Declaration of Dr. Michael Shamos
`Case No. IPR2015-00717
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,027,411
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAR BOARD
`
`
`
`SERVICE NOW, INC.,
`
`Petitioner,
`
`V.
`
`HEWLETT—PACKARD COMPANY,
`
`Patent Owner
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2015-00717
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,027,411
`
`
`
`DECLARATION OF MICHAEL SHAMOS, Ph.D. REGARDING
`CLAIMS 1 AND 3 OF U.S. PATENT NO. 7,027,411
`
`HP 2004
`
`SerViCeN0w V.HP
`
`IPR2015—0O7 17
`
`

`

`Declaration of Dr. Michael Shamos
`
`Case No. IPR20l5-00717
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,027,411
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`INTRODUCTION ......................................................................................... .. 1
`
`MATERIALS CONSIDERED ..................................................................... .. 3
`
`III.
`
`UNDERSTANDING OF THE LAW ........................................................... .. 4
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`Obviousness ........................................................................................ .. 4
`
`Claim Construction ............................................................................. .. 5
`
`IV.
`
`PERSON OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART ........................................ .. 6
`
`INSTITUTED GROUNDS ........................................................................... .. 8
`
`VI.
`
`TECHNOLOGY BACKGROUND .............................................................. .. 8
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`D.
`
`E.
`
`F.
`
`Problem to be Solved .......................................................................... .. 8
`
`Network Traffic .................................................................................. .. 9
`
`Switching Technology ...................................................................... .. 10
`
`Network Topology ............................................................................ .. 10
`
`Devices of a Network ....................................................................... .. 11
`
`Connections between Devices .......................................................... .. 11
`
`VII.
`
`THE’4ll PATENT ..................................................................................... .. 12
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`D.
`
`E.
`
`Block Diagram of the System of the ’4l1 Patent ............................. .. 17
`
`First List (List of Existing Tuples from an Existing Topology) and
`Second List (New List of a Plurality of Tuples for a Topology of the
`Network at aCurrent Time) .............................................................. .. 19
`
`The Connection Calculator Creates the Third List (New Tuples List
`that represent new nodal connections) .............................................. .. 20
`
`First Weeding Phase ......................................................................... .. 21
`
`Infrastructure Building Phase ........................................................... .. 23
`-1-
`
`

`

`Declaration of Dr. Michael Shamos
`Case No. IPR2015-00717
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,027,411
`
`F.
`
`G.
`
`H.
`
`I.
`
`J.
`
`Second Weeding Phase ..................................................................... .. 24
`
`Noise Reduction Phase ..................................................................... .. 25
`
`The “Look For” Phase ...................................................................... .. 25
`
`The Consolidation Phase .................................................................. .. 26
`
`Receiving the Third List and Comparing the First List (List of
`Existing Tuples from an Existing Topology) and the Third List (New
`Tuples List that Represent New Nodal Connections) to Identify
`Changes to Topology ........................................................................ .. 27
`
`VIII.
`
`THE CHALLENGED CLAIMS ................................................................. .. 31
`
`IX.
`
`File History ofthe ’4ll Patent .................................................................... .. 34
`
`OVERVIEW OF THE CITED PRIOR ART REFERENCES ................... .. 37
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`Jones .................................................................................................. .. 37
`
`Tonelli ............................................................................................... .. 39
`
`XI.
`
`THE CHALLENGED ’4l1 PATENT CLAIMS ARE NON—OBVIOUS
`BECAUSE AT LEAST TWO CLAIM LIMITATIONS ARE NOT
`TAUGHT OR SUGGESTED BY THE PRIOR ART ................................ .. 42
`
`XII.
`
`JONES DOES NOT RENDER CLAIMS 1 OR 3 OBVIOUS ................... .. 42
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`Jones Does Not Disclose or Render Obvious “Receiving New Tuples
`List that Represent New Nodal Connections,” as Recited in
`Independent Claim 1 ......................................................................... .. 42
`
`Jones Does Not Disclose or Render Obvious “Comparing the List of
`Existing Tuples with the New tuples List to Identify Changes to the
`Topology,” as Recited in Independent Claim 1 ................................ .. 43
`
`C.
`
`The Petition Characterizes Jones Incorrectly ................................... .. 44
`
`XIII.
`
`TONELLI DOES NOT RENDER CLAIMS 1 OR 3 OBVIOUS .............. .. 46
`
`

