Inter Partes Review
`United States Patent No. 6,701,344
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`ACTIVISION BLIZZARD, INC.,
`ELECTRONIC ARTS INC.,
`TAKE-TWO INTERACTIVE SOFTWARE, INC.,
`2K SPORTS, INC., ROCKSTAR GAMES, INC., and
`BUNGIE, INC.,
`Petitioners,
`
`v.
`
`ACCELERATION BAY, LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2015-019721
`Patent No. 6,701,344 B1
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Before the Honorable SALLY C. MEDLEY, LYNNE E. PETTIGREW, and WIL-
`LIAM M. FINK, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`
`PETITIONERS’ CONSOLIDATED OPPOSITION TO
`PATENT OWNER’S CONTINGENT MOTION TO AMEND
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1 Bungie, Inc., who filed a Petition in IPR2016-00934, has been joined as a peti-
`
`tioner in this proceeding.
`
`

`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2015-01972
`
`Patent No. 6,701,344 B1
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`I. PO IMPROPERLY SEEKS TO INTRODUCE NEW MATTER
`THROUGH ITS PROPOSED CLAIM CONSTRUCTIONS ............................. 1
`II. PO FAILS TO ADDRESS THE STATE OF THE ART FOR EACH NEW
`LIMITATION .......................................................................................................... 3
`III. PO FAILS TO ESTABLISH PATENTABILITY OVER THE ART .......... 4
`A. Overview of Shoubridge, Lin, DP, and Gautier .............................................. 8
`B. “A dynamic, overlay computer network that overlays an underlying
`network” ............................................................................................................... 11
`C. “[G]aming participants can join and leave the network using the broadcast
`channel” ................................................................................................................ 18
`D. “[E]ach gaming participant being a gaming application program” ............... 20
`E. “[G]aming data includes an action in the game broadcast on the broadcast
`channel” ................................................................................................................ 22
`F. “[T]he underlying network connections are TCP/IP connections” ............... 24
`IV. CONCLUSION ................................................................................................ 25
`
`
`
`
`i
`
`

`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2015-01972
`
`Patent No. 6,701,344 B1
`
`Patent Owner’s (“PO”) Motion (Pap.32, “Mot.”) fails to satisfy PO’s burden
`
`of establishing proposed cls.20-22 (“Claims”) are patentable, and should be denied.
`
`§42.20(c)2; Synopsys v. Mentor Graphics, 814 F.3d 1309, 1323 (Fed. Cir. 2016);
`
`Masterimage, IPR2015-00040, Pap.42, 4. PO fails to (1) establish written descrip-
`
`tion support for the Claims, as interpreted by PO, or propose proper constructions,
`
`(2) provide sufficient information regarding the state of the art for newly added
`
`features, and (3) establish patentability over the prior art.3
`
`I. PO INTRODUCES NEW MATTER THROUGH CONSTRUCTIONS
`Rather than expressly amend, PO seeks to add “application layer” limita-
`
`tions through each construction (Mot.5-9)—presumably recognizing the term lacks
`
`written description support and is new matter violating §112, ¶1, §316(d)(3),
`
`§42.121(a)(2)(ii). PO’s “overlay computer network that overlays an underlying
`
`network” and “dynamic, overlay computer network” constructions require opera-
`
`tion at the “application layer.” Mot.7, 9. PO seeks to limit other terms to the con-
`
`text of application programs (e.g., “gaming participant,” “gaming data,” “connec-
`
`tion”) and/or a logical broadcast channel that overlays an underlying network (e.g.,
`
`2 All section cites herein are to 35 U.S.C. or 37 C.F.R., as the context indicates. All
`
`emphasis added unless otherwise noted.
`
`3 Karger’s second declarations (Exs1124-25) oppose Goodrich’s (Ex2022 and
`
`IPR2015-01970 Ex2022 originally; re-filed as Motion Ex2095 & 94, respectively).
`
`
`
`1
`
`

