Case No. IPR2015-00198
`Patent No. 6,009,469
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`__________________________________________________
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`__________________________________________________
`
`LG ELECTRONICS, INC., TOSHIBA CORP.,
`VIZIO, INC., HULU, LLC,
`CISCO SYSTEMS, INC., and AVAYA INC.,
`Petitioner,
`v.
`
`STRAIGHT PATH IP GROUP, INC.
`Patent Owner
`________________________________________________
`INTER PARTES REVIEW OF U.S. PATENT NO. 6,009,469
`Case IPR No. IPR2015-001981
`________________________________________________
`
`
`REPLY DECLARATION OF BRUCE M. MAGGS, PH.D.
`
`
`
`
`
`1 IPR2015-01400 has been joined with this proceeding.
`
`
`
`Page 1 of 24
`
`LG Electronics Exhibit 1041
`LGE, et al. v. Straight Path IP
`IPR2015-00198
`
`

`
`Case No. IPR2015-00198
`Patent No. 6,009,469
`
`
`
`I, Bruce M. Maggs, Ph.D., declare:
`1.
`I have been retained by counsel for the Petitioner to submit this reply
`declaration in connection with Petitioner’s Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`Claims 1–3, 5, 6, 9, 10, 14, 17, and 18 of U.S. Patent No. 6,009,469 (“the ’469
`patent”) (Exhibit 1001). I am being compensated for my time at a rate of $700 per
`hour, plus actual expenses. My compensation is not dependent in any way upon
`the outcome of this Petition.
`
`I. MATERIALS REVIEWED AND CONSIDERED
`2.
`In connection with my work in this matter, I have reviewed the ’469
`patent (Exhibit 1001), Patent Owner’s Response, and the following other
`documents:
`
`
`Exhibit
`
`Description
`
`1039
`
`IETF RFC 903, June 1984 (“A Reverse Address Resolution Protocol”)
`
`(“RARP”)
`
`IETF RFC 951, September 1985 (“Bootstrap Protocol”) (“BOOTP”)
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,009,469 (“’469 patent”)
`
`Microsoft Windows NT Server Version 3.5 (“WINS”)
`
`Technical Standard: Protocols for X/Open PC Interworking: SMB,
`
`Version 2 (“NetBIOS”)
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,533,110 (“Pinard”)
`
`August 15, 2015 Declaration of Stuart Stubblebine
`
`1040
`
`1001
`
`1003
`
`1004
`
`1020
`
`2038
`
`1
`
`Page 2 of 24
`
`LG Electronics Exhibit 1041
`LGE, et al. v. Straight Path IP
`IPR2015-00198
`
`

`
`Case No. IPR2015-00198
`Patent No. 6,009,469
`
`
`
`I also have relied on my academic and professional experience in reaching the
`opinions expressed in this declaration.
`
`II. RESPONSES TO DR. STUART STUBBLEBINE’S DESCRIPTION OF
`THE STATE OF THE PRIOR ART OF THE ’469 PATENT.
`3.
`Dr. Stubblebine contends that “[t]he ’469 Patent solved the problems
`caused by dynamic allocation of IP addresses to computers continually connecting
`and disconnecting from the internet . . . .” (Exhibit 2038 ¶ 16.) But dynamic
`addressing was already in the prior art, even before the publication of NetBIOS
`and WINS. One prior art example is the Reverse Address Resolution Protocol
`(RARP), which provided a method for workstations to find their protocol address
`given only their hardware address. (Exhibit 1039.) RARP specified that a server
`maintained a database of mappings from hardware address to protocol address, and
`responded to requests from client hosts to provide such mappings. (Exhibit 1039 at
`1.) A second prior art example is the Bootstrap Protocol (BOOTP), which—like
`RARP—allowed a workstation to discover its IP address using its hardware
`address. (Exhibit 1040.) Also like RARP, BOOTP specified that a server would
`maintain a database relating IP address to hardware addresses. (Exhibit 1040 at 2.)
`BOOTP further specified how a server would record such a mapping, and provided
`an example database in which a server mapped IP addresses to generic names as
`well as hardware addresses. (Exhibit 1040 at 11.)
`
`III. RESPONSES TO DR. STUBBLEBINE’S NON-OBVIOUSNESS
`ARGUMENTS
`A. Claim Construction
`1.
`Process
`4.
`Claims 1–3, 5, 6, 9-10, and 14 of the ’469 patent recite the element
`“process.” Dr. Stubblebine has opined that the claim limitation “process” means
`
`2
`
`Page 3 of 24
`
`LG Electronics Exhibit 1041
`LGE, et al. v. Straight Path IP
`IPR2015-00198
`
`