`

`Declaration of Dr. Michael Shamos
`Case No. IPR2015-00717
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,027,411
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`Tonelli Does Not Disclose or Render Obvious “Receiving New
`Tuples List that Represent New Nodal Connections,” as Recited in
`Independent Claim 1 ......................................................................... .. 46
`
`Tonelli Does Not Disclose “Comparing the List of Existing Tuples
`with the New Tuples List to Identify Changes to the Topology,” as
`Recited in Independent Claim 1 ....................................................... .. 48
`
`XIV.
`
`CONCLUSION ........................................................................................... .. 49
`
`XV.
`
`AVAILABILITY FOR CROSS—EXAMINATION .................................... .. 49
`
`XVI.
`
`RIGHT TO SUPPLEMENT ....................................................................... .. 50
`
`—iii-
`
`

`

`1, Michael Shamos, declare as follows:
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`1.
`
`I hold the title of Distinguished Career Professor in the School of
`
`Computer Science at Carnegie Mellon University in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. I
`
`was a founder and Co—Director of the Institute for eCommerce at Carnegie Mellon
`
`and I am now Director of the Master of Science in Information Technology degree
`
`program in eBusiness Technology.
`
`2.
`
`I have an A.B. degree from Princeton University in Physics, an M.A.
`
`degree from Vassar College in Physics, an M.S. degree from American University
`
`in Technology of Management, an M.S. degree from Yale University in Computer
`
`Science, an M. Phil from Yale University in Computer Science, a Ph.D. from Yale
`
`University in Computer Science and a JD. degree from Duquesne University. My
`
`C.V. is submitted herewith as Appendix A.
`
`3.
`
`I have previously testified in a number of cases concerning computer
`
`systems, including patent, copyright and trade secret cases. My C.V. contains a list
`
`of cases in which I have testified in at least the past ten years. My CV. also lists
`
`the relevant publications I have authored during the past 10 years.
`
`4.
`
`I am currently Director of Carnegie Mellon’s graduate degree
`
`program in eBusiness Technology.
`
`I currently teach graduate courses at Carnegie
`
`Mellon in Electronic Commerce, including Ubiquitous Computing, Electronic
`
`

`

`Declaration of Dr. Michael Shamos
`Case No. IPR2015-00717
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,027,411
`
`Payment Systems and Law of Computer Technology. Since 2001, I have been a
`
`Visiting Professor at the University of Hong Kong, where I also teach an annual
`
`course in Electronic Payment Systems. This is one of only a handful of such
`
`courses offered anywhere in the world.
`
`5.
`
`From 1979-1987, 1 was the founder and president of two computer
`
`software development companies in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, Unilogic, Ltd. and
`
`Lexeme Corporation.
`
`6.
`
`I am a named co—inVentor on the following five issued patents relating
`
`to electronic commerce: U.S. Patent Nos. 7,330,839, 7,421,278, 7,747,465,
`
`8,195,197 and 8,280,773.
`
`7.
`
`I am an attorney admitted to practice in Pennsylvania and have been
`
`admitted to the Bar of the US. Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) since
`
`1981.
`
`I have been asked to render opinions in this declaration as a technical
`
`expert.
`
`I have not been asked to offer any opinions about the law in this
`
`declaration.
`
`8.
`
`I have been retained by Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP,
`
`counsel for Patent Owner Hewlett—Packard Company (“HP”) as a technical expert
`
`in this matter.
`
`1 receive my customary rate of $600 per hour for my services. No
`
`part of my compensation is dependent on my opinions or on the outcome of this
`
`-2-
`
`

