IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`Smethurst et al.
`In re Patent of:
`U.S. Patent No.: 7,224,668
`Issue Date:
`May 29, 2007 Atty Docket No.: 40963-0006IP1
`Appl. Serial No.: 10/307,154
`
` PTAB Dkt. No.: IPR2015-00974
`Filing Date:
`Nov. 27, 2002
`Title:
`CONTROL PLANE SECURITY AND TRAFFIC FLOW
`MANAGEMENT
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Mail Stop Patent Board
`Patent Trial and Appeal Board
`U.S. Patent and Trademark Office
`P.O. Box 1450
`Alexandria, VA 22313-1450
`
`
`
`
`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW OF UNITED STATES PATENT
`NO. 7,224,668 PURSUANT TO 35 U.S.C. §§ 311–319, 37 C.F.R. § 42
`
`
`
`

`
`Attorney Docket No. 40963-0006IP1
`PTAB Dkt. No.: IPR2015-00974
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`
`I. MANDATORY NOTICES UNDER 37 C.F.R § 42.8(a)(1) ............................. 1
`A. Real Party-In-Interest Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(1) .................................... 1
`B. Related Matters Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(2) ............................................. 1
`C. Lead And Back-Up Counsel and Service Information ................................. 1
`II. PAYMENT OF FEES — 37 C.F.R. § 42.103 ................................................... 2
`III. REQUIREMENTS FOR IPR UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.104 ............................. 2
`A. Grounds for Standing Under § 42.104(a) ...................................................... 2
`B. Challenge Under § 42.104(b) and Relief Requested ..................................... 2
`IV. SUMMARY OF THE ’668 PATENT .............................................................. 4
`A. Brief Description ........................................................................................... 4
`B. Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art as of the Critical Date ............................. 7
`V. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION ............................................................................... 8
`A-1. “specific, predetermined physical ports” ................................................ 9
`A-2. “means for configuring a plurality of physical network interface ports”
`(cl. 37) .............................................................................................................. 10
`A-3. “means for executing port services on packets entering and exiting the
`physical network interface ports” (cl. 37) ........................................................ 11
`A-4. “means for executing a plurality of control plane processes” (cl. 37) .. 11
`A-5. “means for accessing the collection of control plane processes as a
`control plane port entity” (cl. 37) ..................................................................... 11
`A-6. “means for operating on packets received from specific, predetermined
`physical ports and destined to the collection of control plane processes in a
`way that is independent of the individual physical port interface configuration
`and port services applied thereto” (cl. 37) ....................................................... 12
`A-7. “means for processing packets originating at a plurality of physical
`ports, said means further comprising: means for passing packets through the
`control plane port, rather than directly from the physical ports to individual
`control plane processes” (cl. 38) ...................................................................... 12
`A-8. “means for applying distributed control plane port services only to the
`packets received from the specific, pre-determined physical ports” (cl. 43) .. 13
`
`i
`
`

`
`Attorney Docket No. 40963-0006IP1
`PTAB Dkt. No.: IPR2015-00974
`A-9. “means for applying port services to the control plane port additionally
`comprises means for applying services selected from a group consisting of
`Quality of Service functions, packet classification, packet marking, packet
`queuing, packet rate limiting, flow control, and other access policies for
`packets destined to the control plane port” (cl. 53) ......................................... 13
`A-10.
`“means for configuring the control plane port services as an entity
`separate from physical port services” (cl. 54) ................................................. 14
`VI. MANNER OF APPLYING CITED PRIOR ART TO EVERY CLAIM FOR
`WHICH IPR IS REQUESTED, THUS ESTABLISHING A REASONABLE
`LIKELIHOOD THAT AT LEAST ONE CLAIM OF THE ’668 PATENT IS
`UNPATENTABLE .................................................................................................. 15
`A.
`[Ground 1A] — Claims 1-6, 8, 9, 15-22, 24-27, 33-40, 42, 45-47, 51-58,
`60-63, and 69-72 are anticipated by Amara under 35 U.S.C. § 102 .................... 15
`B.
`[Ground 2A] — Claims 7, 23, 41, 59 are obvious over Amara in view of
`Moberg under 35 U.S.C. § 103 ............................................................................ 38
`C.
`[Ground 3A] — Claims 10, 12, 13, 28, 30, 31, 43, 48, 49, 64, 66, and 67
`are obvious over Amara in view of Subramanian under 35 U.S.C. § 103 .......... 40
`D.
`[Ground 4A] — Claims 10, 12, 13, 28, 30, 31, 43, 48, 49, 64, 66, and 67
`are obvious over Amara in view of Hendel under 35 U.S.C. § 103 .................... 50
`E.
`[Grounds 1B, 2B, 3B, and 4B] — All Challenged Claims ......................... 58
`VII. CONCLUSION ........................................................................................... 60
`
`
`ii
`
`

