UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`SIPNET EU S.R.O.
`
`Petitioner
`
`V.
`
`INNOVATIVE COMMUNICATIONS TECHNOLOGIES, INC.
`
`(now STRAIGHT PATH IP GROUP, INC.)
`
`Patent Owner
`
`Patent No. 6,108,704
`
`Filing Date: September 25, 1995
`
`Issue Date: August 22, 2000
`
`Title: POINT—TO—POINT INTERNET PROTOCOL
`
`Inter Partes Review No. IPR20l3-00246, Filing Date April 30, 2014
`
`DECLARATION OF VADIM ANTONOV
`
`Petitioner Sipnet EU S.R.O. - Exhibit 1023 - Page 1
`
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`SIPNET EU S.R.O.
`
`Petitioner
`
`V.
`
`INNOVATIVE COMMUNICATIONS TECHNOLOGIES, INC.
`
`(now STRAIGHT PATH IP GROUP, INC.)
`
`Patent Owner
`
`Patent No. 6,108,704
`
`Filing Date: September 25, 1995
`
`Issue Date: August 22, 2000
`
`Title: POINT—TO—POINT INTERNET PROTOCOL
`
`Inter Partes Review No. IPR20l3-00246, Filing Date April 30, 2014
`
`DECLARATION OF VADIM ANTONOV
`
`Petitioner Sipnet EU S.R.O. - Exhibit 1023 - Page 1
`
`
`
`Table of Contents
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................. .. 1
`
`II. RETENTION AND COMPENSATION .............................................................. ..2
`
`III. BASIS OF MY OPINION AND MATERIALS CONSIDERED ....................... ..3
`
`IV. SUMMARY OF MY OPINIONS ........................................................................ ..4
`
`V. LEGAL STANDARDS ......................................................................................... ..5
`
`VI. DOCUMENT STRUCTURE ............................................................................... ..6
`
`VII.
`
`On—Line Status Determination .......................................................................... ..8
`
`VIII.
`
`Process vs. Computer/Processing Unit ........................................................... ..22
`
`IX. Dynamic Process Addresses: Not a limitation................................................... ..28
`
`X. Dynamic Addressing of Processing Units .......................................................... ..3l
`
`XI. Rebuttal to Additional Characterizations of NetBIOS ...................................... ..38
`
`XII.
`
`Rebuttal to Additional Characterizations of Microsoft WINS ....................... ..46
`
`XIII.
`
`SIGNATURE .................................................................................................. ..53
`
`ii
`
`Petitioner Sipnet EU S.R.O. - Exhibit 1023 - Page 2
`
`
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`1.
`
`I have been retained as an independent expert witness by SIPNET EU
`
`S.r.o. (“Petitioner”) for evaluation of U.S. Patent 6,108,704 (the “’704 Patent”) and
`
`the asserted references in IPR20l3-00246 (the present “Inter Partes Review”).
`
`2.
`
`I am an expert in the fields of operating systems, networks, network
`
`protocols, and equipment. My Curriculum Vitae is attached at the bottom of this
`
`document.
`
`3.
`
`I received a Master of Science degree in Mathematics and Computer
`
`Science in 1987 from Moscow State University (Moscow, USSR), dept. of Applied
`
`Mathematics and Cybernetics.
`
`4.
`
`I received the USSR Council of Ministers award in Science and
`
`Technology (similar to U.S. National Medal of Technology and Innovation) for
`
`contributions in the field of operating systems in 1986. While working in the private
`
`sector in the U.S., I received numerous awards for outstanding performance (Sprint
`
`Corp, Symantec Corp).
`
`Page 1
`
`Petitioner Sipnet EU S.R.O. - Exhibit 1023 - Page 3
`
`
`
`5.
`
`I have extensive experience in the industry (over 25 years), including the
`
`technical fields of operating system design, TCPHP networking, and Voice—over-IP.
`
`I have been a programmer, an architect, an executive, and an entrepreneur in these
`
`fields.
`
`6.
`
`I have participated in network operational, standards-setting forums and
`
`organizations such as IETF (Internet Engineering Task Force) and NANOG (North
`
`American Network Operators Group). I and was recognized as Distinguished
`
`Member of NANOG.
