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
`Appl. Serial No.: 10/307,154
`Filing Date:
`Nov. 27, 2002
`Title:
`CONTROL PLANE SECURITY AND TRAFFIC FLOW
`MANAGEMENT
`
`Atty Docket No.: 40963-0006IP2
`PTAB Dkt. No.: IPR2015-01710
`
`
`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. 40963-0006IP2
`PTAB Dkt. No.: IPR2015-01710
`
`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 .............................................................. 3
`A. Brief Description ........................................................................................... 3
`B. Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art as of the Critical Date ............................. 6
`V. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION ............................................................................... 7
`A-1. “specific, predetermined physical ports” ................................................ 8
`A-2. “means for configuring a plurality of physical network interface ports”
`(cl. 37) ................................................................................................................ 9
`A-3. “means for executing port services on packets entering and exiting the
`physical network interface ports” (cl. 37) ........................................................ 10
`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) ....................................................... 11
`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) ...................................................................... 11
`A-8. “means for applying distributed control plane port services only to the
`packets received from the specific, pre-determined physical ports” (cl. 43) .. 12
`
`i
`
`

`
`Attorney Docket No. 40963-0006IP2
`PTAB Dkt. No.: IPR2015-01710
`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) ......................................... 12
`A-10.
`“means for configuring the control plane port services as an entity
`separate from physical port services” (cl. 54) ................................................. 13
`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 .................................................................................................. 14
`A.
`[Ground 1] — Claims 1-6, 8, 9, 10, 12, 13, 15-22, 24-27, 28, 30, 31, 33-40,
`42, 43, 45-47, 48, 49, 51-58, 60-63, 64, 66, 67, 69-72 are obvious over Frazier in
`view of Habraken under 35 U.S.C. § 103 ............................................................ 14
`B.
`[Ground 2] — Claims 7, 23, 41, 59 are obvious over Frazier in view of
`Habraken in view of Moberg under 35 U.S.C. § 103 .......................................... 56
`VII. REDUNDANCY ......................................................................................... 60
`VIII. CONCLUSION ........................................................................................... 60
`
`
`ii
`
`

`
`ARISTA-1101
`
`ARISTA-1102
`
`ARISTA-1103
`
`ARISTA-1104
`
`ARISTA-1105
`
`ARISTA-1106
`
`ARISTA-1107
`
`ARISTA-1108
`
`ARISTA-1109
`
`ARISTA-1110
`
`ARISTA-1111
`
`ARISTA-1112
`
`ARISTA-1113
`
`ARISTA-1114
`
`Attorney Docket No. 40963-0006IP2
`PTAB Dkt. No.: IPR2015-01710
`
`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. 6,246,680 (“Frazier”)
`
`Joe Habraken, Practical Cisco Routers, QUE
`Corporation, 1999 (“Habraken”)
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,460,146 (“Moberg”)
`
`European Patent App. Publication No. 1,128,609 A2
`(“Cherian”)
`
`Newton’s Telecom Dictionary, CMP Books, 17th ed.
`2001.
`
`George C. Sackett, Cisco Router Handbook, McGraw-
`Hill, 2000 (“Cisco Router Handbook”)
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,860,999 (“Lavian”)
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,127,526 (“Duncan”)
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,876,654 (“Hegde”)
`
`IETF RFC 792, “Internet Control Message Protocol,”
`retrieved from http://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc792.txt
`(“IETF RFC 792”)
`
`IETF RFC 1812, “Requirements for IP Version 4
`Routers,” retrieved from http://www.rfc-
`editor.org/rfc/rfc1812.txt (“IETF RFC 1812”)
`
`iii
`
`

`
`Attorney Docket No. 40963-0006IP2
`PTAB Dkt. No.: IPR2015-01710
`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)
`
`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.
`
`On April 1, 2015, Petitioner filed a petition for IPR of the ’668 Patent, which
`
`is identified by attorney docket number 40963-0006IP1 and proceeding number
`
`IPR2015-00974. The relationship between the limited grounds presented in the
`
`current and prior petition is discussed in Section VII.
`
`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
`
`1
`
`
`

`
`Attorney Docket No. 40963-0006IP2
`PTAB Dkt. No.: IPR2015-01710
`RBC Plaza, 60 South Sixth Street, Minneapolis, MN 55402 (T: 202-783-5070; F:
`
`202-783-2331), or electronically by email at IPR40963-0006IP2@fr.com.
`
`PAYMENT OF FEES — 37 C.F.R. § 42.103
`
`II.
`The Patent and Trademark Office is authorized to charge Deposit Account
`
`No. 06-1050 for the fee set in 37 C.F.R. § 42.15(a) for this Petition and any
`
`additional fees.
`
`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. 1102, Declaration of Dr. Bill Lin.
`
`Ground
`1
`
`‘668 Patent Claims
`1-6, 8, 9, 10, 12, 13, 15-22,
`2
`
`
`Basis for Rejection
`Frazer, Habraken - 35 U.S.C. §
`
`