`
`Attorney Docket No. 40963-0006IP1
`PTAB Dkt. No.: IPR2015-00974
`
`EXHIBITS
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,224,668 to Smethurst et al. (“the ’668
`Patent”)
`
`Declaration of Dr. Bill Lin
`
`Curriculum Vitae of Dr. Bill Lin
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,674,743 (“Amara”)
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,460,146 (“Moberg”)
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,970,943 (“Subramanian”)
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,115,378 (“Hendel”)
`
`IETF RFC 2661, “Layer Two Tunneling Protocol
`‘L2TP’” (“IETF RFC 2661”)
`
`IETF RFC 792, “Internet Control Message Protocol”
`(“IETF RFC 792”)
`
`Joe Habraken, Practical Cisco Routers, QUE
`Corporation, 1999 (“Habraken”)
`
`
`
`
`
`ARISTA-1001
`
`ARISTA-1002
`
`ARISTA-1003
`
`ARISTA-1004
`
`ARISTA-1005
`
`ARISTA-1006
`
`ARISTA-1007
`
`ARISTA-1008
`
`ARISTA-1009
`
`ARISTA-1010
`
`
`
`
`
`
`iii
`
`

`
`Attorney Docket No. 40963-0006IP1
`PTAB Dkt. No.: IPR2015-00974
`Arista Networks, Inc. (“Petitioner” or “Arista”) petitions for Inter Partes
`
`Review (“IPR”) under 35 U.S.C. §§ 311–319 and 37 C.F.R. § 42 of claims 1-10,
`
`12, 13, 15-28, 30, 31, 33-43, 45-49, 51-64, 66, 67, and 69-72 (“the Challenged
`
`Claims”) of U.S. Patent No. 7,224,668 (“the ’668 Patent”). As explained below,
`
`there exists a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner will prevail in demonstrating
`
`unpatentability of the Challenged Claims.
`
`I. MANDATORY NOTICES UNDER 37 C.F.R § 42.8(a)(1)
`A. Real Party-In-Interest Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(1)
`
`Arista Networks, Inc. is the real party-in-interest.
`
`B. Related Matters Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(2)
`
`Petitioner is not aware of any disclaimers, certificates or petitions for inter
`
`partes review for the ’668 Patent. The ’668 Patent is the subject of Civil Action
`
`No. 4:14-cv-5343-JSW, filed December 5, 2014 in the Northern District of
`
`California, and International Trade Commission Investigation No. 337-TA-945,
`
`instituted on January 20, 2015.
`
`C. Lead And Back-Up Counsel and Service Information
`
`Petitioner designates W. Karl Renner, Reg. No. 41,265, as Lead Counsel,
`
`and Kevin E. Greene, Reg. No. 46,031, as Backup Counsel, both available at 3200
`
`RBC Plaza, 60 South Sixth Street, Minneapolis, MN 55402 (T: 202-783-5070; F:
`
`202-783-2331), or electronically by email at IPR40963-0006IP1@fr.com.
`
`1
`
`
`