`
`7. Research and development directed by me received SBIR funding from
`
`federal agencies such as the U.S. Department of Defense and the National
`
`Reconnaissance Office.
`
`II. RETENTION AND COMPENSATION
`
`8.
`
`I have been retained to offer an expert opinion on (1) “The Open Group,
`
`Technical Standard — Protocols for )QOpen PC Internetworking/SMB, Version 2”
`
`(Exhibit 1003) (“NetBIOS”), and (2) “Windows NT 3.5, TCP/[P User Guide”
`
`Page 2
`
`Petitioner Sipnet EU S.R.O. - Exhibit 1023 - Page 4
`
`
`
`(Exhibit 1004) (“WINS”), Declaration of Ketan Mayer-Patel (Exhibit 2018)
`
`(“MAYER”) in relation to the claims of the ’704 Patent and the validity of the
`
`claims in the current Inter Partes Review.
`
`9. My work on this case is being billed at a rate of $600 per hour, with
`
`reimbursement for actual expenses. My compensation is not contingent upon the
`
`outcome of the case.
`
`III. BASIS OF MY OPINION AND MATERIALS CONSIDERED
`
`10. In preparation for this report, I have considered and relied on data or other
`
`documents identified in this report, including (1) Exhibit 1001: the ‘704 Patent, (2)
`
`Paper No. 1, “Petition for Inter Partes Review” (“Petition”); (3) Paper No. 11,
`
`“Decision: Institution of Inter Partes Review” (“Decision”); (4) Exhibit 1003,
`
`“NetBIOS”; (5) Exhibit 1004: “WINS”; (6) Exhibit 2018: “Declaration of Ketan
`
`Mayer-Patel”; and (7) Exhibit 1022: “Deposition of Ketan D. Mayer-Patel, Ph.D.”
`
`11. I note that Dr. Mayer-Patel does not provide the level of ordinary skill in
`
`the art, though he repeatedly refers to what one of ordinary skill in the art would
`
`have known. In my opinion, a person of ordinary skill in the art is someone with a
`
`Page 3
`
`Petitioner Sipnet EU S.R.O. - Exhibit 1023 - Page 5
`
`
`
`BS in Computer or Software Engineering or equivalent and one to two years of
`
`programming experience.
`
`12. I am familiar with the state of the art at the time the ’704 Patent was filed.
`
`I used NetBIOS—oVer-TCP (SCO Xenix) products in 1990-1991. I also have
`
`familiarized myself with the state of the art at that time by reviewing both patent and
`
`non—patent references from prior to the filing date of the application that became the
`
`’704 Patent.
`
`13. My opinions are also based upon my education, training, research,
`
`knowledge, and experience in this technical field.
`
`IV.
`
`SUMMARY OF MY OPINIONS
`
`14. Based on my prior experience in the field of computer systems and
`
`networking (including network communication protocols), and based on my review
`
`of the documents relating to the pending Inter Partes Review, I have developed an
`
`understanding of the ’704 Patent and the claimed inventions.
`
`Page 4
`
`Petitioner Sipnet EU S.R.O. - Exhibit 1023 - Page 6
`
`
`
`15. I have been asked to compare the instituted claims of the ’704 Patent to the
`
`NetBIOS and WINS references applied in the pending Inter Partes Review. The
`
`results of my comparisons are provided below. It is my opinion that all of the claims
`
`subject to the current Inter Partes Review (i.e., claims 1-7 and 32-42) are anticipated
`
`by NetBIOS (and WINS as a NetBIOS Name Server implementation). I have been
`
`asked to review the Declaration of Mr. Mayer-Patel (Exhibit 2018), and the results
`
`of my review are provided below.
`
`V.
`
`LEGAL STANDARDS
`
`16. It is my understanding that a claim is invalid by anticipation when a single
`
`prior art reference (as defined by 35 U.S.C. § 102) existed prior to the claim’s
`
`priority date and teaches every element of the claim. (Verizon Servs. Corp. v. Cox
`
`Fibernet Va., Inc., 602 F.3d 1325, 1336-37 (Fed. Cir. 2010)). I also understand that
`
`under 35 U.S.C. § 103, the combined teachings of more than one prior art reference
`
`can be used to demonstrate that all of the elements of a claim were known at the time
`
`of the invention. I understand this is often referred to as “obviousness,” and such
`
`obviousness must be assessed at the time the invention was made. (Eurand, Inc. v.