`
`Case IPR2015-01972
`
`
`Patent No. 6,701,344 B1
`
`
`“broadcast channel,” “game environment”), and interprets them to require “appli-
`
`cation layer” operation. Mot.6, 8, 9, 11. But PO can’t show “support in the original
`
`disclosure… for each claim that is added or amended.” §42.121 (b)(1). ‘334 gives
`
`no indication that the disclosed overlay network is at the application layer (cf.
`
`Mot.7)—nor would POSITA perceive one (Ex1124 ¶269).’344 lacks any discus-
`
`sion of network layers, the OSI layer construct or operation at the “application lay-
`
`er.” Ex1124 ¶269; see Ariad Pharm. v. Eli Lilly, 598 F.3d 1336, 1352 (Fed.Cir.
`
`2010) (“a description that merely renders the invention obvious does not satisfy the
`
`requirement”).4 PO cannot circumvent §42.121(a)(2)(ii) by reading in this limita-
`
`tion.
`
`PO has not shown the named-inventors acted as a lexicographer or disa-
`
`vowed scope. Info-Hold v. Applied Media Techs., 783 F.3d 1262, 1266 (Fed. Cir.
`
`2015). PO’s constructions, which duplicate already recited limitations (e.g., “over-
`
`lays an underlying network” and “a game application program”), are wrong: they
`
`“render other limitations superfluous.” Baby Trend v. Wonderland, IPR2015-
`
`00842, Pap.81, 72-75. The Motion, failing to reasonably construe new limitations,
`
`does not adequately provide information for determining patentability. Id. Alterna-
`
`tively, on this Motion, terms not construed at Institution (Pap.8, 6-8), should re-
`
`4 Named-inventors’ declarations (Exs2024-2025) and the alleged invention disclo-
`
`sure form (Ex2028) are devoid of any discussion of an “application layer.”
`
`
`
`2
`
`

`
`Case IPR2015-01972
`
`
`Patent No. 6,701,344 B1
`
`
`ceive plain and ordinary meaning, e.g.: “game environment” (environment for a
`
`game); “gaming participant” (gaming participant in the network); “gaming data”
`
`(data related to gaming); “connection” (connection between gaming participants);
`
`“overlay computer network that overlays an underlying network” (computer
`
`network that overlays an underlying network); “dynamic, overlay computer net-
`
`work” (overlay computer network that is dynamic); and “broadcast channel”
`
`(channel on the network through which messages are broadcast). Ex1124 ¶271.
`
`II.
`
`PO FAILS TO PROPERLY ADDRESS THE STATE OF THE ART
`
`PO’s Motion should also be denied for failing to provide any information
`
`about whether added features were known, alone or in combination with any other
`
`elements, and, if known, why it would not have been obvious for POSITA to adapt
`
`that knowledge for use with the rest of each claim. Toyota Motor v. Am. Vehicular
`
`Scis. IPR2013-00422, Pap.25, 4. PO, e.g., provides no information on whether
`
`newly added “dynamic, overlay network” and “join[ing] and leav[ing] [a] network
`
`using the broadcast channel” features were known in any setting (e.g., gaming en-
`
`vironments), alone or in combination with other elements. PO also requires that
`
`the claimed network operate at the “application layer” (Mot.22), but gives no indi-
`
`cation whether PO’s interpretation of “application layer” was known. PO’s con-
`
`clusory statement that “the closest material art...is already of record” (Mot.23) is
`
`“not meaningful” for establishing the “technical knowledge pertaining to the fea-
`
`
`
`3
`
`

`
`
`
`ture added.” Toyota at 4-5.
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2015-01972
`Patent No. 6,701,344 B1
`
`III. PO FAILS TO ESTABLISH PATENTABILITY OVER THE ART
`PO has also not established the Claims are patentable over the record art.
`
`Masterimage at 2; Microsoft v. Proxyconn, 789 F.3d 1292, 1307-08 (Fed. Cir.
`
`2015). PO does not even attempt to address all material record art, ignoring Peti-
`
`tioner’s10 references in “Overview of the Technical Field” (Pet.10-12), see Mas-
`
`terimage at 2, both alone and in combination with other record art. Mot.17-23;
`
`Prolitec v. ScentAir Techs., 807 F.3d 1353, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (denying motion
`
`failing to show patentability over combination of record art).
`
`PO’s amendments recite, e.g., an m-regular network formed by applications
`
`that communicate using flooding. The Petition discusses USPN 6,122,277 (Pet.12),
`
`disclosing “flooding” over a 4-regular “torus” network used “in a communications
`
`fabric designed to interconnect many processing elements for parallel work
`
`on…computationally intensive problems,” such as “a distributed database applica-
`
`tion.” Ex1116 13:57-67. PO’s arguments focus on adding an “application layer”
`
`requirement, but ignores ’277’s highly material disclosure of applications com-
`
`municating over its 4-regular network using flooding. E.g., Mot.4, 7, 9; Ex1124
`
`¶264. PO also ignores the obvious implementation choice of applying ’277’s ad-
`
`vantageous “efficient broadcast” in a game environment, in view of POSITA’s
`
`knowledge or when combined with DirectPlay (“DP”)(Ex1103), for the same rea-
`
`
`
`4
`
`