`
`Attorney Docket No. 40963-0006IP1
`PTAB Dkt. No.: IPR2015-00974
`PAYMENT OF FEES — 37 C.F.R. § 42.103
`
`II.
`Petitioner authorizes the Patent and Trademark Office to charge Deposit
`
`Account No. 06-1050 for the fee set in 37 C.F.R. § 42.15(a) for this Petition and
`
`further authorizes for any additional fees to be charged to this Deposit Account.
`
`III. REQUIREMENTS FOR IPR UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.104
`A. Grounds for Standing Under § 42.104(a)
`
`Petitioner certifies that the ’668 Patent is available for IPR. Petitioner was
`
`served with a complaint alleging infringement of the ’668 Patent on December 9,
`
`2014. The petition is being filed within one year of service of Petitioner. Petitioner
`
`is not barred or estopped from requesting this review on the below-identified
`
`grounds.
`
`B. Challenge Under § 42.104(b) and Relief Requested
`
`Petitioner requests IPR of the Challenged Claims on the grounds set forth in
`
`the table below, and requests that the Challenged Claims be found unpatentable.
`
`An explanation of unpatentability is provided, indicating where each element is
`
`found in the prior art. Additional explanation and support for each ground is set
`
`forth in Ex. 1002, Declaration of Dr. Bill Lin.
`
`In the “A” grounds, the Petitioner demonstrates that the Challenged Claims
`
`are unpatentable based on Amara or combinations involving Amara. In doing so,
`
`the Petitioner uses expert testimony, corroborated by disclosure in, e.g., Habraken,
`
`to demonstrate that a POSITA would recognize certain features are implicitly or
`2
`
`
`

`
`Attorney Docket No. 40963-0006IP1
`PTAB Dkt. No.: IPR2015-00974
`inherently disclosed by Amara. The Patent Owner may nevertheless contend those
`
`features are not disclosed. The “B” grounds propose obviousness for those
`
`features that, even though a POSITA would recognize their existence in Amara,
`
`the Patent Owner may nevertheless argue are not disclosed. Institution of both the
`
`“A” and “B” grounds will ensure consideration of the prior art fully on the
`
`merits. Meanwhile, the amount of additional work required by institution of both is
`
`minimal, such that the one-year Congressional mandate would be easily observed
`
`despite institution of both.
`
`Ground
`1A
`
`1B
`
`2A
`
`2B
`
`3A
`
`3B
`
`4A
`
`4B
`
`‘668 Patent Claims
`1-6, 8, 9, 15-22, 24-27, 33-40,
`42, 45-47, 51-58, 60-63, 69-72
`1-6, 8, 9, 15-22, 24-27, 33-40,
`42, 45-47, 51-58, 60-63, 69-72
`7, 23, 41, 59
`
`7, 23, 41, 59
`
`10, 12, 13, 28, 30, 31, 43, 48,
`49, 64, 66, 67
`10, 12, 13, 28, 30, 31, 43, 48,
`49, 64, 66, 67
`10, 12, 13, 28, 30, 31, 43, 48,
`49, 64, 66, 67
`10, 12, 13, 28, 30, 31, 43, 48,
`49, 64, 66, 67
`
`Basis for Rejection
`Amara - 35 U.S.C. § 102
`
`Amara, Habraken - 35 U.S.C. §
`103
`Amara, Moberg - 35 U.S.C. §
`103
`Amara, Moberg, Habraken - 35
`U.S.C. § 103
`Amara, Subramanian - 35
`U.S.C. § 103
`Amara, Subramanian,
`Habraken - 35 U.S.C. § 103
`Amara, Hendel - 35 U.S.C. §
`103
`Amara, Hendel, Habraken - 35
`U.S.C. § 103
`
`3
`
`
`

`
`Attorney Docket No. 40963-0006IP1
`PTAB Dkt. No.: IPR2015-00974
`The ’668 Patent issued from U.S. application number 10/307,154, which
`
`was filed on November 27, 2002. Because the ’668 Patent does not include a
`
`priority claim, the filing date of November 27, 2002 (hereinafter the “Critical
`
`Date”) is the earliest possible priority date to which this patent is entitled.
`
`Amara (ARISTA-1004), Moberg (ARISTA-1005), and Subramanian
`
`(ARISTA-1006) were filed before but issued/published after the Critical Date and
`
`thus are prior art under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e). Hendel (ARISTA-1007) and Habraken
`
`(ARISTA-1010) each issued/published more than a year before the Critical Date
`
`and thus each qualifies as prior art under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b).
`
`IV. SUMMARY OF THE ’668 PATENT
`A. Brief Description
`
`The ’668 Patent describes an internetworking device, such as a router, that
`
`routes packets received at the device towards their destination. A device 100 of the
`
`’668 Patent is illustrated in Figure 1:
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`