`
`Page 5
`
`Petitioner Sipnet EU S.R.O. - Exhibit 1023 - Page 7
`
`
`
`Mylan Pharms., Inc., 676 F.3d 1063, 1073 (Fed. Cir. 2012)). I understand that, under
`
`35 U.S.C. § 103, a patent cannot be valid “if the differences between the subject
`
`matter to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole
`
`would have been obvious at the time of the invention to a person having ordinary
`
`skill in the art.” (35 U.S.C. § 103).
`
`17. It is my understanding that claim terms are to be given their broadest
`
`reasonable interpretation in light of the patent specification in an Inter Partes
`
`Review. (In re Suitco Surface, Inc., 603 F.3d 1255, 1260 (Fed. Cir. 2010)). It is also
`
`my understanding that this interpretation should be from the viewpoint of one of
`
`ordinary skill in the art reading the patent specification. (In re Suitco, 603 F.3d at
`
`1260).
`
`VI. DOCUMENT STRUCTURE
`
`18. When reviewing the Patent Owner’s Expert Declaration (Exhibit 2018), I
`
`discovered that Mr. Mayer-Patel uses the same two arguments repeatedly: the first
`
`one being the “registration vs. on—line status” argument, the second one being the
`
`“dynamic address assignment” argument.
`
`Page 6
`
`Petitioner Sipnet EU S.R.O. - Exhibit 1023 - Page 8
`
`
`
`19. Section VII of this Declaration is a rebuttal of the “registration vs. on—line
`
`status” argument used in the Patent Owner’s Expert Declaration sections 17-19, 21-
`
`23, 34-39, 41-45, 47-48, 50-54, 58, 60, 62-80.
`
`20. Sections IX and X of this Declaration is a rebuttal of the “dynamic address
`
`assignment” argument used in the Patent Owner’s Expert Declaration sections 24-
`
`29, 33, 40, 46, 49, 57, 59.
`
`21. The Patent Owner’ s Expert Declaration (Exhibit 2018) notes how
`
`important it is to recognize the difference between the terms ‘process’ and
`
`‘processing unit’, and that NetBIOS deals with computers while the ‘704 Patent
`
`deals with ‘processes’. At the same time the creators of the ‘704 Patent carelessly
`
`intermix the terms ‘process’ and ‘processing units’ (computers). The ‘704 Patent
`
`Description talks only about ‘processing units’ and does not use the term ‘process’ at
`
`all. The ‘704 Patent Claims use only the term ‘process’ and do not mention the term
`
`‘processing unit’ at all. To provide rebuttal for the “process vs. processing unit”
`
`arguments used in Sections 20, 41, 51, 58, 67, 70, 71, 76, 77 of the Patent Owner’s
`
`Expert Declaration, I am including Section VIH into this Declaration.
`
`Page 7
`
`Petitioner Sipnet EU S.R.O. - Exhibit 1023 - Page 9
`
`
`
`22. Besides the two main arguments listed above, the Patent Owner’s Expert
`
`provided various statements about NetBIOS. Section XI of this Declaration is a
`
`rebuttal of these statements.
`
`23. Besides the “on—line vs. registration” argument listed above, the Patent
`
`Owner’s Expert provided various statements about WINS. Section XII of this
`
`Declaration is a rebuttal of these statements. I noticed that the Patent Owner’s Expert
`
`did not try to use the “dynamic address assignment” argument against WINS.
`
`VII. On-Line Status Determination
`
`24. Claim. The Patent Owner and the Patent Owner’s Expert repeatedly
`
`claimed that the ‘704 Patent is different from NetBIOS because the ‘connection
`
`server’ disclosed in the ‘704 Patent somehow knows the current ‘on—line’ status of a
`
`registered process, whereas the NetBIOS Name Server does not know it: “the
`
`asserted references do not teach a query or determination as to whether a process is
`
`connected to a network, but instead merely determine whether a computer has been initially
`
`registered with the NetBlOS or WINS system” (Mayer-Patel Declaration, Exhibit 2018,
`
`p.5). To rebut this statement, below I review all mechanisms — disclosed, claimed, or
`
`Page 8
`
`Petitioner Sipnet EU S.R.O. - Exhibit 1023 - Page 10
`
`
`
`simply mentioned in the ‘704 Patent - that may allow a ‘connection server’ to track
`
`the registered process ‘on—line’ status. I also compare these mechanisms to the
`
`mechanisms disclosed in the NetBIOS references.