`

`Declaration of Dr. Michael Shamos
`Case No. IPR20l 5-00717
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,027,411
`
`proceeding.
`
`I have no financial interest, beneficial or otherwise, in any of the
`
`parties or the ’4ll patent, and have had no contact with the named inventors of the
`
`’4ll patent.
`
`9.
`
`I understand that claims I and 3 (the “Challenged Claims”) are each
`
`asserted to be invalid as obvious over each of two separate prior art references,
`
`Jones and Tonelli (the ‘‘References’’).
`
`10.
`
`I have been asked by counsel for Patent Owner to provide expert
`
`opinions concerning the application of the Reference to the Challenged Claims.
`
`II. MATERIALS CONSIDERED
`
`1 1.
`
`I have reviewed the specification, claims, and prosecution history of
`
`the ’4ll patent.
`
`I understand that this inter partes review is ongoing and other
`
`documents have been filed.
`
`12.
`
`I have also reviewed the documents listed in Appendix B.
`
`I have read
`
`and understood each of those documents.
`
`13.
`
`I have considered certain issues from the perspective of a person of
`
`ordinary skill in the art at the time the application for the ’4ll patent was filed.
`
`

`

`Declaration of Dr. Michael Shamos
`Case No. IPR20l 5—007l7
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,027,411
`
`III. UNDERSTANDING OF THE LAW
`
`14.
`
`For the purposes of this declaration, I have been informed about
`
`certain aspects of the law that are relevant to my opinions. My understanding of
`
`the law is as follows:
`
`A.
`
`Obviousness
`
`15.
`
`I have been informed that a patent claim is considered obvious if the
`
`subject matter as a whole would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the
`
`art at the time the invention was made. An obviousness analysis involves several
`
`factual inquiries:
`
`(i) the scope and content of the prior art; (ii) the differences
`
`between the prior art and the claimed invention; (iii) the level of ordinary skill in
`
`the art at the time of the invention; and (iv) the existence of objective indicia of
`
`non—obviousness (“secondary considerations”), such as unexpected results, long
`
`felt but unresolved need, failure of others, and industry skepticism followed by
`
`acceptance.
`
`16.
`
`In connection with obviousness, I have been informed that there
`
`should be some reason that would have led one of ordinary skill in the art to
`
`combine or modify the relevant prior-art teachings to obtain the claimed invention.
`
`Furthermore, there must be a reasonable expectation that one of ordinary skill in
`
`the art would have succeeded in obtaining the claimed invention based on the
`
`

`

`Declaration of Dr. Michael Shamos
`Case No. IPR20l 5-00717
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,027,411
`
`teachings of the prior art. An invention is more likely to be deemed non-obvious
`
`to one of ordinary skill in the art if it yields unexpected results or if the prior art
`
`teaches away from the claimed invention.
`
`17.
`
`I understand that in considering obviousness, it is important not to use
`
`the benefit of hindsight derived from the patent being considered. That is, it is
`
`improper to begin with a patent claim and use the claim itself as a guidepost to
`
`point to combinations of prior art.
`
`18.
`
`In connection with objective indicia of non—obviousness, I have been
`
`informed that there must be a nexus between the claimed invention and the
`
`objective indicia.
`
`B.
`
`Claim Construction
`
`19.
`
`I understand that, before a patentability analysis can be conducted, the
`
`claims of a patent must be interpreted. I have been informed and understand that a
`
`claim term in inter partes review is given the broadest reasonable interpretation in
`
`light of the specification.
`
`20.
`
`I understand that in the Decision on Institution the Patent and Trial
`
`and Appeal Board (the “Board”) initially construed the following claim terms:
`
`Eu r is
`
`