`
`Attorney Docket No. 40963-0006IP1
`PTAB Dkt. No.: IPR2015-00974
`Device 100 includes two logical components: a data plane 135 and a control
`
`plane 150. Ex. 1001, 3:22-34; 5:5-21. The data plane 135 is composed of physical
`
`interface ports 120, line cards 110, and a central switch engine 130. Id. at 5:5-9.
`
`The data plane 135 passes along, or “forwards,” packets received at the port
`
`interfaces 120 toward their ultimate destination. Id. at 1:54-56; 3:23-26; 5:8-9. The
`
`control plane 150 is “a collection of processes” 155 and is responsible for higher
`
`layer functions of the device, such as control and configuration of device 100. Id.
`
`at 1:56-59; 3:26-31; 4:58-61; 5:10-23.
`
`Device 100 applies port services to packets passing through device 100. Id.
`
`at 6:1-44; 6:67-7:14. Port services are a set of policies or rules that are applied to
`
`the packets. Id. at 4:3-8; 6:4-7; 6:24-27; 9:1-4. Port services may include Quality
`
`of Service processing or packet rate-limiting. Id. at 4:6-8; 6:4-23. For example,
`
`“one policy may be to rate limit Telnet SYN packets to a specific rate that is a
`
`tolerable rate determined through a specific hardware configuration.” Id. at 4:6-8.
`
`Port services may be defined using class maps, policy maps, or access control lists.
`
`Id. at 7:19-20; 7:46-47.
`
`Device 100 applies different port services to different packet types. Id. at
`
`3:56-58; 6:16-18; 6:41-43. Some of the packets received by the internetworking
`
`device are “normal transit packet[s],” which are destined for other devices
`
`connected to the internetworking device. Id. at 7:3-8. Other packets, however, are
`
`5
`
`
`

`
`Attorney Docket No. 40963-0006IP1
`PTAB Dkt. No.: IPR2015-00974
`“control plane packets,” which are packets destined for the control plane so that the
`
`control plane can provide control and configuration of the internetworking device.
`
`Id. at 6:57-63; 5:56-58; 7:8-14.
`
`Device 100 includes “normal input and output port services” that are applied
`
`to normal transit packets. Id. at 6:41-43. Device 100 also includes control plane
`
`port services that are specifically for control plane packets. Id. at 7:5-14; 9:1-6.
`
`These control plane port services are applied to only packets destined to the control
`
`plane and not to normal transit packets that are forwarded out of the device. See,
`
`e.g., id. at 3:56-58; 6:16-18; 6:41-43; 7:5-14.
`
`To this end, device 100 includes the control plane port services 145 and a
`
`control plane port 140. The control plane port 140 “may or may not be a single
`
`physical port.” Id. 5:1-2. “For example, it may be a virtual address through which
`
`packets travel or are routed from the data plane 135 to the control plane 150.” Id. at
`
`5:2-4. The packets bound for the control plane 150 are routed through the control
`
`plane port 140. Id. at 7:5-12; 9:1-6. The control plane port services 145 are applied
`
`to only those packets routed through the control plane port 140. Id. at 6:16-18.
`
`During operation, a packet enters device 100 through one of the interface
`
`ports 120. Id. at 4:53-56. The associated “line card [110] detects [the] packet and
`
`delivers it to the central switch engine 130,” which makes a routing decision. Id. at
`
`6:66-7:4. “In the case of a normal transit packet, the packet would be routed to a
`
`6
`
`
`

`
`Attorney Docket No. 40963-0006IP1
`PTAB Dkt. No.: IPR2015-00974
`destination port 120 on an associated line card 110” and the control plane port
`
`services 145 are not applied to the packet. Id. at 7:5-7. “If, however, the packet is
`
`destined for a known control plane 150 address, or to an address not on a
`
`forwarding table 160, the packet is tagged as being destined to [the] control plane
`
`port.” Id. at 7:8-11. “The packet is then routed through the aggregate control plane
`
`port 140” and the “aggregate control plane port services [145 are applied to] the
`
`packet.” Id. 7:11-14. Because the “control plane port services” are applied to only
`
`packets passing through the control plane port, these services are applied to only
`
`control plane packets and not to normal transit packets forwarded out of the device.
`
`See, e.g., id. at 3:56-58; 6:16-18; 6:41-43; 7:5-14.
`
`B.
`
`Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art as of the Critical Date
`
`A person of ordinary skill in the art as of the Critical Date of the ’668 Patent
`
`(hereinafter a “POSITA”) would have had a Masters of Science Degree (or a
`
`similar technical Masters Degree, or higher degree) in an academic area
`
`emphasizing computer networking or, alternatively, a Bachelor Degree (or higher
`
`degree) in an academic area emphasizing the design of electrical, computer, or
`
`software engineering and having several years of experience in computer network
`
`engineering and the design of computer networks. Additional education in a
`
`relevant field, such as computer science, computer engineering, or electrical
`
`engineering, or industry experience may compensate for a deficit in one of the
`
`7
`
`
`