`
`25. Timeout Mechanism in the ‘704 Patent. The “DESCRIPTION OF THE
`
`PREFERRED EMBODIMENTS” section of the ‘704 Patent reads: “The connection
`
`server 26 then stores these addresses in the database 34 and timestamps the stored
`
`addresses using timer 32” (‘704 Patent at 5:28-30), “The connection server 26 may
`
`use the timestamps to update the status of each processing unit; for example, after 2
`
`hours, so that the on—line status information stored in the database 34 is relatively
`
`current. Other predetermined time periods, such as a default value of 24 hours, may
`
`be configured by a systems operator.” (‘704 Patent at 5:39-44). All other “timer” and
`
`“timeout” references in this section of the ‘704 Patent are related to the “mail server
`
`28”, not to the “connection server 26”.
`
`26. The ‘704 Patent Claim 3 mentions “timer” and “time stamping” Without
`
`any indication what that timer and time stamping can be used for: “3. The computer
`
`server apparatus of claim 2 further comprising a timer, operatively coupled to the
`
`Page 9
`
`Petitioner Sipnet EU S.R.O. - Exhibit 1023 - Page 11
`
`
`
`processor, for time stamping the network protocol addresses stored in the memory.”
`
`(‘704 Patent at 11:40-44). No other Claim of the ‘704 Patent mentions any timer or a
`
`time-out mechanism.
`
`27. Timeout Mechanism in NetBIOS. The NetBIOS—over-TCP specification
`
`(RFC1001) clearly defines the time-out and periodic refresh mechanisms. It specifies
`
`that each registration has a time limit associated with it, and that the NetBIOS Name
`
`Server (NBNS) must release a registered name if its time limit is expired. It also
`
`specifies that a process can keep its name registered by sending periodic NAME
`
`REFRESH requests to the NBNS (with a period smaller than the assigned time
`
`limit): “l5.l.3.2. NAME LIFETIME AND REFRESH
`
`Names held by an NBNS are given a lifetime during name registration. The NBNS
`
`will consider a name to have been silently released if the end—node fails to send a
`
`name refresh message to the NBNS before the lifetime expires. A refresh restarts
`
`the lifetime clock.
`
`NOTE: The implementor should be aware of the tradeoff between accuracy of the
`
`database and the internet overhead that the refresh mechanism introduces. The
`
`lifetime period should be tuned accordingly” and “This negotiation of refresh times
`
`Page 10
`
`Petitioner Sipnet EU S.R.O. - Exhibit 1023 - Page 12
`
`
`
`gives the NBNS means to disable or enable refresh activity.” (Exhibit 1003, p.396),
`
`and: “l5.5.l. NAME REFRESH. Name refresh transactions are used to handle the
`
`following situations: a) An NBNS node needs to detect if a P or M node has
`
`"silently" gone down, so that names held by that node can be purged from the data
`
`base.” (Exhibit 1003, p.412).
`
`The Patent OWner’s Expert noted: “This registration may extend indefinitely, regardless of
`
`whether the node remains connected to the computer network. For example, NetBlOS specifies
`
`that the end-node may "request[] an infinite lifetime" of its name registration. (NetBlOS at 378).
`
`NBNS, which assigns the "lifetime" of the registered name, "is always allowed to respond with
`
`an infinite actual period" for the registered name.” (Mayer-Patel Declaration, Exhibit 2018,
`
`p.22). While this is true: “Simple or reliable NBNS's may impose an infinite time-to-
`
`live.” (Exhibit 1003, p.400), this NBNS feature does not indicate that NBNS always
`
`imposes an infinite lifetime. It does not indicate that NetBIOS—over-TCP does not use
`
`the timeout mechanism. It only indicates that NetBIOS—over-TCP may operate with
`
`the timeout mechanism disabled.