`

`Declaration of Dr. Michael Shamos
`Case No. IPR2015-00717
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,027,411
`
`Decision on Institution at 5-6 (Paper 13).
`
`21.
`
`I have applied the Board’s construction of this term in this declaration,
`
`unless noted otherwise.
`
`IV.
`
`PERSON OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART
`
`22.
`
`I have been advised that “a person of ordinary skill in the a ” (or
`
`“person of ordinary skill in the relevant field” is a hypothetical person to whom
`
`one could assign a routine task with reasonable confidence that the task would be
`
`successfully carried out. Such a person is presumed to be familiar with all relevant
`
`prior art.
`
`I further understand that a person of ordinary skill in the art must be able
`
`to make and use the claimed invention without undue experimentation.
`
`23.
`
`The ’411 patent application was filed in the USPTO on October 31,
`
`2000, and does not claim priority to any earlier filing date, either in the U.S. or any
`
`other country. Accordingly, I understand that the patent’s claims must be
`
`construed from the perspective of a person of ordinary skill in the art as of October
`
`31, 2000.
`
`24.
`
`The “Field of the Invention” section of the Patent states:
`
`The present invention relates generally to computer networks. More
`particularly, it relates to a method and system for ialentzfying
`changes to a network topology andfor acting upon the network
`based on the changes.
`’4l1 Patent (Ex. 1001) at 1:7-10
`
`

`

`Declaration of Dr. Michael Shamos
`Case No. IPR2015-00717
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,027,411
`
`25.
`
`Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would need training in
`
`computer networks and would be familiar with network topology, which is the
`
`manner in which network components are interconnected. The claims are drawn to
`
`detecting changes in network topology over time based on snapshots of
`
`information about network connections.
`
`26.
`
`Based on my understanding of the ’4ll patent and my knowledge and
`
`experience, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have a Bachelor’s degree in
`
`computer science, electrical engineering, or related discipline, or equivalent
`
`experience, and either (1) approximately one year of relevant industry experience
`
`or (2) an advanced degree, such as a Master’s degree or Ph.D., in computer
`
`science, electrical engineering, or related discipline.
`
`27. As reflected in my qualifications set forth above, as of 2000, I would
`
`have met or exceeded that level of experience.
`
`I have also considered the
`
`definition of a person of ordinary skill in the art; as set forth in the declaration of
`
`Dr. Lavian. Lavian Decl. (Ex. 1002) 1ll6, in which Dr. Lavian states:
`
`a person ofordinary skill in the art as of October 2000 would
`possess, at a minimum, a bachelor ’s degree in computer
`engineering or computer science (or an equivalent degree or
`experience) with at leastfour years ofpractical experience in the
`design and implementation ofcomputer-based systems for
`‘ managing computer networks, such as systems for monitoring,
`modeling or provisioning computer networks.
`
`-7-
`
`

`

`Declaration of Dr. Michael Shamos
`Case No. IPR20l5-00717
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,027,411
`
`28.
`
`I do not believe that as much as four years’ experience would be
`
`required. Nevertheless, the opinions I give in this declaration would not change if
`
`Dr. Lavian’s characterization were adopted.
`
`V.
`
`INSTITUTED GROUNDS
`
`29.
`
`I understand that inter partes review has been instituted by the Board
`
`on the following ground presented in the petition filed by ServiceNoW, Inc.
`
`(“ServiceNow” or “Petitioner”) (Paper 1):
`
`0 Ground 1: Claims 1 and 3 as obvious over U.S. Patent No.
`
`6,701,327 to Jones (“Jones”) (Ex. 1003).
`
`0 Ground 2: Claims 1 and 3 as obvious over U.S. Patent No.
`
`5,821,937 to (“Tonelli”) (Ex. 1004).
`
`VI.
`
`TECHNOLOGY BACKGROUND
`
`A.
`
`Problem to be Solved
`
`30.
`
`The ’411 specification sets forth the problem being addressed:
`
`The intelligent routing ofdata packets with resultant reduction in
`network congestion can only be ejfected ifthe network topology is
`known. The topology ofa network is a description ofthe network
`which includes the location ofand interconnections between nodes
`on the network. The word ”topology” refers to either the physical or
`logical layout ofthe network, including devices, and their
`connections in relationship to one another. Information necessary
`to create the topology layout can be derivedfrom tables stored in
`network devices such as hubs, bridges, and switches. The
`information in these tables is in a constant state offlux as new
`
`-3-
`
`