`
`Attorney Docket No. 40963-0006IP1
`PTAB Dkt. No.: IPR2015-00974
`other aspects of the requirements stated above. Unless noted otherwise in this
`
`Petition, references to what would have been known or understood by a POSITA
`
`refers to the knowledge of a POSITA as of the Critical Date, or before.
`
`V. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
`A claim subject to IPR is given its “broadest reasonable construction in light
`
`of the specification of the patent in which it appears.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b). For
`
`this proceeding only, Petitioner submits constructions for the following terms. All
`
`remaining terms should be given their broadest reasonable meaning.1
`
`
`
` 1
`
` Petitioner’s claim construction proposals are for the sole purpose of determining
`
`whether the prior art anticipates or renders obvious the Challenged Claims. Neither
`
`by making these proposals, nor by analyzing the cited art, does Petitioner concede
`
`that any Challenged Claim meets statutory standards for patent claiming. Petitioner
`
`recognizes that IPR is not an appropriate forum to address certain issues, such as
`
`failure to comply with 35 U.S.C. § 112, and, therefore reserves all rights to contend
`
`that one or more Challenged Claims are invalid for reasons out of scope for IPR,
`
`including but not limited to lack of definiteness under § 112, ¶ 2 and lack of
`
`written description under § 112, ¶ 1. The presence of definiteness and description
`
`problems in the Challenged Claims is no bar to IPR in appropriate circumstances;
`
`8
`
`
`
`
`

`
`Attorney Docket No. 40963-0006IP1
`PTAB Dkt. No.: IPR2015-00974
`
`A-1.
`
`“specific, predetermined physical ports”
`
`Under the broadest reasonable interpretation standard, this term should be
`
`construed broadly enough to encompass all of the ports of the internetworking
`
`device, rather than being limited to a subset of the ports. The ’668 Patent does not
`
`provide an explicit definition for the term “specific, predetermined physical ports.”
`
`Under a broadest reasonable interpretation, the terms “specific” and
`
`“predetermined” are themselves not necessarily limited to a subset of items. As a
`
`result, applying the broadest reasonable interpretation standard, the terms
`
`“specific” and “predetermined” do not limit the “physical ports” to a subset of less
`
`than all physical ports.
`
`The dependent claims are instructive on this point. Claim 8 (dependent on
`
`claim 1) specifies that the “control plane port services” are implemented as “an
`
`aggregate control plane function,” which is apparently related to a case in which
`
`control plane port services are applied to all of the ports of the device. Ex. 1001,
`
`4:24-25; 6:48-61 (“The central, aggregate control plane services 145 provide a
`
`
`
`the Board may set aside such issues when reviewing claims under §§ 102 and 103.
`
`E.g., Vibrant Media, Inc. v. Gen’l Elec. Co., IPR2013-00172, 2014 WL 3749773,
`
`at *6–7 (Patent Tr. & App. Bd. July 28, 2014).
`
`9
`
`
`