`
`Case No. IPR2015-00198
`Patent No. 6,009,469
`
`
`
`“a running instance of a computer program or application.” (Exhibit 2038 ¶ 25.)
`Dr. Stubblebine contends that I have “agreed to” the construction “in this
`proceeding.” (Id.) Dr. Stubblebine’s contention is imprecise.
`5.
`During International Trade Commission Investigation No. 337-TA-
`892, I agreed with the joint construction of the parties2 that “process” should be
`construed as a “running instance of a computer program or application.”
`6.
`Dr. Stubblebine opines that “[t]he definition of process in the context
`of the ’469 patent does not include . . . operating systems.” (Exhibit 2038 ¶ 26.) I
`disagree. As I pointed out in my original declaration, an operating system is a
`“process” as that term is used in the ‘469 patent and under Dr. Stubblebine’s
`proposed construction. Dr. Stubblebine has defined “process” to include “a
`
`
`2 Straight Path IP Group, Inc. was the Complainant in that Investigation. At the
`
`time I issued my report, Respondents were AmTran Logistics, Inc.; AmTran
`
`Technology Co., Ltd.; LG Electronics Inc.; LG Electronics U.S.A., Inc.; LG
`
`Electronics MobileComm U.S.A, Inc.; Panasonic Corporation; Panasonic
`
`Corporation of North America; Sony Computer Entertainment, Inc.; Sony
`
`Computer Entertainment America LLC; Sony Corporation; Sony Corporation of
`
`America; Sony Electronics Inc.; Sony Mobile Communications AB; Sony Mobile
`
`Communications (USA) Inc.; Toshiba Corporation; Toshiba America Inc.; Toshiba
`
`America Information Systems, Inc., and Vizio, Inc. Hulu, a Petitioner in this
`
`proceeding, was not a party to the ITC investigation.
`
`3
`
`Page 4 of 24
`
`LG Electronics Exhibit 1041
`LGE, et al. v. Straight Path IP
`IPR2015-00198
`
`

`
`Case No. IPR2015-00198
`Patent No. 6,009,469
`
`
`
`running instance of a computer program.” A person of ordinary skill in the art of
`the ’469 patent understood that an operating system is a type of a computer
`program.
`7.
`Dr. Stubblebine states that the specification of the ’469 patent
`supports his special definition of “computer program,” which, in his view,
`excludes operating systems. However, none of the examples he cites to the
`specification support his definition. The first citation simply sets forth non-
`limiting examples of computer programs. (Exhibit 2038 ¶ 26 (citing Exhibit 1001
`at 5:18-33).) The second citation—which provides that “processing unit[s] . . .
`may be implemented in a personal digital assistant”—is entirely consistent with the
`plain and ordinary meaning. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have
`understood that personal digital assistants of the time had resident operating
`systems.
`8.
`Dr. Stubblebine also opines that the ‘469 patent “distinguish[es]
`between processes and operating systems.” (Exhibit 2038 ¶ 26.) Here too I
`disagree. While the patent describes programs running on an operating system, it
`does not follow that an operating system is not a computer program.
`
`2.
`Connected to the computer network / on-line status
`9.
`Claims 3, 6, and 9 of the ’469 patent recite either the element
`“connected to the computer network” or the element “on-line status.” Dr.
`Stubblebine opines that the terms “connected to the computer network” and “on-
`line” mean “available for communication.” Dr. Stubblebine has also opined that
`those same elements do not include “registered with a server.”
`10. Dr. Stubblebine’s interpretation of the ’469 patent excludes every
`single example of the claimed technology described in the patent. Indeed, every
`embodiment of the claimed technology in the ’469 patent teaches that the online
`
`4
`
`Page 5 of 24
`
`LG Electronics Exhibit 1041
`LGE, et al. v. Straight Path IP
`IPR2015-00198
`
`