`

`Declaration of Dr. Michael Shamos
`
`Case No. lPR20l5-00717
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,027,411
`
`entries are being added and old entries time out. Many times there
`simply is not enough information to determine where to place a
`particular device.
`
`Switches examine each data packet that they receive, read the
`source addresses, and log those addresses into tables along with
`the switch ports on which the packets were received. Ifa packet is
`received with a target address without an entry in the switches
`table, the switch receiving it broadcasts that packet to each ofits
`ports. When the switch receives a reply, it will have identified
`where the new node lies.
`
`In a large network with multiple possible paths from the switch to
`the target node, this table can become quite large and may require
`a significant amount ofthe switch ’s resources to develop and
`maintain. As an additional complication, the physical layout of
`devices and their connections are typically in a state of constant
`change. Devices are continually being removedfirom, added to, and
`moved to new physical locations on the network. To be effectively
`managed, the topology ofa network must be accurately and
`efficiently ascertained, as well as maintained. ’4l1 patent (EX.
`1001) at 1:29-60.
`
`31.
`
`In a nutshell, it is difficult to keep track of topological changes to a
`
`large network when devices are constantly being added to, and deleted from, that
`
`network. Efficient routing of data requires knowledge of the current topology of
`
`the network.
`
`B.
`
`Network Traffic
`
`32. As communications networks, such as the Internet, carry more and
`
`more traffic, efficient use of the bandwidth available in the network becomes more
`
`and more important. Id. at 1:14-16.
`
`

`

`Declaration of Dr. Michael Sharnos
`
`Case No. IPR20l 5-0071 7
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,027,411
`
`C.
`
`Switching Technology
`
`33.
`
`Switching technology was developed in order to reduce congestion
`
`and associated competition for the available bandwidth. Id. at 1:16-18. Switching
`
`technology works by restricting traffic. Switches are used to control data flow in a
`
`network such that a data packet is sent only along those network segments
`
`necessary to deliver it to the target node or device, instead of broadcasting the data
`
`packet to all parts of the network. Id. at 1:19-23. This allows for fewer packet
`
`collisions and, thus, a smoother and faster delivery of data. Id. at 1:23-26. A
`
`choice between alternative paths is usually possible and is typically made based
`
`upon current traffic patterns. Id. at 1:26-28.
`
`D.
`
`Network Topology
`
`34.
`
`The topology of a network is a description of the network, which
`
`includes the location of and the interconnection between nodes (devices) on the
`
`network. Topology refers to both the physical and logical layout of the network,
`
`including devices and their connectivity to one another. Id. at 1:31-36. However,
`
`“topology” is not restricted to interconnections, but also includes “configuration,”
`
`which includes the manner in which devices are connected, including information
`
`about port reversal (2:27—33), co-existing IP domains (2151-64), and port
`
`-10-
`
`

`

`Declaration of Dr. Michael Shamos
`Case No. lPR2015~007l7
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,027,411
`
`aggregation, trunking and switch meshing (2:64—67). That is, information about
`
`interconnections alone does not furnish a complete picture of a network topology.
`
`E.
`
`Devices of a Network
`
`35. According to the Patent, a network comprises “nodes.” A “node is
`
`any electronic component, such as a connector or a host, or combination of
`
`electronic components with their interconnections. Id. at 2: 14-16.
`
`36.
`
`A “connector is any network device other than a host, including a
`
`switching device. A switching device is one type of connector and refers to any
`
`device that controls the flow of messages on a network. Switching devices
`
`include, but are not limited to, any of the following devices: repeaters, hubs,
`
`routers, bridges, and switches.” Id. at 2:16-22.
`
`37. A “host” is defined in the Microsoft Computer Dictionary (2002) as
`
`follows:
`
`On the Internet or other large networks, a server computer that has
`access to other computers on the network. A host computer
`provides services, such as news, mail, or data, to computers that
`connect to it.
`
`38.
`
`In simple terms, “hosts” are computers that perform services and are
`
`producers and consumers of data, while “connectors” provide the “plumbing”
`
`(pipes, valves, pumps, etc.) to move data between hosts.
`
`F.
`
`Connections between Devices
`
`-11-
`
`