`
`Ground
`
`2
`
`‘668 Patent Claims
`24-27, 28, 30, 31, 33-40, 42,
`43, 45-47, 48, 49, 51-58, 60-
`63, 64, 66, 67, 69-72
`7, 23, 41, 59
`
`Attorney Docket No. 40963-0006IP2
`PTAB Dkt. No.: IPR2015-01710
`
`Basis for Rejection
`
`103
`
`Frazer, Habraken, Moberg - 35
`U.S.C. § 103
`
`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.
`
`Frazier (ARISTA-1104) and Habraken (ARISTA-1105) 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). Moberg (ARISTA-1106) was filed before
`
`but issued after the Critical Date and thus is prior art under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e).
`
`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:
`
`3
`
`
`

`
`Attorney Docket No. 40963-0006IP2
`PTAB Dkt. No.: IPR2015-01710
`
`
`
`Device 100 includes two logical components: a data plane 135 and a control
`
`plane 150. Ex. 1101, 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.
`
`4
`
`
`

`
`Attorney Docket No. 40963-0006IP2
`PTAB Dkt. No.: IPR2015-01710
`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
`
`“control plane packets,” which are packets that are destined for the control plane
`
`and that are used by the control plane to control and configure 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. Ex. 1102, ¶ 17. The control plane port 140 “may or may not
`
`be a single physical port.” Id. 5:1-2. “For example, [the control plane port 140]
`
`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
`
`5
`
`
`

`
`Attorney Docket No. 40963-0006IP2
`PTAB Dkt. No.: IPR2015-01710
`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
`
`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
`
`6
`
`
`

`
`Attorney Docket No. 40963-0006IP2
`PTAB Dkt. No.: IPR2015-01710
`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 with 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
`
`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
`
`7
`
`
`
`
`

`
`Attorney Docket No. 40963-0006IP2
`PTAB Dkt. No.: IPR2015-01710
`
`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
`
`
`
`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;
`
`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).
`
`8
`
`
`

`
`Attorney Docket No. 40963-0006IP2
`PTAB Dkt. No.: IPR2015-01710
`“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. 1101,
`
`4:24-25; 6:48-61 (“The central, aggregate control plane services 145 provide a
`
`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.”
`
`9
`
`
`

`
`Attorney Docket No. 40963-0006IP2
`PTAB Dkt. No.: IPR2015-01710
`According to the ’668 Patent, these “control plane 150 processes could be
`
`implemented as software at any level of a system.” Ex. 1101, 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.”
`
`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. 1101, 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. 1101, Figs.
`
`4 & 6, 6:67-7:2, 8:7-9.
`
`10
`
`
`

`
`Attorney Docket No. 40963-0006IP2
`PTAB Dkt. No.: IPR2015-01710
`“means for executing a plurality of control plane processes” (cl. 37)
`
`A-4.
`
`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. 1101, 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
`
`corresponding structure, that structure is a control plane port. Ex. 1101, 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. 1101, 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)
`
`11
`
`
`

`
`Attorney Docket No. 40963-0006IP2
`PTAB Dkt. No.: IPR2015-01710
`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
`
`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. 1101, 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. 1101, 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
`
`12
`
`
`

`
`Attorney Docket No. 40963-0006IP2
`PTAB Dkt. No.: IPR2015-01710
`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
`
`corresponding structure, that structure is a switch engine. Ex. 1101, 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. 1101, 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. 1101, 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
`
`13
`
`
`

`
`Attorney Docket No. 40963-0006IP2
`PTAB Dkt. No.: IPR2015-01710
`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. 1101, 5:10-17.
`
`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 1] — Claims 1-6, 8, 9, 10, 12, 13, 15-22, 24-27, 28,
`30, 31, 33-40, 42, 43, 45-47, 48, 49, 51-58, 60-63, 64, 66, 67, 69-72
`are obvious over Frazier in view of Habraken under 35 U.S.C.
`§ 103
`
`Overview of Frazier
`
`Frazier discloses an internetworking device for packet forwarding and
`
`filtering across a network. Ex. 1104, 1:58-63. A device 101 of Fraizer is illustrated
`
`in Figure 1:
`
`
`
`14
`
`
`