`
`Case No. IPR2015-00198
`Patent No. 6,009,469
`
`
`
`status of a process or processing unit is determined by consulting the connection
`server.
`11.
`In the ’469 patent, processes register themselves with the server so
`that the server can facilitate direct communication between processes. It is the
`registration with the server that establishes a process as being active and on-line:
`“[A] second user operating the second processing unit 22, upon connection to the
`Internet 24 through an internet service provider, is processed by the connection
`server 26 to be established in the database 34 as an active on-line party.” Exhibit
`1001 at 7:9–13.
`12. The ’469 patent goes on to describe a way of keeping the online status
`information concerning client processes, in the server’s database, “relatively
`current.” In particular, the server may associate with each entry in its database a
`timestamp, and may be configured to assume that after a predetermined period of
`time, the client process listed in that database entry is no longer online: “The
`connection server 26 may use the time stamps 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.”
`Exhibit 1001 at 7:14–19.
`13. Once registered with the server, the ’469 patent teaches that “[n]o
`further interaction occurs between the respective WebPhone client processes and
`the global server unless the WebPhones require directory or search assistance
`about a prospective callee.” Exhibit 1001 at 23:44–47.
`14. The timestamp method is a crude system for tracking whether a client
`process is online. If a client process shuts down before two hours (or 24 hours)
`have expired, it will nevertheless still be considered “active on-line” (even though
`
`5
`
`Page 6 of 24
`
`LG Electronics Exhibit 1041
`LGE, et al. v. Straight Path IP
`IPR2015-00198
`
`

`
`Case No. IPR2015-00198
`Patent No. 6,009,469
`
`
`
`it in fact is not online) until that time period has expired. Thus, the server will still
`provide the network protocol address previously associated with that client process
`to a calling party, even though the client process is no longer, in fact, connected to
`the computer network.
`15. The converse is also true. After 2 hours (or 24 hours) the client
`process may still be connected to the computer network, but the server will still
`automatically “update its status” to offline, and will not provide its network
`protocol address to a calling party, even though it in fact remains connected to the
`computer network.
`16. The ’469 patent offers one refinement to the timestamp method of
`tracking online and offline client processes—a message sent by a client process to
`the server when a client process shuts down in an orderly fashion. According to
`the ’469 patent, in response to such a message, the server de-registers the client
`process to indicate that it is no longer connected to the computer network. “The
`connection server 26 may be instructed to update the user’s information in the
`database 34 by an off-line message . . . sent automatically from the processing unit
`of the user prior to being disconnected from the connection server 26.” Exhibit
`1001 at 7:52–57.
`17. Dr. Stubblebine contends that a user being in the database is
`synonymous with being ‘registered’ suggesting that de-registration does not occur
`during an orderly shutdown. (Exhibit 2038 ¶ 33.) He is mistaken. The de-
`registration need not necessarily take the form of removing the user’s entry from
`the database; instead it can take the form of “flagging the user as being off-line.”
`Exhibit 1001 at 7:52–57.
`18. This refinement still does not change the underlying imperfection of
`the data in the server database. If a client process shuts down in a not-orderly
`
`6
`
`Page 7 of 24
`
`LG Electronics Exhibit 1041
`LGE, et al. v. Straight Path IP
`IPR2015-00198
`
`

