UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`__________________________________________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`__________________________________________________
`
`ALARM.COM INCORPORATED,
`
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`VIVINT, INC.,
`
`Patent Owner.
`
`
`Patent No. 6,924,727
`Issued: August 2, 2005
`Filed: September 27, 2001 (PCT)
`Inventors: Tatsuji Nagaoka, Kazuo Nomura, and Yukata Hiruma
`Title: METHOD FOR REMOTE CONTROL OF HOME-LOCATED
`ELECTRONIC DEVICES AND A MANAGEMENT FACILITY
`
`__________________________________________________
`
`
`CASE NO: IPR2015-01977
`__________________________________________________
`
`REPLY DECLARATION BY VERNON THOMAS RHYNE, PH.D., P.E.,
`R.P.A., IN SUPPORT OF PETITIONER
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Petitioner Alarm.com's Exhibit 1031
`1031.0001
`
`Alarm.com. v. Vivint
`IPR2015-01977
`
`

`
`
`
`
`
`I. 
`II. 
`III. 
`
`IV. 
`V. 
`VI. 
`
`REPLY DECLARATION BY VERNON THOMAS RHYNE, PH.D., P.E.,
`R.P.A., IN SUPPORT OF PETITIONER
`
`Table of Contents
`INTRODUCTION ...................................................................................................1 
`QUALIFICATIONS AND COMPENSATION ......................................................2 
`UNDERSTANDING THE INTERNET ..................................................................2 
`A. 
`Internet Network Protocols ..........................................................................4 
`B. 
`Network Address Translation ......................................................................7 
`C. 
`The World Wide Web (WWW) ...................................................................8 
`CONSTRUING “TERMINAL IDENTIFIER” ........................................................9 
`THE JOHNSON ’950 PATENT AND THE “TERMINAL IDENTIFIER” .........16 
`JOHNSON ’950 ALSO RENDERS OBVIOUS USING A TERMINAL AND SERVER
`WITH SAME IDENTIFIER (CLAIM 5) ..............................................................21 
`VII.  MORIYA’S MODEL CODE IS ALSO A TERMINAL IDENTIFIER ................24 
`JOHNSON ’950 ALSO DISCLOSES CORRESPONDING SERVER IDENTIFIERS
`VIII. 
`................................................................................................................................25 
`JOHNSON ’950 DISCLOSES GENERATING SECOND CONTROL INFORMATION
`(CLAIMS 1-9, 14-18) ............................................................................................28 
`STORING STATUS DATA IN A TABLE WAS OBVIOUS IN VIEW OF JOHNSON
`’950 AND MORIYA (CLAIMS 26 AND 34) .......................................................30 
`COMBINING JOHNSON ’950 AND MORIYA WAS OBVIOUS (CLAIMS 1-9, 14-18
`AND 22-38) ...........................................................................................................31 
`XII.  CLIENT-SIDE TECHNOLOGY DID NOT RENDER SERVER-SIDE FORMATTING
`SUPERFLUOUS....................................................................................................40 
`XIII.  MR. COLE’S ARGUMENT THAT THE CONTROL PAGE COULD NOT BE
`VIEWED ON ALL DEVICES IS NOT RELEVANT ..........................................47 
`XIV.  COMBINING UMBREIT WITH JOHNSON ’950 AND MORIYA DOES NOT
`CREATE SECURITY RISKS (CLAIMS 6-8, 25 AND 33) .................................48 
`XV.  CLAIM 7 IS OBVIOUS ........................................................................................56 
`XVI.  CLAIM 25 IS OBVIOUS ......................................................................................57 
`XVII.  SUMMARY OPINION .........................................................................................58 
`XVIII. ACKNOWLEDGEMENT .....................................................................................59 
`
`IX. 
`
`X. 
`
`XI. 
`
`i
`
`
`
`
`
`Petitioner Alarm.com's Exhibit 1031
`1031.0002
`
`

`
`
`
`
`
`REPLY DECLARATION BY VERNON THOMAS RHYNE, PH.D.
`P.E., R.P.A.,
`IN SUPPORT OF PETITIONER
`
`
`I, Vernon Thomas Rhyne, hereby declare, affirm, and state the
`
`following:
`
`I. INTRODUCTION
`1.
`The facts set forth below are known to me personally and I have
`
`firsthand knowledge of them. I am a U.S. citizen over eighteen years of age.
`
`I am fully competent to testify as to the matters addressed in this Reply
`
`Declaration.
`
`2.
`
`I understand that this Reply Declaration is being submitted
`
`along with Petitioner Alarm.com’s September 26, 2016 Reply for the Inter
`
`Partes Review of US Patent No. 6,924,727 (hereinafter, “the ’727 Patent”)
`
`by the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) in Case No.
`
`IPR2015-01997.
`
`3.
`
`For this Reply Declaration, I have been asked to give my
`
`opinion in rebuttal to the opinions of patentability as set forth in Patent
`
`Owner Vivint’s Response of June 27, 2016, and in the supporting
`
`Declaration of its expert, Mr. Tipton Cole.
`
`
`
`Petitioner Alarm.com's Exhibit 1031
`1031.0003
`
`