`
`Page 11
`
`Petitioner Sipnet EU S.R.O. - Exhibit 1023 - Page 13
`
`
`
`28. De-Registration Message method in the ‘704 Patent. The
`
`“DESCRIPTION OF THE PREFERRED EMBODIMENTS” section of the ‘704
`
`Patent reads: “When a user logs off or goes off—line from the Internet 24, the
`
`connection server 26 updates the status of the user in the database 34; for example,
`
`by removing the user's information, or by flagging the user as being off—line. The
`
`connection server 26 may be instructed to update the user's information in the
`
`database 34 by an off—line message, such as a data packet, sent automatically from
`
`the processing unit of the user prior to being disconnected from the connection
`
`server 26” (‘704 Patent at 6:6—l4). There are no other references to ‘off—line
`
`messages’ sent to the ‘connection server’ by a registered process or by the
`
`processing unit it runs on. The ‘704 Patent Claim 7 describes ‘off—line messages’
`
`sent by the ‘connection server’ itself. These messages serve a different purpose and
`
`they are unrelated to the ‘off—line messages’ sent to the ‘connection server’, as
`
`confirmed by the Patent Owner’ s Expert (Mayer-Patel Deposition, Exhibit 1022,
`
`p.42:l6-p.43:22). The ‘off—line message’ mechanism (asking a server to remove a
`
`registration or to mark a registered name as ‘off—line’) is not claimed in any Claim of
`
`the ‘704 Patent. The only claimed mechanism to remove a registration is in the
`
`Page 12
`
`Petitioner Sipnet EU S.R.O. - Exhibit 1023 - Page 14
`
`
`
`Claim 37: “37. The method of claim 34 wherein step c further comprises: c.l
`
`deleting an entry from the compilation upon the occurrence of a predetermined
`
`event.” (‘704 Patent at 15:26-29), and in the Claim 42: “42. The computer program
`
`product of claim 38 wherein step c further comprises: c.l program code configured
`
`to delete an entry from the compilation upon the occurrence of a predetermined
`
`event.” (704 Patent at 15:26-29). This as well is confirmed by the Patent Owner’s
`
`Expert (Mayer-Patel Deposition, Exhibit 1022, p.43: 17—p.44: 12). These Claims
`
`simply specify that a registration can be removed for whatever reason, “upon the
`
`occurrence of a predetermined event”. None of these Claims has the limitation of
`
`receiving an “off-line message” as such a “predetermined event”.
`
`29. De-Registration Message method in NetBIOS. The NetBIOS-over-
`
`TCPHP specification clearly specifies that each process can inform the NetBIOS
`
`Name Server (NSNB) that it no longer wishes to receive data or connection requests
`
`sent to its registered name: “15.1.3. NAME RELEASE. NetBIOS names may be
`
`released explicitly or silently by an end—node” (Exhibit 1003, page 395). Section
`
`15.4.2 of the RFC1001 document and Sections 4.2.9—4.2.11, 5.1.2.4 of the RFC1002
`
`Page 13
`
`Petitioner Sipnet EU S.R.O. - Exhibit 1023 - Page 15
`
`
`
`document describe in details the format of the NAME RELEASE messages and their
`
`processing.
`
`30. While the ‘704 Patent mentions that the ‘off—line’ message is to be sent by
`
`an entire computer (‘processing unit’) before it goes offline (“disconnects from the
`
`connection server”), the NetBIOS specification allows a process itself to ask the
`
`name server to remove the process name. Besides, real-life NetBIOS
`
`implementations (such as Microsoft WINS) running on a ‘processing unit’
`
`automatically release registered names for all processes running on that unit — before
`
`that ‘processing unit’ goes off—line or is being switched off. This is described in the
`
`Exhibit 1004 quoted by the Patent Owner’s Expert: “|f WINS is enabled: Whenever a
`
`computer is shut down properly, it releases its name to the WINS server, which marks the
`
`related database entry as released. [...] (WINS at 58-59).” (Mayer-Patel Declaration,
`
`Exhibit 2018, p.44—45).
`
`31. Polling method in the ‘704 Patent (Rebuttal). The ‘704 Patent discloses
`
`two mechanisms for establishing point—to-point communications. The primary
`
`method uses a ‘connection server’ which keeps records linking process names to
`
`Page 14
`
`Petitioner Sipnet EU S.R.O. - Exhibit 1023 - Page 16
`
`
`
`their network addresses. The secondary method involves an Email server and a
`
`process sending a “call request” with its network address to the callee via E—mail.