`
`Attorney Docket No. 40963-0006IP1
`PTAB Dkt. No.: IPR2015-00974
`level of service (or control) for all packets received from any port on the device
`
`100”). Since claim 8 is dependent on claim 1 and therefore should be encompassed
`
`by claim 1, the term “specific, predetermined physical ports” under the broadest
`
`reasonable interpretation should have a construction that can encompass all of the
`
`ports so as to include the scenario of claim 8. Accordingly, under the broadest
`
`reasonable interpretation standard, the term “specific, predetermined physical
`
`ports” should be construed broadly enough to encompass all of the ports of the
`
`internetworking device.
`
`The following limitations are subject to 35 U.S.C. § 112, ¶ 6:
`
`A-2.
`“means for configuring a plurality of physical network interface
`ports” (cl. 37)
`
`The recited function is “configuring a plurality of physical network interface
`
`ports.” The ’668 Patent does not clearly link sufficient structure to this function.
`
`Claim 37 states that “the ports [are] configurable by control plane processes.”
`
`According to the ’668 Patent, these “control plane 150 processes could be
`
`implemented as software at any level of a system.” Ex. 1001, 4:62-64. A software-
`
`implemented means-plus-function element is indefinite unless the specification
`
`discloses the specific algorithm used to perform the recited function. Function
`
`Media, LLC v. Google, Inc., 708 F.3d 1310, 1318 (Fed. Cir. 2013). The ’668 Patent
`
`does not disclose a specific algorithm for “configuring a plurality of physical
`
`network interface ports.”
`
`10
`
`
`

`
`Attorney Docket No. 40963-0006IP1
`PTAB Dkt. No.: IPR2015-00974
`While means-plus-function claims lacking corresponding structure are
`
`invalid under 35 U.S.C. § 112, ¶ 2, special circumstances may permit the Board to
`
`nevertheless review claims for patentability under sections 102 and 103, while
`
`setting aside definiteness contentions. E.g., Vibrant Media, Inc. v. Gen’l Elec. Co.,
`
`IPR2013-00172, 2014 WL 3749773, at *6–7 (Patent Tr. & App. Bd. July 28,
`
`2014). Under Vibrant Media, for the purposes of assessing anticipation and
`
`obviousness in this proceeding, control plane processes should be considered the
`
`closest potentially corresponding structure. Ex. 1001, 5:18-23.
`
`A-3.
`“means for executing port services on packets entering and exiting the
`physical network interface ports” (cl. 37)
`
`The recited function is “executing port services on packets entering and
`
`exiting the physical network interface ports.” To the extent the ’668 Patent
`
`discloses corresponding structure, that structure is a switch engine. Ex. 1001, Figs.
`
`4 & 6, 6:67-7:2, 8:7-9.
`
`A-4.
`
`“means for executing a plurality of control plane processes” (cl. 37)
`
`The recited function is “executing a plurality of control plane processes.” To
`
`the extent the ’668 Patent discloses corresponding structure, that structure is a
`
`processor. Ex. 1001, 4:58-60, 4:62-64, 5:21-23.
`
`A-5.
`“means for accessing the collection of control plane processes as a
`control plane port entity” (cl. 37)
`
`The recited function is “accessing the collection of control plane processes
`
`as a control plane port entity.” To the extent the ’668 Patent discloses
`11
`
`
`

`
`Attorney Docket No. 40963-0006IP1
`PTAB Dkt. No.: IPR2015-00974
`corresponding structure, that structure is a control plane port. Ex. 1001, 3:48-50,
`
`4:65-5:4, 8:52-54.
`
`A-6.
`“means for operating on packets received from specific,
`predetermined physical ports and destined to the collection of control plane
`processes in a way that is independent of the individual physical port
`interface configuration and port services applied thereto” (cl. 37)
`
`The recited function is “operating on packets received from specific,
`
`predetermined physical ports and destined to the collection of control plane
`
`processes in a way that is independent of the individual physical port interface
`
`configuration and port services applied thereto.” To the extent the ’668 Patent
`
`discloses corresponding structure, that structure is a switch engine. Ex. 1001, Figs.
`
`4 & 6, 8:12-15.
`
`A-7.
`“means for processing packets originating at a plurality of physical
`ports, said means further comprising: means for passing packets through the
`control plane port, rather than directly from the physical ports to individual
`control plane processes” (cl. 38)
`
`This limitation recites two functions: (1) “processing packets originating at a
`
`plurality of physical ports” and (2) “passing packets through the control plane port,
`
`rather than directly from the physical ports to individual control plane processes.”
`
`The claim further specifies that “the control plane port additionally comprises” the
`
`means for processing packets. The ’668 Patent fails to disclose structure for these
`
`functions. The ’668 Patent does not disclose any structure for the control plane
`
`port, much less any structure that is part of the control plane port that processes
`
`12
`
`
`