`

`Declaration of Dr. Michael Shamos
`
`Case No. IPR2015-00717
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,027,411
`
`39. Devices interconnect via “ports,” which are locations at which
`
`electrical connections can be made, often through “sockets,” “jacks” or other
`
`means of connection. For example, USB hubs for personal computers are
`
`commonly sold at present with four ports or seven ports, meaning that the hub has
`
`either four or seven positions at which USB devices can be plugged in.
`
`40.
`
`“Port” is defined in the Microsoft Computer Dictionary (2002) as
`
`follows:
`
`An interface through which data is transferred between a computer
`and other devices (such as a printer, mouse, keyboard, or monitor),
`a network, or a direct connection to another computer. The port
`appears to the CPU as one or more memory addresses that it can
`use to send or receive data. Specialized hardware, such as in an
`add—on circuit board, places datafrom the device in the memory
`addresses and sends data firom the memory addresses to the device.
`Ports may also be dedicated solely to input or to output.
`
`41. A port is designated by being assigned a “port number.”
`
`VII. THE’411 PATENT
`
`42.
`
`By October 31, 2000, when the application for the ’411 patent was
`
`filed, switching technologies were emerging as a way of routing data to reduce
`
`network congestion. ’41l patent (Ex. 1001) at 1:17-19. Intelligent routing of data
`
`with resultant reduction in network congestion can only be effected if a network
`
`topology is known. Id. at 1:29-31. Prior art mapping methods had limitations that
`
`-12-
`
`

`

`Declaration of Dr. Michael Shamos
`Case No. IPR2015-00717
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,027,411
`
`prevented them from mapping topological relationships accurately and efficiently.
`
`Id. at 1:61-62.
`
`43.
`
`For example, prior art methods assumed that network devices such as
`
`routers, switches and bridges, connectors in general, only had a single connection-
`
`between them. Id. at 1:64-67. Instead, in newer devices it was common to have
`
`multiple connections between devices to improve network efficiency and increase
`
`the capacity of links between the devices.
`
`Id. at 2:1-4. This multiple connectivity
`
`allowed for devices to maintain connection in case one connection failed. Id. at
`
`1:6l—2:5. As an additional complication, the physical layout of devices and their
`
`connections were typically in a state of constant change. Id. at 1:54-56. Devices
`
`were continually being removed from, added to, and moved to new physical
`
`locations on the network. Id. at 1:56-58. Whenever an individual change in the
`
`system was detected, existing methods immediately acted on that change, rather
`
`than taking a broader View of the change in the context of other system changes.
`
`Id. at 2:28-31. For example, a device may be removed from the network
`
`temporarily and replaced with its ports reversed. Id. at 2:31-33. In prior art
`
`systems, this swapped port scenario could require hundreds or thousands of
`
`changes because the reference addresses had to be changed for all interconnected
`
`devices. Id. at 2:33-36.
`
`-13-
`
`

`

`44.
`
`The ’4l1 patent proposes systems and methods for mapping a network
`
`Declaration of Dr. Michael Shamos
`
`Case No. IPR2015-00717
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,027,411
`
`topology accurately and efficiently. A network node may be an electronic
`
`component, such as a connector or a host, or a combination of electronic
`
`components together with their interconnections. Id. at 4: 14-16. Nodal
`
`connectivity information is retrieved from nodes and stored as “tuples” to
`
`determine the network’s topology. Id. at 4:5—l0. “Mapping topological
`
`relationships” means maintaining a data structure from which the network
`
`interconnections can be determined at any given time.
`
`45.
`
`Tuples represent connections between nodes, e.g., (1) device and
`
`another device, (2) device and connector, (3) between two connectors. Id. at 4:34-
`
`38. A tuple may have two parts representing the two nodes on either end of a
`
`network link or segment. Id. at 4: 10-12. For example, a binary tuple may include
`
`this information about the two nodes as a means of showing the connectivity
`
`between them, whether the nodes are connected directly or indirectly through other
`
`nodes. Id. at 4:30-34. A “conn-to—conn” tuple refers to a tuple that has
`
`connectivity data about connector nodes. Id. at 4:34-35. A “conn—to—host” tuple
`
`refers to a tuple that has connectivity data about a connector node and a host node.
`
`Id. at 4:35—37
`
`-14-
`
`