`
`Case No. IPR2015-00198
`Patent No. 6,009,469
`
`
`
`fashion (e.g., if it “crashes”), no off-line message will be sent. In that scenario, the
`server will still regard the client process as being connected to the computer
`network when it is not. Likewise, as discussed earlier, if the client process remains
`connected to the computer network after the expiration of the two hour (or 24 hour,
`or other) time period referred to in the patent specifications, the server will regard
`that client process as not being connected to the computer network even though it
`is connected.
`19. The ’469 patent teaches that the server provides, to a first process, the
`network protocol address of a second process if that second process is registered in
`(logged into) the server’s database:
`
`
`20. The ’469 patent expressly discloses that the “On-Line table” is the
`source for determining which clients are “currently On-Line” in the WebPhone
`embodiment. Following a registration request, the “connection server 1514
`
`7
`
`Page 8 of 24
`
`LG Electronics Exhibit 1041
`LGE, et al. v. Straight Path IP
`IPR2015-00198
`
`

`
`Case No. IPR2015-00198
`Patent No. 6,009,469
`
`
`
`updates database 1516, specifically On-line table 1516B to indicate that WebPhone
`1536 is on-line with respect to the computer network.” Exhibit 1001 at 23:29-32.
`21. A copy of the “On-Line Table,” which is reprinted in Table 2 of the
`Patent, is set forth below:
`
`
`22. When a user seeks to establish a point-to-point communication with
`another user, the WebPhone transmits a request—called “<CONNECT REQ>” to
`the connection server. “Connection server 1512 of global server 1500 utilizes the
`value of the E-mail address specified in the <CONNECT REQ> packet to perform
`a one-to-one mapping in the on-line table 1516B to determine the current Internet
`Protocol address of the indicated callee, as illustrated by the flowchart of FIG.
`15A.”
`23. The ’469 patent considers “logged-in” to the server’s database as a
`proxy (and indeed the only proxy) for a client process being “logged-in” to the
`computer network. Exhibit 1001 at 12:13–28. The patent describes no way, other
`than checking the server’s database, for determining whether a particular client
`process is “connected to the computer network.” As noted in paragraphs 36, 37,
`and 45, the ’469 patent suggests that it is enough for the database to provide
`“relatively current” information about whether client processes are connected to
`the computer network. Exhibit 1001 at 7:17.
`
`8
`
`Page 9 of 24
`
`LG Electronics Exhibit 1041
`LGE, et al. v. Straight Path IP
`IPR2015-00198
`
`

`
`Case No. IPR2015-00198
`Patent No. 6,009,469
`
`
`
`B. Obviousness
`1. Motivation to Combine WINS, NetBIOS and Pinard
`24. Dr. Stubblebine contends that “a person of ordinary skill in the art
`would not be motivated to combine NetBIOS with WINS as asserted.”
`Stubblebine Decl. ¶ 53.
`25.
`In my opinion, WINS contains an explicit teaching and suggestion to
`combine with NetBIOS that would have led one of ordinary skill to modify the
`prior art reference or to combine prior art reference teachings to arrive at the
`claimed invention. WINS is part of the Windows NT operating system process
`that runs on a Window NT computer:
`When WINS servers are in place on the network,
`NetBIOS over TCP/IP resolves names on a client
`computer by communicating with the WINS server. … In
`Windows NT 3.5, the NETBT.SYS module provides the
`NetBIOS over TCP/IP functionality that supports name
`registration and resolution modes.
`(Exhibit 1003 at 66.) The NETBT.SYS software module is part of the WINS
`service which is part of the Windows NT operating system:
`The Windows Internet Name Service is a Windows NT
`service running on a Windows NT computer. The
`supporting WINS client software is automatically
`installed for Windows NT Server and for Windows NT
`computers when the basic operating system is installed.
`(Id. at 123.) WINS explains directly that one of ordinary skill in the art may
`modify the WINS protocol to embody any implementation disclosed in NetBIOS:
`“WINS protocol is based on and is compatible with the protocols defined for
`
`9
`
`Page 10 of 24
`
`LG Electronics Exhibit 1041
`LGE, et al. v. Straight Path IP
`IPR2015-00198
`
`