`
`The ‘704 Patent SUMMARY OF THE INVENTION says: “A point—to-point
`
`Internet protocol is disclosed which exchanges Internet Protocol (IP) addresses
`
`between processing units to establish a point—to-point communication link between
`
`the processing units through the Internet.
`
`A first point—to-point Internet protocol is disclosed which includes the steps of:
`
`(a) storing in a database a respective IP address of a set of processing units that have
`
`an on—line status with respect to the Internet;
`
`(b) transmitting a query from a first processing unit to a connection server to
`
`determine the on—line status of a second processing unit; and
`
`(c) retrieving the IP address of the second unit from the database using the
`
`connection server, in response to the determination of a positive on—line status of the
`
`second processing unit, for establishing a point—to-point communication link
`
`between the first and second processing units through the Internet.
`
`A second point—to-point Internet protocol is disclosed, which includes the steps of:
`
`Page 15
`
`Petitioner Sipnet EU S.R.O. - Exhibit 1023 - Page 17
`
`
`
`(a) transmitting an E—mail signal, including a first IP address, from a first processing
`
`unit;
`
`(b) processing the E—mail signal through the Internet to deliver the E—mail signal to a
`
`second processing unit; and
`
`(c) transmitting a second IP address to the first processing unit for establishing a
`
`point—to-point communication link between the first and second processing units
`
`through the Internet.” (‘704 Patent at 1:57-2:21).
`
`It is my understanding that the second (secondary) protocol is claimed in the Claims 8
`
`and 9 of the ‘704 Patent. It is my understanding that the Claims 8 and 9, and thus, the
`
`secondary protocol (which involves an E—mail server) are not reviewed in this Inter
`
`Partes Review, and that all Claims in this Review are related to the first, primary
`
`protocol, disclosing a ‘connection server’.
`
`32. The Patent Owner’ s Expert referred to the “polling” method used with the
`
`‘connection server’ to keep track of the on—line status of registered process. In
`
`particular, he said: “the polling I think is described in Column 6 between Lines 55 and 60”
`
`(Mayer-Patel Deposition, Exhibit 1022, p.45:21-p.46:1), “the polling for every three to
`
`Page 16
`
`Petitioner Sipnet EU S.R.O. - Exhibit 1023 - Page 18
`
`
`
`five seconds language occurs in Column 6” (Mayer-Patel Deposition, Exhibit 1022, p.47
`
`19:20).
`
`33. The text the Patent OWner’s Expert referred to is: “The mail server 28 then
`
`polls the second processing unit 22, for example, every 3-5 seconds, to deliver the E-
`
`mail. Generally, the second processing unit 22 checks the incoming lines, for
`
`example, at regular intervals to wait for and to detect incoming E—mail from the mail
`
`server 28 through the Internet 24.” (‘704 Patent, 6:55-60). Firstly, this text clearly
`
`says that polling occurs to deliver a “communication request” sent via E—mail, not to
`
`check the on—line status of the “processing unit 22” (in absence of a “communication
`
`request” there is no polling). Secondly, POP3 mail servers do not poll their clients
`
`when they need to deliver mail (as specified in the first quoted phrase). Instead, mail
`
`clients poll POP3 mail servers to check if there is any incoming mail for them (as
`
`specified in the second quoted phrase). Finally, the whole paragraph is talking about
`
`the “mail server 28” and not the “connection server 26”. It talks about the
`
`second/secondary point—to-point protocol disclosed in the ‘704 Patent, while the
`
`topic of this Review is the first/primary protocol disclosed in the ‘704 Patent, its
`
`“connection server 26”, and its anticipation by NetBIOS.
`
`Page 17
`
`Petitioner Sipnet EU S.R.O. - Exhibit 1023 - Page 19
`
`
`
`34. The method the Patent Owner’s Expert refers to is not related to the
`
`‘connection server’, nor is it related to tracking the on—line status of registered
`
`processes. There is no disclosure of any other “polling method” used by ‘connection
`
`server’ anywhere in the ‘704 Patent. No Claim of the ‘704 Patent mentions any
`
`polling method used to track the on—line status of processes registered with the
`
`‘connection server’.