`
`Attorney Docket No. 40963-0006IP2
`PTAB Dkt. No.: IPR2015-01710
`Frazier discloses that the device 101 can be a “high speed Ethernet switch”
`
`or “other types of network devices such as bridges, routers, brouters, and other
`
`network devices.” Id. at 2:41-42, 2:65-67, 3:1-3. In particular, device 101 disclosed
`
`in Frazier represents a “multi-layer distributed network element (MLDNE)” 101,
`
`which “is used to interconnect a number of nodes and end-stations” and “to route
`
`packets according to predefined routing protocols.” Id. at 3:9-13. Particularly,
`
`device 101 “is configured to implement packet routing functions in a distributed
`
`manner.” Id. at 3:25-27.
`
`To that end, device 101, in one embodiment, includes “a number of
`
`subsystems 110,” each of which “includes a switch element 100 coupled to a
`
`forwarding and filtering database 140.” Id. at 3:37-42. These subsystems 110 “are
`
`fully meshed and interconnected using a number of internal links 141.” Id. at 3:37-
`
`39. In an alternative embodiment, device 101 “may comprise a single switch
`
`element 100.” Id. at 4:24-25. A device 101 according to this embodiment includes
`
`a single subsystem 110 with a single switching element 100 and a single
`
`forwarding and filtering database 140. Ex. 1102, ¶ 36.
`
`In either embodiment, the device 101 includes a “central processing system
`
`(CPS) 160 that is coupled to the individual subsystem[s] 110” and that operates at
`
`a higher level above the subsystems. Ex. 1104, 3:59-61. The CPS 160 comprises a
`
`“central processing unit (CPU) 161 coupled to a central memory 163.” Id. at 3:62-
`
`15
`
`
`

`
`Attorney Docket No. 40963-0006IP2
`PTAB Dkt. No.: IPR2015-01710
`64. The “CPU 161 may transmit commands or packets to the network switch
`
`element 100 via the CPU interface 215.” Id. at 4:26-27. Using such commands or
`
`packets, “one or more software processes running on the CPU 161 [can] manage
`
`entries in [the] external forwarding and filtering database 140.” Id. at 4:28-30.
`
`Switch element 100, contained in each subsystem 110 of device 101
`
`comprises “a central processing unit (CPU) interface 215, a switch fabric block
`
`210, a network interface 205, a cascading interface 225, and a shared memory
`
`manager 220.” Id. at 4:7-10. This structure is shown in detail in Figure 2:
`
`
`
`The network interface 205 includes “multiple ports for transmitting and
`
`receiving packets over a network” and operates to “receive Ethernet packets from a
`
`network (not shown) and to transmit Ethernet packets onto the network.” Id. at
`
`1:62-63, 4:13-17.
`
`The switch fabric block 210 “provides forwarding decisions for received
`
`packets.” Id. at 2:3. All of the interfaces 205 and 225 on device 101 “are coupled in
`
`16
`
`
`

`
`Attorney Docket No. 40963-0006IP2
`PTAB Dkt. No.: IPR2015-01710
`communication with the switch fabric [block 210],” which “provides access to the
`
`forwarding and filtering database 140 on behalf of the interfaces.” Id. at 5:6-7; Fig.
`
`2. “Exemplary functions that may be performed by the switch fabric block 210” by
`
`use of the forwarding and filtering database 140 include “Layer 2 and Layer 3
`
`packet forwarding” and “filtering.” Id. at 5:8-11.
`
`Upon receipt of packets, network interface 205 initiates an “input packet
`
`process.” Id. at 4:46-46; 5:48. The input packet process “request[s] forwarding
`
`decisions from the switch fabric 210.” Id. at 5:53-54. The forwarding decision
`
`provided by switch fabric block 210 “indicates the outbound port(s) . . . upon
`
`which the corresponding packet should be transmitted.” Id. at 5:13-16. After the
`
`switch fabric block 210 delivers a forwarding decision to network interface 205,
`
`the input packet process “forward[s] the corresponding packet to the appropriate
`
`OPPs [output packet processes], if any.” Id. at 5:57-58. If the result from the
`
`switch fabric block 210 is that a packet should be filtered, there will be no
`
`corresponding output packet process to which the packet should be forwarded and,
`
`instead, the packet will be dropped. Ex. 1102, ¶ 44.
`
`The CPU 161 connects to the network switch element 100 through the CPU
`
`interface 215. Ex. 1104, 4:27. The CPU interface 215 “allows communication of
`
`packets and commands between the switch fabric and a CPU.” Id. at 2:24-25.
`
`Structurally, the CPU interface 215 “includes a single CPU port.” Id. at 6:36. The
`
`17
`
`
`

`
`Attorney Docket No. 40963-0006IP2
`PTAB Dkt. No.: IPR2015-01710
`architecture of the CPU port “is designed to mirror the network interface ports.” Id.
`
`at 6:46-47. Therefore, although the CPU interface 215 connects the network switch
`
`element 100 to the CPU 161 rather than nodes and end-stations on the network,
`
`“the CPU port of the CPU interface 215 resembles a generic input port into the
`
`switch element 100 and may be treated as if it were simply another external
`
`network interface port.” Id. at 4:34:37. Accordingly, packets originating from and
`
`destined to the software processes running on the CPU 161 pass through the CPU
`
`port of the CPU interface 215. Ex. 1102, ¶ 48.
`
`Overview of Habraken
`
`Habraken provides “a primer on internetworking and the configuration of
`
`Cisco routers.” Ex. 1105, p. 3. To perform its operations, a “router must have
`
`processing power, some sort of storage capacity, and available random access
`
`memor