`
`Case IPR2015-01972
`
`
`Patent No. 6,701,344 B1
`
`
`sons Lin’s (Ex1104) teachings would be applied (discussed below). Ex1124 ¶264.
`
`PO also overlooks the obviousness of combining the record art teachings in
`
`Lin and DP to implement Lin’s m-regular network at DP’s application layer—
`
`focusing instead on a “combination” directed to un-amended claims (Mot.20).
`
`PO’s failure to explain why flooding an m-regular network operating at the appli-
`
`cation layer would not have been obvious, especially in light of ‘227’s teachings,
`
`Shoubridge (Ex1105), Lin and DP, is fatal. Masterimage at 2 (“Information about
`
`the added limitation can still be material even if it does not include [all other] limi-
`
`tations.”); Prod. Miniature v. POP Displays, IPR2015-00266, Pap.43, 38-40.
`
`As the Petition (Pet.27-59) and Reply show, original cls.1 and 7-8 are obvi-
`
`ous over Shoubridge. See Inst.13-18. As shown below, they are also obvious over
`
`Lin and/or DP in view of Lin (“DP&Lin”). POSITA would have been motivated to
`
`combine DP and Lin because (1) DP discloses a flexible interface for enabling
`
`multiplayer games to run over any computer network, and Lin discloses one such
`
`network; (2) both address the problem of broadcasting information to multiple
`
`computer network participants; (3) DP teaches the need for, and Lin discloses a
`
`scalable and reliable network topology and broadcast protocol. Ex1145 ¶¶86-91;
`
`IPR2015-01970, Pap.9 (“LinInst.”), 20-22.
`
`Prior Art (see Ex1145 Appendix C; Ex1124 §X)5
`Claims
`
`5 “Discloses” in this table refers to discloses or alternatively renders obvious.
`
`
`
`5
`
`

`
`
`
`Claim 1 [preamble]
`A computer network
`for providing a game
`environment
`for a
`plurality of partici-
`pants,
`
`[1a] each participant
`having connections
`to at
`least
`three
`neighbor
`partici-
`pants,
`
`Case IPR2015-01972
`
`Patent No. 6,701,344 B1
`
`[DP&Lin] DP discloses a computer network (e.g., “net-
`work[]”) for providing a game environment (e.g., “gam-
`ing universe,” “session”) for a plurality of participants
`(e.g., “multiparticipant,” “players”). See, e.g., Ex1103 at
`19; 22-23; 54; Fig. 18-3. Ex1145 ¶¶92-93.
`[Lin] Lin discloses a computer network (e.g., “network”)
`for providing an information delivery service 6 (e.g.,
`“disseminate information”) for a plurality of participants
`(e.g., “processors,” “nodes”). See, e.g., Ex1104 at 8; 10;
`14. Ex1145 ¶¶92, 94, 216-218.
`[DP&Lin] DP discloses each participant (e.g., “player”)
`having connections to at least three neighbor partici-
`pants (e.g., graph in Fig. 18-3(a)). See, e.g., Ex1103 at 19,
`23, and Fig. 18-3 (a). Ex1145 ¶96.
`[Lin] Lin also discloses each participant (e.g., “proces-
`sors,” “nodes”) having connections (e.g., “links,” “edges”)
`to at least three neighbor participants. See, e.g., Ex1104
`at 9; 10; 14; Figs. 2, 4; 24-25. Ex1145 ¶97.
`[DP&Lin] DP discloses an originating participant (e.g.,
`“player”) sends data (e.g., “messages”) to the other par-
`ticipants. See, e.g., Ex1103 at 72; 73 Table 20-25; 86;
`123. Ex1145 ¶103.
`[DP&Lin, Lin] Lin discloses an originating participant
`(e.g., “node,” “processor”) sends data (e.g., “information”)
`to the other participants by sending the data (e.g., “m”)
`through each of its connections (e.g., “links,” “edges”) to
`its neighbor participants (e.g., “neighbors”) and wherein
`each participant sends data that it receives from a
`neighbor participant to its other neighbor participants
`(e.g., “graph-based flooding,” “all of its neighbors except
`for the one which forwarded it m”). See, e.g., Ex1104 at 9.
`Ex1145 ¶¶99-102, 104.
`
`[1b] wherein an orig-
`inating
`participant
`sends data
`to
`the
`other participants by
`sending
`the
`data
`through each of its
`connections
`to
`its
`neighbor participants
`and wherein each
`participant sends da-
`ta
`that
`it receives
`from a neighbor par-
`ticipant to its other
`neighbor
`partici-
`pants,
`
`6 It would have been an obvious implementation choice to implement Lin’s net-
`
`work/protocol for a gaming environment to benefit from Lin’s reliability such that
`
`a single point of failure would not crash the game. Ex1145 ¶¶217-218
`
`
`
`6
`
`