`
`Case No. IPR2015-00198
`Patent No. 6,009,469
`
`
`
`NBNS in RFCs 1001/1002, so it is interoperable with any other implementations of
`these RFCs.” (Id. at 69.)
`26. Moreover, querying the on-line status of a process—instead of the
`online status of a processing unit—is nothing more than the simple substitution of
`one known element for another to obtain predictable results. Dr. Stubblebine
`concedes that that WINS discloses “‘registering and querying computer names on
`an internetwork.’” (Exhibit 2038 ¶ 38 (quoting Exhibit 1003 at 121).) One of
`ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to substitute registration of an
`operating system or computer in WINS with registration of an application, an
`implementation in NetBIOS. The results of the substitution would have been
`predictable in light of the explicit disclosure of their functionality.
`27. Patent Owner argues that “the record includes no reason to substitute
`the Pinard interface for the WINS interface.” Patent Owner Resp. at 55. To the
`contrary, the ’469 patent recognizes that the user interface solutions therein were
`already present in the prior art. In fact, the ’469 patent recognizes that the user
`interface technology utilized therein may use “the graphical user interfaces (GUI)
`such as WINDOWSTM available form [sic] MICROSOFT Corporation, Redmond,
`Wash. ” (Exhibit 1001 at 5:57-59.) The applicants expressly disclosed that “other
`graphic user interface environments such as those compatible with the Macintosh,
`X-Windows or OS/2 operating systems, may be substituted via the Plug and Play
`protocol, as would be understood by those reasonably skilled in the arts.” (Exhibit
`1001 at 15:35-39.) And Pinard expressly discloses that it is compatible with “the
`Windows 3.1 program sold by Microsoft Corporation.” (Exhibit 1020, 4:1-6.)
`Therefore, modifying the user interface of the WINS/NetBIOS system to include
`the graphical user interface as disclosed in Pinard would have been a simple
`
`10
`
`Page 11 of 24
`
`LG Electronics Exhibit 1041
`LGE, et al. v. Straight Path IP
`IPR2015-00198
`
`

`
`Case No. IPR2015-00198
`Patent No. 6,009,469
`
`
`
`substitution of one known element for another known element to obtain a
`predictable result, making the combination obvious.
`
`2.
`Process
`28. As noted above, claims 1–3, 5, 6, 9-10, and 14 of the ’469 patent
`recite the element “process.” Dr. Stubblebine contends that neither WINS nor
`NetBIOS “disclose the ability to register a specific program or application running
`on a computer.” Stubblebine Decl. ¶ 55; see also id. ¶¶ 40, 55. To the contrary,
`WINS and NetBIOS disclose the “process” limitation under both its plain and
`ordinary meaning and Dr. Stubblebine’s proposed construction.
`29. As noted above, Dr. Stubblebine has proposed that the claim
`limitation “process” means “a running instance of a computer program or
`application.” (Exhibit 2038 ¶ 25.) The Microsoft Manual in combination with
`NetBIOS teaches program code (e.g., Windows NT software running on the
`WINS/NetBIOS server) configured to receive the current network protocol address
`(e.g., IP address assigned by the DHCP server) of one of the processes (e.g., the
`Windows NT 3.5 or Windows for Workgroups 3.11 operating system running on
`the first computer) coupled to the network. An operating system is a computer
`program, and therefore a “process” for the reasons describe above. See ¶¶ 4-8,
`supra.
`30. Moreover, NetBIOS explicitly discloses registration of applications:
`“An application, representing a resource, registers one or more names that it
`wishes to use.” (Exhibit 1004 at 378.). Indeed, NetBIOS also discloses a first and
`second process: “Registration is a bid for use of a name. The bid may be for
`exclusive (unique) or shared (group) ownership. Each application contends with
`the other applications in real time.” (Id.) NetBIOS explains that the application
`may request a unique name. (Id.) “A unique name should be held by only one
`
`11
`
`Page 12 of 24
`
`LG Electronics Exhibit 1041
`LGE, et al. v. Straight Path IP
`IPR2015-00198
`
`

