elec. Delivery Co.,
`
`LLC et al., Case No. 2:09-CV-00037-DF (E.D. Tex.), including Defendant Eka
`
`Systems, Inc. Invalidity Contentions (Sept. 28, 2009); IP CO., LLC v. Cellnet
`
`Tech., Inc., Case No. 1:05-CV-2658 (N.D. Ga.), including Cellnet’s Disclosure of
`
`Invalidity Contentions (Feb. 22, 2006), IP CO., LLC v. Elster Elec., LLC, Case
`
`Nos. 1:05-CV-1138, 1182 (N.D. Ga.), including Elster’s Disclosure of Invalidity
`
`Contentions (July 29, 2005), First Supplement (Dec. 5, 2005), Second Supplement
`
`(May 9, 2006), and any other supplements; SIPCO, LLC v. Datamatic Ltd., et al.,
`
`Case No. 6:09-CV-00532 (E.D. Tex), including Johnson Control’s Invalidity
`
`Contentions (May 24, 2010); SIPCO v. Sensus USA Inc., Case No. 6:09-CV-532
`
`(E.D. Tex), including Sensus’s Invalidity Contentions (May 24, 2010); IP CO.,
`
`LLC v. Datamatic, Ltd., Case No. 2:09-CV-37 (E.D. Tex.), including Sensus’s
`
`-15-
`
`

`

`Case 1:16-cv-02690-AT Document 121-5 Filed 08/05/16 Page 21 of 850
`
`Invalidity Contentions (Sept. 24, 2009); SIPCO, LLC v. Datamatic, Ltd., Case No.
`
`6:09-CV-532 (E.D. Tex.), including Trilliant’s Invalidity Contentions (May 24,
`
`2010); SIPCO, LLC v. Amazon.com, Inc., Case No. 2:08-CV-359 (E.D. Tex.),
`
`including Defendants’ Joint Preliminary Invalidity Contentions (May 29, 2009 and
`
`Dec. 14, 2009); SIPCO, LLC v. Control4 Corp., Case No. 6:10-CV-249 (E.D.
`
`Tex.), including Defendants’ Invalidity Contentions (Nov. 22, 2010).
`
`Also, Emerson may rely upon the references and information provided by
`
`SIPCO LLC, IP CO., LLC and by other defendants in proceedings before the U.S.
`
`Patent and Trademark Office, including ABB Tech., Ltd. v. IPCO, LLP, IPR2013-
`
`00482 (Pat. Trial and App. Bd.); ABB Tech., Ltd. v. IPCO, LLP, IPR2014-00147
`
`(Pat. Trial and App. Bd.); Emerson Electric Co. v. SIPCO LLC, IPR2015-01579
`
`(Pat. Trial and App. Bd.); Emerson Electric Co. v. IP Co., LLC, IPR2015-01901
`
`(Pat. Trial and App. Bd.); Emerson Electric Co. v. SIPCO LLC, IPR2015-01973
`
`(Pat. Trial and App. Bd.); Fieldcomm Group v. SIPCO., LLC, IPR2015-00659
`
`(Pat. Trial and App. Bd.); Fieldcomm Group v. SIPCO., LLC, IPR2015-00663
`
`(Pat. Trial and App. Bd.); Fieldcomm Group v. SIPCO., LLC, IPR2015-00668
`
`(Pat. Trial and App. Bd.); and HART Communication Foundation v. SIPCO LLC,
`
`IPR2014-00751 (Pat. Trial and App. Bd.).
`
`C. Prior Art Public Uses/Sales/Offers for Sales Under § 102(b) or
`Prior Invention Under § 102(g)
`
`-16-
`
`