`
`
`
`[1c] further wherein
`the network is m-
`regular, where m is
`the exact number of
`neighbor participants
`of each participant
`[1d]
`and
`further
`wherein the number
`of participants is at
`least two greater than
`m thus resulting in a
`non-complete graph.
`Claim 7. The com-
`puter network of
`claim 1 wherein the
`connections are peer-
`to-peer connections.
`
`Claim 8 The com-
`puter network of
`claim 1 wherein the
`connections
`are
`TCP/IP connections.
`
`Case IPR2015-01972
`
`Patent No. 6,701,344 B1
`
`[DP&Lin, Lin] Lin discloses the network is m-regular
`(e.g., “regular graph,” the 4-regular graphs in Fig. 4),
`where m (e.g., “t”) is the exact number of neighbor par-
`ticipants of each participant (e.g., “node”). See, e.g.,
`Ex1104 at 15; 21; Figs. 2, 4. Ex1145 ¶¶105-108.
`
`[DP&Lin, Lin] Lin discloses the number of participants
`(e.g., “nodes,” “processors”) is at least two greater than
`m thus resulting in a non-complete graph (e.g., the 4-
`regular graphs in Fig. 4). See, e.g., Ex1104 at 24-25; Figs.
`2, 4. Ex1145 ¶¶109-14.
`
`See, e.g., Claim 1. Ex1145 ¶¶92-114.
`[DP&Lin] DP further discloses all the participants are
`peers (e.g., “peer”) and the connections are peer-to-peer
`connections (e.g., “peer-to-peer”). See, e.g., Ex1103 at 22;
`23. Ex1145 ¶¶126-27, 129.
`[Lin] Lin discloses all the participants are peers (e.g., the
`4-connected graphs in Fig. 4) and the connections are
`peer-to-peer connections. See, e.g., Ex1104 at 9; Figs. 2,
`4. Ex1145 ¶¶126, 128-29, 219-22.
`See, e.g., Claim 1. Ex1145 ¶¶92-114.
`[DP&Lin] DP discloses the connections are TCP/IP
`connections (e.g., “TCP/IP network”). See, e.g., Ex1103 at
`19; 20-21; Fig. 19-1. Ex1145 ¶¶130-33.
`[Lin] Lin discloses broadcast protocols for “generic
`networks.” See, e.g., Ex1104 at 8. Ex1145 ¶224.
`
`PO’s newly-added limitations are rendered obvious, as detailed below, by
`
`Lin (Ground 1),7 DP in view of Lin (Ground 2), Lin in view of Gautier (Ex1130)
`
`7 PO hasn’t shown or attempted to show and shouldn’t be permitted to try, belated-
`
`ly, in reply to show each Claim element was actually reduced to practice (or con-
`
`ceived followed by diligence) before Lin’s 11/23/1999 priority date. In re Steed,
`
`802 F.3d 1311, 1318 (Fed.Cir. 2015); Fox Grp. v. Cree, 700 F.3d 1300, 1304-05
`
`
`
`7
`
`