`
`Case No. IPR2015-00198
`Patent No. 6,009,469
`
`
`
`station at a time.” (Id. at 378.) NetBIOS further describes how applications stay
`registered with the name server:
`The Name Service primitives are:
`1) Add Name
`The requesting application wants exclusive use of the
`name.
`(Id. at 378.) Thus the registered name identifies the NetBIOS application that is
`using that name.
`31. NetBIOS expressly discloses a “name deletion function” that allows
`“applications [to] remove a name:”
`3)
`Delete Name
`The application no longer requires use of the name. It is
`important to note that typical use of NetBIOS is among
`independently-operated personal computers. A common
`way to stop using a PC is to turn it off; in this case, the
`graceful give-back mechanism, provided by the Delete
`Name function, is not used. Because this occurs
`frequently, the network service must support this
`behavior.
`
`(Id.)
`
`32.
`In addition, a NetBIOS application uses the name it registers to
`establish a session with another NetBIOS application that has also registered a
`name:
`
`A session is a reliable message exchange, conducted
`between a pair of NetBIOS applications . . . Multiple
`sessions may exist between any pair of calling and called
`
`12
`
`Page 13 of 24
`
`LG Electronics Exhibit 1041
`LGE, et al. v. Straight Path IP
`IPR2015-00198
`
`

`
`Case No. IPR2015-00198
`Patent No. 6,009,469
`
`
`
`2)
`
`names. The parties to a connection have access to the
`calling and called names.
`…
`Session Service primitives are:
`1) Call
`Initiate a session with a process that is listening under the
`specified name. The calling entity must indicate both a
`calling name (properly registered to the caller) and a
`called name.
`Listen
`Accept a session from a caller. The listen primitive may
`be constrained to accept an incoming call from a named
`caller. Alternatively, a call may be accepted from any
`caller.
`3) Hang Up
`Gracefully terminate a session. All pending data is
`transferred before the session is terminated.
`(Id. at 379.) Once an application has a name, a name query may be issued to
`obtain its IP address. (Id. at 395.)
`33. This disclosure teaches that a first NetBIOS application connected to
`the computer network receives a unique, registered name from the server, queries
`the server to determine whether other NetBIOS applications are connected to the
`computer network, and uses the received network protocol address of a second
`NetBIOS application to establish a point-to-point communication link.
`
`13
`
`Page 14 of 24
`
`LG Electronics Exhibit 1041
`LGE, et al. v. Straight Path IP
`IPR2015-00198
`
`

`
`Case No. IPR2015-00198
`Patent No. 6,009,469
`
`
`
`3.
`Connected to the computer network / on-line status
`34. As noted above, claims 3, 6, and 9 of the ’469 patent recite either the
`element “connected to the computer network” or the element “on-line status.” Dr.
`Stubblebine contends that WINS and NetBIOS do not “provide a mechanism for
`determining whether a computer [or process] is online and available for
`communication.” Stubblebine Decl. ¶ 40. To the contrary, WINS and NetBIOS
`both satisfy the “on-line” and “connected to the network” limitations as those
`terms have been construed both by the Board and by Dr. Stubblebine.
`35. The Board has previously construed these claim limitations as “on-
`line, e.g., registered with a server.” Petitioners named in ITC Investigation No.
`337-TA-892 proposed the following construction under the Phillips standard:
`“registered with the server and not subsequently un-registered.” Dr. Stubblebine
`does not appear to dispute that these limitations are satisfied under the Board’s
`construction or Petitioner’s proposed construction. Nor could he, as I have already
`explained above and in my opening declaration.
`36. WINS and NetBIOS also disclose a mechanism for determining
`whether a process is “on-line” or “connected to the computer network” pursuant to
`Dr. Stubblebine’s construction. Dr. Stubblebine opines that the terms “connected
`to the computer network” and “on-line” mean “available for communication.”
`WINS and NetBIOS disclose methods for determining whether a process is
`available for communication in precisely the same manner—and with the same
`limitations—as the embodiments disclosed in the ’469 patent. The Microsoft
`Manual teaches that the WINS/NetBIOS server keeps its mapping of names to IP
`addresses relatively current by tracking which users are still connected to the
`network. For example, it states that “when dynamic addressing through DHCP
`results in new IP addresses for computers that move between subnets, the changes
`
`14
`
`Page 15 of 24
`
`LG Electronics Exhibit 1041
`LGE, et al. v. Straight Path IP
`IPR2015-00198
`
`