`
`35. Polling method in NetBIOS. The NetBIOS—over-TCP implementation
`
`describes a proactive method for a NetBIOS Name Server (NBNS) to check if any
`
`registered name is still claimed by a connected (‘on—line’) process. NBNS can send a
`
`Name Challenge request containing a registered name to the processing node the
`
`registered process was running on. If it receives a positive response for that request,
`
`it confirms that the processing node is still connected to the network, and that the
`
`registered process is still running on that node, and that the process is connected to
`
`the network. A negative response or repeated non—responsiveness indicates that the
`
`name was registered by a process that has been disconnected from the network.
`
`“l5.5.2. NAME CHALLENGE. Name challenge is done by sending a NAME
`
`QUERY REQUEST to an end node of any type. If a POSITIVE NAME QUERY
`
`Page 18
`
`Petitioner Sipnet EU S.R.O. - Exhibit 1023 - Page 20
`
`
`
`RESPONSE is returned, then that node still owns the name. If a NEGATIVE
`
`NAME QUERY RESPONSE is received or if no response is received, it can be
`
`assumed that the end node no longer owns the name.” (Exhibit 1003, p.413), and
`
`“l5.l.7. CONSISTENCY OF THE NBNS DATA BASE. 1. The NBNS (or any
`
`other node) may "challenge" (using a NAME QUERY REQUEST) an end—node to
`
`verify that it actually owns a name. Such a challenge may occur at any time. Every
`
`end—node must be prepared to make a timely response. Failure to respond causes the
`
`NBNS to consider that the end—node has released the name in question.” (Exhibit
`
`1003, p.399).
`
`36. No other method. During the April 18”‘ Deposition, the Patent Owner’s
`
`Expert was asked about all methods to “track the on—line status” disclosed in the
`
`‘704 Patent. He provided the following answer: “S0 in addition to using time-outs -- or
`
`using -- I'm sorry -- time stamps, explicit messages of on-line and off-line status by a process,
`
`and polling processes, it does describe inferring off-line status because of
`
`nonresponsiveness, which actually is a sort of a polling. So those are the three methods that
`
`are described by the patent for —— in the -- in the description of -- of possible embodiments.”
`
`(Mayer-Patel Deposition, Exhibit 1022, p.46: l4—47:2).
`
`Page 19
`
`Petitioner Sipnet EU S.R.O. - Exhibit 1023 - Page 21
`
`
`
`37. Relative Reliability. None of the reviewed methods can ensure that a
`
`Name Server (or a ‘connection server’) can always possess actual, up—to—date
`
`information about the process on-line status. If a process goes off—line and stops
`
`refreshing its registration, its record will remain ‘active’ till its timeout expires (this
`
`can take hours). The ‘704 Patent Description acknowledges that the on—line
`
`information can be only “relatively current”. It reads: “The connection server 26
`
`may use the timestamps to update the status of each processing unit; for example,
`
`after 2 hours, so that the on—line status information stored in the database 34 is
`
`relatively current. Other predetermined time periods, such as a default value of 24
`
`hours, may be configured by a systems operator.” (‘704 Patent at 5:39-44).
`
`Similarly, the ‘off—line message’ sent by a process or its processing unit before going
`
`off—line may be lost, because the network has already been disconnected, as
`
`confirmed by the Patent Owner’s Expert: “Q. If the computerjust went —— if the computer
`
`is disconnected, could an off—line message be sent? A. If a computer is physically
`
`disconnected from the network, a process running on that computer would not be able to
`
`send a message.” (Mayer-Patel Deposition, Exhibit 1022, p.42:9-l4). And if a system
`
`implements active ‘polling’, it cannot reliably trace the process on—line status
`
`Page 20
`
`Petitioner Sipnet EU S.R.O. - Exhibit 1023 - Page 22
`
`
`
`between the moments when ‘polling’ is performed. The Patent Owner’s Expert
`
`writes: “Because the WINS system merely coordinates with the NetBIOS database, it too
`
`has no assurance that a registered node is currently online. In fact, the WINS reference
`
`explicitly states: Any name-to-IP address mapping registered with a WINS server can be
`
`provided reliably as a response to a name query. However, a mapping in the database does
`
`not ensure that the related device is currently running, only that a computer claimed the
`
`particular IP address and it is a currently valid mapping. (WINS at 57 (emphasis added)).”