`

`Declaration of Dr. Michael Shamos
`Case No. IPR20l5-00717
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,027,411
`
`46.
`
`The network mapping of the ’411 patent is conducted by
`
`advantageously building new tuples and removing redundant or unnecessary tuples
`
`to produce the new topology. Id. at 10:34-37. Non—essential tuples may be
`
`removed from the new topology to save space and to simplify the topology. Id. at
`
`10:44-46. The ’411 patent system and methods are not confused by multiple
`
`connectivity situations such as port aggregation or switch meshing, as shown in
`
`FIG. 5 of the ’411 patent, because the tuples represent point—to-point, or neighbor-
`
`to—neighbor, connectivity showing each connection in the network. Id. at 10:46-51.
`
`The point-to-point connectivity concept helps enable the system to avoid
`
`difficulties that occur in other systems. Id. at 10:51-54.
`
`47.
`
`As discussed above, “tuple” is a construed claim term meaning
`
`“collection of assorted data.” The term is borrowed from computer science, in
`
`which a “tuple” is a collection of values. For example, a 5—tuple is a set of five
`
`values, sometimes represented, e.g., as {52, -3, “abc”, 0, 98.6}. The first, second
`
`and fourth elements of the tuple are integers; the third element is the string “abc”,
`
`and the fifth element is a decimal number. The data are “assorted” because they
`
`are not necessarily of the same type, e.g., they are a mixture of integers, strings and
`
`decimals.
`
`-15-
`
`

`

`Declaration of Dr. Michael Shamos
`
`Case No. IPR2015-00717
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,027,411
`
`48.
`
`The tuples of the ’4l1 patent are “light weight” data structures that
`
`include host identifiers, interface information, and port specifications. Id. at 427-9.
`
`The tuples provide a convenient way of storing and maintaining data that allows
`
`determining network topology changes in an efficient manner. Id. at 10:54-56.
`
`This is accomplished by using the following three lists: (1) a first list (“list of
`
`existing tuples”) that includes existing tuples that represent nodal connections of a
`
`network topology at a prior time; (2) a second list (“new list of a plurality of
`
`tuples”) that includes a plurality of tuples that represent nodal connections of a
`
`network topology at a current time; and (3) a third list (“new tuples list”) that
`
`includes tuples that represent “new nodal connections,” i.e., a refined list of the
`
`tuples of the second list. Id. at claim 1.
`
`49.
`
`The third list is compared to the first list to determine changes to
`
`network topology. Id. at 6:24-29; 11:14-21. By comparing the third list, which is
`
`a refined list of the tuples that represent nodal connections at a current time, to the
`
`first list, the claimed invention can efficiently update the network topology by
`
`comparing only a refined list of tuples to the existing topology. In addition, by
`
`using tuples to perform the comparison, the network topology can be accurately
`
`represented, because the tuples include information that can adequately
`
`characterize the interconnected nodes of the network. Id. at 6:14-7:23. The
`
`-16-
`
`