`
`Case No. IPR2015-00198
`Patent No. 6,009,469
`
`
`
`are automatically updated in the WINS database.” (Exhibit 1003 at 69.) Similarly,
`it notes that “[w]henever a computer is shut down properly, it releases its name to
`the WINS server, which marks the related database entry as released … because it
`knows that the old client is no longer using that name.” (Id. at 75.) In addition, the
`Microsoft Manual describes that, if a network device fails to re-register its name
`within the set renewal time, “the WINS server will mark the name as released and
`available for use.” (Id.)
`37. The fact that the Microsoft Manual does not disclose a system
`featuring perfect knowledge of the status of all individual processes at any given
`moment does not distinguish it from the ’469 patent. Rather, the ’469 patent
`discloses no way to determine whether a process “is connected to the computer
`network” other than by consulting the connection server database. (E.g., Ex. 1001,
`at 7:32-35 (“The connection server 26 then searches the database 34 to determine
`whether the callee is logged-in by finding any stored information corresponding to
`the callee’s E-mail address indicating that the callee is active and on-line.”).) As a
`result, the system disclosed in the ’469 patent can, at best, determine whether a
`process “is connected to the network” on a “relatively current” basis. (Exhibit
`1001, 7:14-19 (“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.”).)
`38. Further, even applying a construction of “connected to the network”
`that does not acknowledge the role of the connection server—e.g., “available for
`communication”—the Microsoft Manual renders this limitation obvious because
`the express purpose of the system it discloses is to provide for “communication.”
`
`15
`
`Page 16 of 24
`
`LG Electronics Exhibit 1041
`LGE, et al. v. Straight Path IP
`IPR2015-00198
`
`

`
`Case No. IPR2015-00198
`Patent No. 6,009,469
`
`
`
`(E.g., Exhibit 1003 at 67 (“[W]hen NT_PC1 [e.g., a first computer running the
`Windows NT operating system] wants to communicate with NT_PC2 [e.g., a
`second computer running the Windows NT operating system], it queries the WINS
`server for the address of NT_PC2 [e.g., of the first computer running the Windows
`NT operating system] … [and] gets the appropriate address [e.g., of the first
`computer running the Windows NT operating system] from the WINS server
`…..”).).
`39. Likewise, NetBIOS also discloses a system for determining online
`status that is identical to the embodiments. “Name query (also known as
`‘resolution’ or ‘discovery’) is the procedure by which the IP address(es) associated
`with a NetBIOS name are discovered.” (Exhibit 1004 at 395.) The NetBIOS
`server keeps its mapping of names to IP addresses relatively current by tracking
`which users are still connected to the network through two mechanisms: explicit
`and implicit release. “An explicit name deletion function is specified, so that
`applications may remove a name.” (Id. at 378.)
`40. Patent Owner erroneously contends that “[s]hutting [a] computer off
`. . . will not release [a] computer’s name.” Patent Owner’s Resp. 49. This ignores
`NetBIOS’s disclosure of implicit name release, which addresses precisely that
`scenario. “[T]ypical use of NetBIOS is among independently-operated personal
`computers. A common way to stop using a PC is to turn it off; in this case, the
`graceful give-back mechanism, provided by the Delete Name function, is not
`used.” (Id.) Instead, in this circumstance, NetBIOS implements one type of
`implicit name release, a “silent release.” “Silent release typically occurs when an
`end-node fails or is turned off.” (Id. at 395.) Like the “time stamp” disclosed in
`the specification of the ’469 patent, NetBIOS “Names held by an NBNS are given
`a lifetime during name registration. The NBNS will consider a name to have been
`
`16
`
`Page 17 of 24
`
`LG Electronics Exhibit 1041
`LGE, et al. v. Straight Path IP
`IPR2015-00198
`
`