`
`Case IPR2015-01972
`
`
`Patent No. 6,701,344 B1
`
`
`(Ground 3), Shoubridge (Ground 4), and Shoubridge in view of Gautier (Ground
`
`5). Grounds 2, 3, and 5 rely on additional disclosures from DP and Gautier to the
`
`extent PO argues further disclosure beyond Lin or Shoubridge is required. Ex1124
`
`§X, Appx.A; Ex1125 §IX, Appx.A.
`
`A. Overview of Shoubridge, Lin, DP, and Gautier
`● Shoubridge discloses a routing protocol called “flooding” in which a node, upon
`
`receiving a message the first time, broadcasts it to all neighbors except the one
`
`from which it received the message over a 4-regular graph. Ex1105 2-3; Pet.19-22.
`
`● Lin (at least §102(a) prior art) teaches a broadcast protocol that superimposes a
`
`communication graph on top of a generic network and executes “flooding” over
`
`the graph to implement a broadcast channel. Ex1104 9. Lin’s flooding protocol
`
`advantageously provides a simple, fast, and reliable means of broadcasting.
`
`Ex1104 27. ● DP discloses an API for multiplayer games allowing developers to
`
`integrate DP’s messaging protocols for efficiently broadcasting game updates to all
`
`players. Ex1103 19-20, 22; Pet.16-19. ● Gautier (Ex1130), pub’d July 1998, is
`
`§102(b) prior art (see Exs1131-33, 1149-1151; Ex1124 ¶274) describing MiMaze,
`
`a multiplayer game used to study performance of distributed network protocols.
`
`Ex1130 2. Gautier discloses a “completely distributed communication architecture
`
`based on IP multicast” (“MBone”) for each player’s application program to broad-
`
`(Fed. Cir. 2012). See also Ex1124 §VI; Reply in IPR2015-01970, §III.
`
`
`
`8
`
`

`
`Case IPR2015-01972
`
`
`Patent No. 6,701,344 B1
`
`
`cast “Application Data Units” containing game status updates to the other players’
`
`applications. Id., Abstract. MBone is an overlay network built on top of the Inter-
`
`net’s generic point-to-point capability. Id. Abstract, 2, Figs. 2, 5.
`
`● Lin + Gautier. POSITA would have been motivated to apply Gautier’s teach-
`
`ings in implementing Lin for several reasons. First, POSITA would have been mo-
`
`tivated to combine their teachings because both are in the same field and address
`
`the problem of broadcasting information to multiple computer network partici-
`
`pants. Ex1104 9; Ex1130 Abstract, Fig. 2; Ex1124 ¶275. Second, POSITA would
`
`have been motivated to apply Gautier’s teaching of advantageously using a distrib-
`
`uted architecture for gaming applications in implementing Lin’s “scalab[le],”
`
`“adaptab[le],” “reliab[le]” distributed architecture and broadcast protocol to dis-
`
`tribute gaming data.8 Ex1124 ¶276; Pet.23-27; Ex1104 27 (“substantially lower
`
`message overhead [than gossip]”); Ex1130 1-2 (….many advantages compared to
`
`8 Contrary to PO (Mot.18-19), Lin’s protocol is scalable because “the number of
`
`messages that each processor sends is independent of [number of nodes],” and has
`
`relatively low message overhead because “[t]he imposed graph has a minimal
`
`number of links while still having a high enough connectivity to attain the desired
`
`reliability.” Ex1104 9, 24; Ex1145 ¶¶89, 91, 122. POSITA would recognize that
`
`varying its degree of regularity “t” would reduce Lin’s network latency and ac-
`
`commodate information changing even faster. Ex1124 ¶277; Ex1104 10.
`
`
`
`9
`
`

`
`Case IPR2015-01972
`
`
`Patent No. 6,701,344 B1
`
`
`server-based architectures”). Gautier teaches implementing a multiplayer game en-
`
`vironment using a broadcasting scheme to send all players messages. Ex1124 ¶277.
`
`POSITA would have recognized Lin’s overlay broadcast network provides such a
`
`scheme, can advantageously be “appl[ied] to many different physical networks,”
`
`and strikes a beneficial balance between information dissemination speed and
`
`overhead introduced by broadcast messages. Ex1124 ¶277; Ex1104 8-9, 16-17.
`
`Third, POSITA would have found it obvious to apply Gautier’s teachings of using
`
`a distributed architecture for gaming in implementing Lin’s broadcast network.
`
`E.g., Ex1104 27-28 (citing multicast applications, e.g., [4], [10], [16]); Ex1124
`
`¶278; In re Fulton, 391 F.3d 1195, 1200 (Fed.Cir. 2004). POSITA would have rec-
`
`ognized this combination (yielding the claimed limitations) would work as ex-
`
`pected. Ex1124 ¶278.
`
`● Shoubridge + Gautier. POSITA would have been similarly motivated to apply
`
`Gautier’s teachings in implementing Shoubridge: (1) same field and address the
`
`same problem of broadcasting information to multiple computer network partici-
`
`pants (Ex1105 1-3; Ex1130 Abstract, Fig. 2), (2) motivated to apply Gautier’s
`
`teaching to use a distributed architecture for gaming applications in implementing
`
`Shoubridge’s reliable, scalable network to distribute gaming data (Ex1105 1, 3, 4;
`
`Ex1130 1-2); (3) obvious to apply Gautier’s teachings to use a distributed architec-
`
`ture with a “[h]igh level of dynamicity” (Ex1130 2) in implementing Shoubridge’s
`
`
`
`10
`
`