`

`Declaration of Dr. Michael Shamos
`Case No. IPR20l5-00717
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,027,411
`
`information is retrieved from the network nodes and stored as tuples to track
`
`specifically the desired information necessary to map the topology. Id. 4:4—7. By
`
`using the host identifier, interface index, and port information, the topology can be
`
`determined. Id. at 427-10. The tuples advantageously contain only the relevant
`
`information to minimize the storage space required for the topology. Id. at 10:54-
`
`56. A key to efficiency is operating on a refined list of tuples rather than a list
`
`representing the entire network. This occurs during a “tuple reduction phase” 906
`
`(id. at 6:24-29), which is not taught in the prior art.
`
`A.
`
`Block Diagram of the System of the ’411 Patent
`
`50.
`
`Fig. 7 the ’411 patent is reproduced below to show a block diagram
`
`ofthe ’4ll patent system. Id. at 3:42; 6:14.
`
`PRUIOCOL-BASED om
`350
`
`GATHERING manner;
`']10P0 LOOKUPS
`
`
`
`
`
`("LOOK F{)R"
`REQUESTS?)
`
` .USER EDITS
`
`\
`
`
`
`EXTERz‘4AI§$gIj{IJCA1'£0%4
`
`3
`CREATE.b00§<b’P.A2QD
`t‘*Lod1<mR3“‘-..
` READY?)
`340
`yrmrs REDECEQ
`
`NEWBOR DATA
`CREATE.LOOK¥JP,AND ‘
`UPDATE "NE-LIGHBOR Dm-
`
`(SPELL commas
`REDUNDENCIES)
`cowmrcnow
`TOPOLOGY :
`~
`~r
`cowvsxrea :
`320/
`
`
`
`"NEIGHBOR DA'1'A"
`
`1
`
`on DATA
`
`
`
`
`USERARBITRATTON
`REQUESTS
`
`ranuctn ropotoo
`RELAWONSHIPS
`m<ANs2EN‘r>
`
`L00KUFS AT REDUCED
`REWl°N3l*'“’3
`
`-17-
`
`

`

`Declaration of Dr. Michael Shamos
`
`Case No. IPR2015-00717
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,027,411
`
`51.
`
`In general, a topology database “topodb” 350 stores an existing
`
`topology that needs to be updated. Id. at 6: 19-20. Information about this existing
`
`topology is used to create the first list of tuples that represent the network topology
`
`at a prior time, as discussed below in more detail. A tuple manager 300 gathers
`
`data from network nodes and builds the second list of tuples that represent the
`
`network topology at a later, current time. Id. at 6: 16-19. The “neighbor data”
`
`database 310 retrieves and stores the second list of tuples created by the tuple
`
`manager. Id. at 6:20-22. A connection calculator 320 processes data in the
`
`neighbor data database 310 to create a third list of tuples. Id. at 6:24-26. The third
`
`list includes refined tuple data and is stored in a reduced topology relation.ships
`
`database 330. Loc. cit. The topology converter 340 receives the third list and
`
`compares it with the first list and updates the topology stored in the topology
`
`database 350. Id. at 6:26-29.
`
`52.
`
`The process is illustrated in Fig. 8, which shows a flow chart of the
`
`method used by the system described in the ’41l patent to retrieve and update the
`
`topology of the network. Fig. 8 is reproduced below.
`
`952
`
`um GATHERING
`PI-EASE
`
`
`
`
`
`rum BUILDING rum REDUCFION
`mass
`PHASE
`
`906
`
`993
`
`TOPOLOGY
`savanna PHASE
`
`I
`
`
`
`V
`
`99:;
`
`
`
`FIG. 8
`
`-18-
`
`

`

`Declaration of Dr. Michael Shamos
`
`Case No. 1PR2015-00717
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,027,411
`
`B.
`
`First List (List of Existing Tuples from an Existing Topology) and
`
`Second List (New List of a Plurality of Tuples for a Topology of the Network
`
`at a Current Time)
`
`53. More specifically, the topology converter 340 retrieves node
`
`information of the topology currently stored in the topology database 350 and
`
`converts the topology into a list of existing tuples (first list). Id. at Abstract; 3:10-
`
`12; 11:14-21. The tuple manager 300 gathers data representing network nodes at a
`
`current time and builds tuples that represent nodal connections of the network at a
`
`current time. Id. 6: 16-19 (“A tuple manager 300, also referred to as a data miner
`
`300, gathers 902 data from network nodes and builds 904 tuples to update the
`
`current topology.”)
`
`54.
`
`The tuple manager 300 gathers the data by accessing forwarding
`
`tables and other sources of information about the nodes to determine, e.g., their
`
`physical address, interface information, and the port from which they “hear” other
`
`devices. Based on this information, the tuple ma