`
`Attorney Docket No. 40963-0006IP1
`PTAB Dkt. No.: IPR2015-00974
`packets or that passes packets through the control plane port. While means-plus-
`
`function claims lacking corresponding structure are invalid under 35 U.S.C. § 112,
`
`¶ 2, if the apparent indefiniteness of claim 38 is set aside under Vibrant Media for
`
`the purposes of assessing anticipation and obviousness in this proceeding, a switch
`
`engine should be considered the closest potentially corresponding structure. See
`
`infra A-2; Ex. 1001, 6:65-7:12, 8:20-24.
`
`A-8.
`“means for applying distributed control plane port services only to the
`packets received from the specific, pre-determined physical ports” (cl. 43)
`
`The recited function is “applying distributed control plane port services only
`
`to the packets received from the specific, pre-determined physical ports.” To the
`
`extent the ’668 Patent discloses corresponding structure, that structure is a switch
`
`engine. Ex. 1001, Fig. 6, 8:12-15.
`
`A-9.
`“means for applying port services to the control plane port
`additionally comprises means for applying services selected from a group
`consisting of Quality of Service functions, packet classification, packet
`marking, packet queuing, packet rate limiting, flow control, and other access
`policies for packets destined to the control plane port” (cl. 53)
`
`This limitation recites two functions: (1) “applying port services to the
`
`control plane port” and (2) “applying services selected from a group consisting of
`
`Quality of Service functions, packet classification, packet marking, packet
`
`queuing, packet rate limiting, flow control, and other access policies for packets
`
`destined to the control plane port.” To the extent the ’668 Patent discloses
`
`13
`
`
`

`
`Attorney Docket No. 40963-0006IP1
`PTAB Dkt. No.: IPR2015-00974
`corresponding structure, that structure is a switch engine. Ex. 1001, Figures 4 & 6,
`
`8:12-15.
`
`A-10.
`“means for configuring the control plane port services as an entity
`separate from physical port services” (cl. 54)
`
`The recited function is “configuring the control plane port services as an
`
`entity separate from physical port services.” To the extent the ’668 Patent discloses
`
`corresponding structure, that structure is a control plane. Ex. 1001, 5:10-17.
`
`However, the control plane is a collection of processes and, according to the ’668
`
`Patent, these “control plane 150 processes could be implemented as software at any
`
`level of a system.” Infra, A-2; Ex. 1001, 4:58-64. The ’668 Patent does not
`
`disclose a specific algorithm for “configuring the control plane port services as an
`
`entity separate from physical port services,” as required for a software
`
`implemented means-plus-function element. Infra, A-2. While means-plus-function
`
`claims lacking corresponding structure are invalid under 35 U.S.C. § 112, ¶ 2, if
`
`the apparent indefiniteness of claim 54 is put aside under Vibrant Media for the
`
`purposes of assessing anticipation and obviousness in this proceeding, control
`
`plane processes should be considered the closest potentially corresponding
`
`structure. See infra A-2; Ex. 1001, 5:10-17.
`
`14
`
`
`

`
`Attorney Docket No. 40963-0006IP1
`PTAB Dkt. No.: IPR2015-00974
`VI. MANNER OF APPLYING CITED PRIOR ART TO EVERY
`CLAIM FOR WHICH IPR IS REQUESTED, THUS ESTABLISHING A
`REASONABLE LIKELIHOOD THAT AT LEAST ONE CLAIM OF THE
`’668 PATENT IS UNPATENTABLE
`
`As detailed below, this request shows a reasonable likelihood that the
`
`Requester will prevail with respect to the Challenged Claims of the ’668 Patent.
`
`A.
`[Ground 1A] — Claims 1-6, 8, 9, 15-22, 24-27, 33-40, 42, 45-
`47, 51-58, 60-63, and 69-72 are anticipated by Amara under 35
`U.S.C. § 102
`
`Overview of Amara
`
`Amara describes a packet-forwarding device, such as a router, that routes
`
`packets received at the device towards their destination. Ex. 1004, 1:9-21, 4:15-21;
`
`Ex. 1002, ¶¶ 32-36. A device 200 of Amara is illustrated in Figure 3:
`
`
`
`Device 200 includes physical interface ports 202-06, packet classifiers 214-
`
`18, and a packet forwarder 222. Id. at Fig. 3; 5:53-62. The physical interface ports
`
`202-06 “are able to transmit packets to and to receive packets from nodes [208-
`
`12],” which may be “either hosts or packet-forwarding devices, such as routers,
`
`15
`
`
`