`
`Case IPR2015-01972
`
`
`Patent No. 6,701,344 B1
`
`
`broadcast network, which is effective and reliable for such dynamic networks
`
`(Ex1105 4). Ex1125 ¶¶228-231. This high dynamicity results from players fre-
`
`quently joining and leaving, and POSITA would have known dynamicity is a fac-
`
`tor in selecting an appropriate routing scheme. Shoubridge teaches the advanta-
`
`geous use of flooding in dynamic networks. Ex1105 1. POSITA would have been
`
`motivated to implement Gautier’s teachings in Shoubridge’s flooding protocol in-
`
`stead of Shoubridge’s alternative routing scheme for more static networks, and
`
`POSITA would have recognized this combination (yielding the claimed limita-
`
`tions) would work as expected. Ex1125 ¶232. To the extent it is argued further dis-
`
`closure is required, it would have been obvious in view of the cited disclosures.
`
`Ex1125 ¶264.
`
`B. “A dynamic, overlay computer network that overlays an underlying
`network”
`
`Cls.20 and 22 recite a “dynamic, overlay computer network” that “overlays
`
`an underlying network.” Cl.21 recites a “network… formed through a broadcast
`
`channel that overlays an underlying network.” Grounds 1-5 each renders obvious
`
`these limitations (even under PO’s constructions (§I)). Ex1124 ¶279; Ex1125 ¶233.
`
`Claim
`[20.A] A
`dynamic,
`overlay
`computer
`network
`for
`
`Prior Art
`[Grounds 1-3] Lin discloses a dynamic (e.g., “adaptab[le],” “add” and
`“remove”), overlay (e.g., “superimpose[d]”) network (e.g., “communi-
`cations graph”) , which is formed through a broadcast channel (e.g.,
`“broadcast[ing]” over the “superimpose[d] … communications graph, ”
`use reliable broadcast based on the old set of processors to disseminate
`the new set of processors”), that overlays an underlying network
`
`
`
`11
`
`

`
`Case IPR2015-01972
`
`
`Patent No. 6,701,344 B1
`
`
`(e.g., “local-area” or “wide-area network[]”), which contains underly-
`providing
`ing network connections (e.g., “transport
`level” connections).
`that over-
`E.g.,Ex1104 8 (“protocol that broadcasts messages to all of the proces-
`lays
`an
`sors in a network.”), 9 (“protocol …superimposes a communications
`underly-
`graph on top of the processors and sends messages only along the edges
`ing net-
`work …9
`of this graph....[T]wo nodes incident on the edge can directly send each
`other messages at the transport level.”), 11 (“adaptability[—]It is not
`
`hard to add or remove processors in a network.”), 24 (“environment of
`[21.H]
`…wherei
`local-area networks and small wide-area networks….[Gossip and Ha-
`rary graph flooding] are similar in adaptability. [A]dding or removing a
`n
`the
`single processor causes only t processors to change their neighbors in
`network
`Harary graph flooding….[O]ne can use reliable broadcast based on the
`is formed
`old set of processors to disseminate the new set of processors.
`through a
`[¶]…[S]imulated Ethernet-based networks.”); Ex1124 ¶¶280-291.
`broadcast
`[Ground 2] DP10 discloses a dynamic (e.g., “players join and leave
`channel
`game sessions”) overlay network (e.g., “[n]etwork[]”), which is
`that over-
`formed through a broadcast channel (e.g., “session”), that overlays
`lays
`an
`an underlying network (e.g., “TCP/IP network”), which contains un-
`underly-
`derlying network
`connections
`(e.g., “TCP/IP” connections).
`ing net-
`E.g.,Ex1103 19 (“Networked multiplayer support…a ‘must have’ fea-
`work,…
`ture…DirectPlay embodies our vision of where the future of computer
`
`[22.I]
`gaming lies-in a networked world, with hundreds or even thousands of
`…wherei
`players participating in a single gaming universe….Developer…provide
`multiparticipant capability without getting tangled up in the details of
`n the dy-
`the specific transport media. DirectPlay handles different transport me-
`namic,
`
`9 The limitations are shown as PO amended them. Mot.28-30.
`
`10 As discussed (§III.A), it would have been obvious to apply Lin’s teachings of a
`
`flooding protocol in m-regular networks in implementing DP’s overlay network
`
`because POSITA would have understood the reliability and scalability advantages
`
`of Lin’s protocol, and found it routine to apply Lin’s superimposed communication
`
`graph in implementing DP’s overlay network and recognized combination (yield-
`
`ing the claimed limitations) would work as expected. Ex1124 ¶283
`
`
`
`12
`
`