`
`(Mayer-Patel Declaration, Exhibit 2018, p.44). This statement means that NetBIOS
`
`and WINS provide only relatively current information about the on—line status of a
`
`process. It does not mean (as the Patent Owner and the Patent Owner Expert try to
`
`imply) that NetBIOS and WINS do not provide the on—line status information at all.
`
`38. Conclusion. I reviewed all methods disclosed, claimed, or mentioned in
`
`the ‘704 Patent that can be used by its ‘connection server’ to track the ‘on—line’
`
`status of the registered processes. I compared these methods to the methods
`
`disclosed in the NetBIOS references. The timeout method is briefly mentioned in the
`
`‘704 Patent, and it is not claimed in any of the ‘704 Patent Claims. This timeout
`
`method (along with registration refreshing) is disclosed in details in the NetBIOS
`
`Page 21
`
`Petitioner Sipnet EU S.R.O. - Exhibit 1023 - Page 23
`
`
`
`references, and it is fully implemented in NetBIOS Name Server products such as
`
`Microsoft WINS. The ‘off—line message’ (‘name release’) method is briefly
`
`mentioned in the ’704 Patent, and it is not claimed in any of the ‘704 Patent Claims.
`
`This ‘name release’ method is disclosed in details in the NetBIOS references, and it
`
`is fully implemented in NetBIOS Name Server products such as Microsoft WINS.
`
`The active polling method for a ‘connection server’ is not disclosed in the ‘704
`
`Patent. The ‘name challenge’ active polling method is disclosed in details in the
`
`NetBIOS references. No other mechanism that could allow a ‘connection server’ to
`
`track the process on—line status is disclosed, claimed, or even mentioned in the ‘704
`
`Patent, as confirmed by the Patent Owner’s Expert. In my opinion, the ‘704 Patent
`
`does not disclose or teach any mechanism to track the on—line status of registered
`
`processes other than the mechanisms disclosed in the NetBIOS references.
`
`VIII. Process vs. Computer/Processing Unit
`
`39. The ‘704 Patent carelessly mixes the terms ‘process’ and ‘processing unit’.
`
`The ‘704 Patent Description talks only about ‘processing units’ and does not use the
`
`term ‘process’ at all. The ‘704 Patent Claims use only the term ‘process’ and do not
`
`Page 22
`
`Petitioner Sipnet EU S.R.O. - Exhibit 1023 - Page 24
`
`
`
`mention the term ‘processing unit’ at all. I have noticed that the Patent Owner’s and
`
`the Patent Onwer’s Expert freely switch between discussing ‘processes’ and
`
`discussing ‘processing units’, too. The background information in this Section is
`
`necessary: (a) to understand my rebuttal of the “process vs. processing unit” (or
`
`“process vs. computer”) arguments and (b) to support my arguments related to
`
`‘processing unit’ network addresses vs. ‘process’ network addresses. This is a
`
`generic information about the TCP/IP protocol stack, publicly available since the
`
`invention of the TCPHP protocol stack and publication of RFC793 (September 1981)
`
`and RFC768 (August 1980). I use the information from RFC1001/1002 (Exhibit
`
`1003), too.
`
`40. An IP address is assigned to a computer, device, or other ‘processing unit’
`
`connected to a TCP/IP network. It addresses that processing unit: data packets sent
`
`to a given IP address are delivered to that processing unit. Since a processing unit
`
`may run several processes connected to the network, in general, an IP address cannot
`
`be used as the network address of a process: the process network address should also
`
`contain some ‘local part’, identifying a ‘process’ within a given ‘processing unit’.
`
`Page 23
`
`Petitioner Sipnet EU S.R.O. - Exhibit 1023 - Page 25
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
Still Working On It
This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.
Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.
A few More Minutes ... Still Working
It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.
Thank you for your continued patience.
This document could not be displayed.
We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
Set your membership
status to view this document.
With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll
get a whole lot more, including:
- Up-to-date information for this case.
- Email alerts whenever there is an update.
- Full text search for other cases.
- Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.
One Moment Please
The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.
Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.
Your document is on its way!
If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.
Sealed Document
We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.
If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.
Access Government Site