`
`Attorney Docket No. 40963-0006IP1
`PTAB Dkt. No.: IPR2015-00974
`that are connected to device [200] via digital networks.” Id. at 4:17-22. The packet
`
`classifiers 214-18 and packet forwarder 222 operate together to pass along, or
`
`“forward,” packets received at the interface ports 202-06 toward their ultimate
`
`destination. Id. at 5:58-62.
`
`Device 200 also includes internal applications 230 that run on device 200.
`
`The internal applications “serve to control or configure [the] device [200].” Id. at
`
`4:34-35. The internal applications “communicate with other devices remote to
`
`device 100, through the use of protocols such as PPTP, L2TP, SNMP or Telnet.”
`
`Id. at 4:36-43.
`
`Device 200 further includes policy engines 224-28 and 232. Id. at Fig. 3.
`
`The policy engines 224-28 and 232 apply policies to packets passing through
`
`device 200. Id. at 6:9-14. In general, the policies “encompass any disposition of
`
`packets that involves more than simply routing them based on their destination
`
`addresses.” Id. at 1:34-36. For example, the policies may include “dropping
`
`[selected] packet[s], logging [selected] packet[s], encrypting or decrypting
`
`[selecting] packet[s], performing network address translation and/or port address
`
`translation on [selected] packet[s], and prioritizing [selected] packet[s] for QoS.”
`
`Id. at 1:36-38; 5:16-21.
`
`Device 200 applies different policies to different packet types. Ex. 1002, ¶
`
`37. Some of the packets received by device 200 are “external packets.” Ex. 1004,
`
`16
`
`
`

`
`Attorney Docket No. 40963-0006IP1
`PTAB Dkt. No.: IPR2015-00974
`4:44-48, 4:61-63; Ex. 1002, ¶ 38. The “external packets” are those that are destined
`
`for devices other than device 200. Ex. 1004, 4:44-48, 4:61-63. In contrast, some of
`
`the received packets are “internally-destined packets.” Ex. 1004, 4:59-61, 5:5-6;
`
`Ex. 1002, ¶ 38. The “internally-destined packets” are those packets that are
`
`destined for internal applications 230. Ex. 1004, 4:59-61, 5:5-6.
`
`The policy engines 224-28 execute and “apply policies to external packets.”
`
`Id. at 6:12-13. On the other hand, policy engine 232 executes and applies policies
`
`to the internally-destined packets. Id. at 6:9-12. Notably, policy engine 232 “does
`
`not apply [its] policies to the external packets” and, instead, “[applies its policies]
`
`only to internal packets.” Id. at 5:34-35; 5:43-44; 5:51-53.
`
`To this end, device 200 also includes an internal interface 220. Id. at 5:59-
`
`60. The internal interface 220 may be “a pseudo interface implemented by
`
`software, rather than a physical interface.” Id. at 4:67 to 5:2. The internally-
`
`destined packets (but not the external packets) received on interface ports 202-06
`
`are routed through the internal interface 220, which then forwards the internally-
`
`destined packets to policy engine 232. Id. at 5:63-67; Ex. 1002, ¶ 40. Because only
`
`internally-destined packets are routed through the internal interface 220 to policy
`
`engine 232, policy engine 232 applies its policies to only the internally-destined
`
`packets but not to the external packets. Ex. 1004, 5:33-35; 6:9-16; Ex. 1002, ¶ 40.
`
`17
`
`
`

`
`Attorney Docket No. 40963-0006IP1
`PTAB Dkt. No.: IPR2015-00974
`Accordingly, during operation, packets enter device 200 through one of
`
`interface ports 202-208, and are passed to a corresponding packet classifier 214-18.
`
`Ex. 1004, 4:55-59; 5:53-58. Packet classifiers 214-18 classify the packets “as
`
`either internally-destined packets or external packets.” Id. at 4:56-59.
`
`If the packet classifiers determine the packet is an external packet, the packet
`
`classifiers 214-18 “forward the external packets to packet forwarder 222,” which
`
`“provides a routing functionality by determining to which of interfaces [202-06] to
`
`forward each packet.” Id. at 5:28-31; 5:60-