`
`Case No. IPR2015-00198
`Patent No. 6,009,469
`
`
`
`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.” (Id. at 396.)
`41. Moreover, the NBNS server may determine whether—even after
`registration—the second process remains available for communication through
`another type of implicit name release, “name challenge.” “To detect whether a
`node has silently released its claim to a name, it is necessary on occasion to
`challenge that node’s current ownership. If the node defends the name then the
`node is allowed to continue possession. Otherwise it is assumed that the node has
`released the name.” (Exhibit 1004 at 396.)
`42.
`In addition, NetBIOS discloses another type of implicit name release:
`periodic polling by the NBNS to verify that the applications remain available for
`communication. “NBNS is free to poll nodes (by sending NAME QUERY
`REQUEST or NODE STATUS REQUEST packets) to verify that their name status
`is the same as that registered in the NBNS.” (Exhibit 1004 at 401.)
`43. Dr. Stubblebine incorrectly contends that “each WINS server must be
`configured with at least one other WINS server as its replication partner.” (Exhibit
`2038 ¶ 48.) A WINS server must be configured in a special manner in order to
`have a replication partner. (Exhibit 1003 at 132-135.) Moreover, NetBIOS
`discloses a configuration that does not involve replication partners. (Exhibit 1004
`at 385-386; 371. “WINS protocol is based on and is compatible with the protocols
`defined for NBNS in RFCs 1001/1002, so it is interoperable with any other
`implementations of these RFCs.” (Exhibit 1003 at 69.) Dr. Stubblebine also
`contends that “[t]he minimum replication interval, the frequency with which a
`WINS server can replicate itself to other WINS servers on a network, is 40
`minutes.” (Exhibit 2038 ¶ 48.) In fact, WINS explicitly discloses that “[y]ou can
`also replicate the database between the partners immediately, rather than waiting
`
`17
`
`Page 18 of 24
`
`LG Electronics Exhibit 1041
`LGE, et al. v. Straight Path IP
`IPR2015-00198
`
`

`
`Case No. IPR2015-00198
`Patent No. 6,009,469
`
`
`
`for the start time or replication interval specific in the Preference dialog box . . . .”
`(Exhibit 1003 at 136.)
`44. Regardless, configuring the WINS system to include replication with
`a minimum replication interval would not change my opinion. As a preliminary
`matter, the registration server I have described above and in my original
`declaration is the WINS server not a replication partner. (Exhibit 1003 at 67 (“All
`computers register themselves with the WINS server, which is a NetBIOS Name
`Server (NBNS) . . . responsible for knowing computer names and addresses and for
`ensuring no duplicate names exist on the network.”). And even the database
`maintained on a replication partner would remain “relatively current” as that term
`is used in the ’469 patent.
`
`4.
`“Is” and “status”
`45. As noted above, claims 3, 6, and 9 of the ’469 patent recite either the
`word “is” or “status” as relevant here. Patent Owner argues that the words “is” and
`“status” “require a determination of whether a process (a computer program) is
`connected to the computer network at the time of the query.” When the ’469
`patent speaks about “on-line” status or the status of be