`
`
`
`overlay
`network
`overlays
`an under-
`lying
`network
`which
`contains
`underly-
`ing net-
`work
`connec-
`tions,…
`
`Case IPR2015-01972
`
`Patent No. 6,701,344 B1
`
`dia identically, whether you’re using a TCP/IP network, and IPX net-
`work, or a modem.”), 22 (“whole point…provide a painless, hardware-
`independent way
`to move game data over a communication
`transport….Messages can be sent to the entire session….”), 34 (“don't
`care whether DirectPlay requires TCP/IP or SPX/IPX…. Connection
`the user….”), 47 (“us-
`shortcuts make
`it possible
`to
`insulate
`ers…presented with a list of available sessions,…decide whether they
`want to join an existing session or create a new one…”), 52, 122 (“man-
`aging a session in progress…how will players join and leave game ses-
`sions?”), 39 (“when sessions are enumerated, created, or joined
`….Establishing a session or joining an existing one”); Ex1124 ¶¶281-
`283, 289.
`[Grounds 4-5] Shoubridge discloses a dynamic (e.g., “very dynam-
`ic”) 11 overlay network (e.g., “grid network”) 12 , which is formed
`through a broadcast channel (e.g., “broadcast[ing]” over “grid net-
`work”), that overlays an underlying network (e.g., underlying “com-
`munication network” forming “links”), which contains underlying
`network
`connections
`in underlying network).
`(e.g., “links”
`E.g.,Ex1105 at 1 (“As topology or traffic loads change more frequently,
`the network becomes dynamic and maintaining accurate routing infor-
`mation…comes at a higher cost…. Flooding algorithms simply broad-
`cast user traffic through a network ensuring that the destination will be
`reached because all paths to the destination are attempted.”), 1
`(“[F]looding may actually consume less resources in a very dynamic
`network.”), 2 (“Flood search routing has been selected for its robustness
`in dynamic networks and is modelled as constrained flooding, the most
`efficient way to flood an entire network.”), 3 (“A 64 node network with
`
`11 POSITA would have understood (alternatively, found it obvious) for users to
`
`join/leave Shoubridge’s network using the broadcast channel. Ex1125 ¶234.
`
`12 POSITA would have understood (alternatively, found it obvious) to implement
`
`Shoubridge’s grid network as an overlay network over an underlying communica-
`
`tion network, such as the Internet, which would form the links of the overlay net-
`
`work, e.g., using TCP/IP. Ex1125 ¶235; see also Pet.58; Ex1119 ¶¶230-34.
`
`
`
`13
`
`

`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2015-01972
`
`Patent No. 6,701,344 B1
`
`connectivity of degree 4 is modeled as G. The network is a large regular
`graph forming a manhattan grid network that has been wrapped around
`itself as a torus…. Transmission links function as a single server queue-
`ing system with service rate defined by packet size and link capacity.”);
`Ex1125 ¶¶234-244.
`[Grounds 3, 5] Gautier13 dis-
`closes a dynamic (e.g., “join
`and leave the session dynami-
`cally,” “[h]igh
`level of dy-
`namicity”) 14 overlay network
`(e.g., “network”), which
`is
`formed through a broadcast
`channel (e.g., “session,” “mul-
`ticast tree” in Fig. 5), that overlays an underlying network (e.g., “In-
`ternet”), which contains underlying network connections (e.g., “In-
`ternet” connections). E.g.,Ex1130 Abstract (“transmission control
`mechanisms…to play a real-time multiplayer game on the Internet.
`[D]esigned and implemented a completely distributed communication
`architecture
`based
`on
`IP multicast.…MiMaze
`architec-
`
`13 As discussed (§ III.A), it would have been obvious to apply Gautier’s teachings
`
`of running gaming applications on each computer of a distributed network in im-
`
`plementing Lin’s/Shoubridge’s dynamic, overlay network—beneficially support-
`
`ing a distributed gaming architecture in a reliable, scalable manner. POSITA would
`
`have found it routine to apply Gautier’s teachings in implementing Lin’s/
`
`Shoubridge’s distributed network by configuring its nodes’ “processors” to execute
`
`the gaming applications, and recognized this combination (yielding the limitations)
`
`would work as expected. Ex1104 8, 9; Ex1105 1, 6; Ex1124 ¶287; Ex1125 ¶241.
`
`14 POSITA would have understood that using Gautier’s “IP multicast model” play-
`
`ers can join and leave the game through the broadcast channel. Ex1124 ¶284.
`
`
`
`14
`
`