`

`Case 1:16-cv-02690-AT Document 121-5 Filed 08/05/16 Page 22 of 850
`
`The following products and systems, which were conceived and reduced to
`
`practice, ready for patenting, offered for sale and/or publicly used or known, are
`
`prior art and invalidate the Asserted Claims, alone or in combination with other
`
`prior art. Plaintiffs’ investigation regarding some of these and other prior art
`
`products and systems is ongoing. However, Plaintiffs may rely on the testimony of
`
`the designers, engineers, users, or people knowledgeable about these products and
`
`systems to illustrate the operation of a product or system, as well as additional
`
`documents and publications.
`
`For example, the PRNET system designed and developed jointly by the
`
`Advanced Research Projects Agency (“ARPA”) of the U.S. Department of
`
`Defense, Rockwell International, Bolt Beranek and Newman, Inc., SRI
`
`International, and others in circa 1978 constitutes prior art under § 102(b). This
`
`system is disclosed at least in part in Advances in Packet Radio Technology, Kahn,
`
`Robert, Proceedings of the IEEE, Vol. 66, No. 11 (Nov. 1978) (“Kahn”), and in
`
`other articles published in the mid to late 1970s. Kahn and other publications
`
`describe how the PRNET system was publicly used in the San Francisco Bay area,
`
`the Boston area, and it communicated across the ARPANET to locations such as
`
`Dallas, TX, the Los Angeles area, and other parts of the U.S. The charts at
`
`Exhibits A and O show how the circa 1978 system discloses each of the claim
`
`elements based on the information currently available to Plaintiffs. Plaintiffs
`
`-17-
`
`

`

`Case 1:16-cv-02690-AT Document 121-5 Filed 08/05/16 Page 23 of 850
`
`expect to develop additional information during discovery, and will supplement
`
`these contentions as may be necessary.
`
`The PRNET circa 1987 was a system designed and developed jointly by the
`
`Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (“DARPA”) of the U.S. Department
`
`of Defense, Rockwell International, Bolt Beranek and Newman, Inc., SRI
`
`International, Hazeltine Corporation, and perhaps others, and was publicly used up
`
`to at least 1987. The circa 1987 version of the PRNET was disclosed at least in
`
`part in The DARPA Packet Radio Network Protocols, Jubin, John, Proceedings of
`
`the IEEE, Vol. 75, No. 1, Jan. 1987 (“Jubin”), and in other articles published in the
`
`late 1980s. Jubin states that the PRNET had been in “daily use” for nearly 10
`
`years at that time, and that the PRNET was coupled to the ARPANET, which later
`
`became the Internet. The charts at Exhibits B, P and Q show how the circa 1987
`
`system discloses each of the claim elements based on the information currently
`
`available to Plaintiffs. Plaintiffs expect to develop additional information during
`
`discovery, and will supplement these contentions as may be necessary.
`
`The Network 3000 system was developed, used and sold in the U.S. by
`
`Bristol Babcock Inc. and its customers in the early 1990s. The Network 3000
`
`systems were being offered for sale, sold, publicly known and publicly used in the
`
`U.S. no later than 1995. As such, the systems known and used in the U.S.
`
`constitute prior art under § 102(b). As a non-limiting example of such Network
`
`-18-
`
`

`

`Case 1:16-cv-02690-AT Document 121-5 Filed 08/05/16 Page 24 of 850
`
`3000 systems, Bristol Babcock made an offer for sale, and sold Network 3000
`
`system to Metropolitan Dade County, Florida’s Miami-Dade Water and Sewer
`
`Department. Based on the facts available to date, a formal proposal was made in
`
`December 1994 and the sale, public use, and public knowledge occurred in 1995.
`
`Bristol Babcock made other such offers for sale and sales in the U.S. of the
`
`Network 3000 system for Supervisory Control and Data Acquisition (“SCADA”)
`
`System applications. The charts at Exhibits K and AP show how the Network
`
`3000 system discloses each of the claim elements based on the information
`
`currently available to Plaintiffs. Plaintiffs expect to develop additional information
`
`during discovery, and will supplement these contentions as may be necessary.
`
`The work of AES Corp., including that of Michael J. Sherman and Timothy
`
`S. Tait, relating to wireless communications networks and methods is prior art to
`
`the ‘062 patent. As reflected in documents cited in the prosecution history of the
`
`reexamination of the ‘062 patent, AES Corp. offered a security system marketed as
`
`the IntelliNet System, which Emerson believes resulted in the Sherman ‘236
`
`patent. Exhibit AF shows the correspondence between the work of AES Corp. and
`
`the claimed elements.
`
`The work of David B. Johnson and/or David A. Maltz relating to dynamic
`
`source routing techniques is prior art to the ‘062 patent. Emerson contends that the
`
`work of Johnson and Maltz was performed in the United States prior to February
`
`-19-
`
`

`

`Case 1:16-cv-02690-AT Document 121-5 Filed 08/05/16 Page 25 of 850
`
`1996, and that Johnson and/or Maltz performed simulations of these techniques
`
`prior to February 1996, and will seek to discover dates for Johnson and/or Maltz’s
`
`c