`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2015-01972
`
`Patent No. 6,701,344 B1
`
`ture…guarantee[s] the consistency of the game, regardless network de-
`lay.”), 2 (“The characteristics of distributed games…that apply to Mi-
`Maze are…[h]igh level of dynamicity in group structure and topology.
`Participants join and leave the session dynamically. In this context, the
`IP multicast model…is particularly convenient.”), 6 (“architecture of the
`experiment multicast tree is given figure 5….Note that we have a net-
`work with a delay that is, on average, smaller than 100ms.”), Fig. 5.
`Ex1125 ¶¶237-243; Ex1124 ¶¶284-291
`
`Grounds 1-5: If PO argues further disclosure these limitations (see §III.C))
`
`is required, it would have been obvious for a participant to advantageously inform
`
`other network participants of its arrival/departure using the broadcast channel, e.g.,
`
`by broadcasting over the “superimpose[d]…communications graph,” so, e.g.
`
`neighbor’s connections can be updated. Ex1124 ¶299; Ex1125 ¶242.
`
`Lin (Grounds 1-3): To the extent PO is also attempting to limit the claimed
`
`network to an “application layer” overlay and to the extent further disclosure is re-
`
`quired beyond Lin’s “superimpose[d]…communications graph,” it would have
`
`been an obvious implementation choice to implement Lin’s network as an applica-
`
`tion level overlay that overlays an underlying network, such as the Internet, to ad-
`
`vantageously support Lin’s broadcast protocol without modifying the underlying
`
`network. Ex1104 8; Ex1124 ¶288. PO incorrectly asserts (Mot.18-20) that Lin’s
`
`teachings are limited to a broadcast protocol at the transport layer. Just as Cl.22
`
`specifies the underlying network uses TCP/IP, Lin discloses the nodes’ ability to
`
`send each other messages using the underlying network’s “transport level.”
`
`Ex1104, 3; see §III.F. To the extent PO requires the overlay be part of an end-user
`15
`
`
`
`

`
`Case IPR2015-01972
`
`
`Patent No. 6,701,344 B1
`
`
`application, it would have been an obvious implementation choice to incorporate
`
`the overlay as part of an end-user application running on Lin’s “processors” that
`
`would be sending the “messages,” such as a gaming application. Ex1104 9;
`
`Ex1124 ¶288. Similarly, Shoubridge (Grounds 4-5) teaches “nodes” interacting
`
`with a logical broadcast channel (e.g., “broadcast” over “grid network”) that over-
`
`lays an underlying network (e.g., underlying “communication network” forming
`
`“links”). Ex1105 1-3. POSITA would have understood that application programs
`
`can run on each Shoubridge node. Ex1125 ¶243. And (cf. Mot.20-21), nothing in
`
`Shoubridge limits it to a network layer. See generally Ex1105; Ex1125 ¶243.15
`
`DP (Ground 2) also teaches a game application program (e.g., “game”
`
`“API”) that interacts with a logical broadcast channel (e.g., “session”), on which a
`
`game is played, to provide a hardware-independent way to move game data over a
`
`communication transport that overlays an underlying network (e.g., “TCP/IP net-
`
`work”). Pet.17, 37-38; Ex1103, 15, 19. It would have been obvious to a POSITA
`
`to apply Lin’s teaching of a superimposed communication graph in implementing
`
`DP, such that Lin’s reliable and scalable communication graph is advantageously
`
`used as DP’s application layer overlay. Ex1124 ¶289. And Gautier (Grounds 3, 5)
`
`teaches a game application program (e.g., “MiMaze application”) that interacts
`