`
`
`
`II. QUALIFICATIONS AND COMPENSATION
`4. My resume, including my qualifications and a list of the
`
`publications that I have authored during my technical career, was attached as
`
`Attachment A to my previous declaration in this matter (Ex. 1009).
`
`5.
`
`I am being compensated at the rate of $695.00 per hour for my
`
`work in connection with this matter. My compensation is not dependent in
`
`any way on the contents of this Reply Declaration, the substance of any
`
`further opinions I may offer, any further testimony that I may be asked to
`
`provide, or the ultimate outcome of this matter.
`
`III.
`6.
`
`UNDERSTANDING THE INTERNET
`
`The Patent Owner’s Response (Paper 19) asserts that many of
`
`the opinions I provided in my prior Declaration are in error, supporting those
`
`assertions with frequent references to a supporting Declaration provided by
`
`Mr. Tipton Cole (Ex. 2026). However, based on my review of both his
`
`Declaration and his deposition
`
`testimony, I find
`
`that Mr. Cole’s
`
`understanding of how the Internet works contains some significant errors
`
`and may be incomplete. I set forth here a background of certain core
`
`Internet protocols in order to explain the foundation for my disagreement
`
`with Vivint and Mr. Cole.
`
`
`
`2
`
`Petitioner Alarm.com's Exhibit 1031
`1031.0004
`
`

`
`
`
`7.
`
`The Internet is essentially a global computer network that uses
`
`an agreed-upon set of protocols to allow communications. Core Internet
`
`protocols include IP (the “Internet Protocol”), TCP (the “Transmission
`
`Control Protocol”), and UDP (the “User Datagram Protocol”), where a
`
`“datagram” is the basic transfer unit associated with a packet-switched
`
`network. Datagrams are typically structured in header and payload sections.
`
`8.
`
`Although
`
`the core
`
`Internet protocols were originally
`
`promulgated by the US Department of Defense through its research agency
`
`known as the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA), in
`
`the 1980s an international standards organization called the Internet
`
`Engineering Task Force or “IETF” was formed to publish the specifications
`
`for these protocols, freely and widely, on the Internet, and coordinate their
`
`development. The IETF has continued in that role to the present. IETF
`
`specifications are issued in the form of Requests for Comment (RFCs). See
`
`Ex. 1018, RFC 2026 (October 1996) at § 2.1.
`
`9.
`
`Fundamentally, the Internet protocols describe procedures that
`
`allow data to be communicated between any two computers following the
`
`protocols and connected to the global Internet. In the terminology of the
`
`Internet specifications, communication occurs between “hosts.” That term
`
`has been addressed by the Internet standards, which state that “Hosts are
`
`
`
`3
`
`Petitioner Alarm.com's Exhibit 1031
`1031.0005
`
`

`
`
`
`computers attached to a network.” See Ex. 1019, RFC 793 (September
`
`1981), p. 7; also see Ex. 1020, RFC 1122 (October 1989) at § 1.1.1; Ex.
`
`2027.0006 (“The Internet protocol provides for transmitting blocks of data
`
`called datagrams from sources
`
`to destinations, where sources and
`
`destinations are hosts identified by fixed length addresses.”).1
`
`A.
`Internet Network Protocols
`10. The Internet protocol suite defines four separate layers. See Ex.
`
`1020, RFC 1122 (October 1999) at § 1.1.3. Protocols at higher layers are
`
`implemented on top of the protocols at lower layers. The diagram shown
`
`below provides an overview of the four layers and exemplary protocols at
`
`each layer:
`
`
`1 Mr. Cole was incorrect when he claimed that Internet Protocol
`
`addresses (or “IP addresses”) only identified “connection points” and not
`
`terminals or hosts during his deposition. See Ex. 1030 at 26:17-20, 28:21-
`
`29:5, 30:14-16, 36:18-21, 37:7-21, 38:13-15, 39:2-3 (“The host is whatever
`
`machine is connected at that point”), and 39:4-20. The IETF standards
`
`clearly define hosts to be computers on the network that are identified by
`
`their addresses.
`
`
`
`4
`
`Petitioner Alarm.com's Exhibit 1031
`1031.0006
`
`

`
`
`
`
`
`11. The first layer is the Link layer (also called the data link layer
`
`or media access layer). It is the lowest level protocol that is specific to the
`
`immediate network being used by the host. Ethernet is a protocol used at the
`
`link layer, as are SLIP and PPP, both commonly used for dial-up modems.
`
`12. The second later is the Internet layer which includes the Internet
`
`Protocol, or “IP,” described in RFC 791 (September 1981) (Ex. 2027). “IP”
`
`is the underlying protocol for all communication on the Internet.2 IP defines
`
`how datagrams3 are sent from one computer to another. IP communication
`
`uses the IP address mentioned above. An IP address is a numerical label
`
`assigned to each device (e.g., a computer, a printer) participating in a
`
`2 There are two versions of IP, IPv4 (1980) and IPv6 (1998). IPv4 is still
`
`used for the vast majority of Internet communications.
`
`3 Datagrams are sequences of bytes having a header followed by data.
`
`The header includes source and destination addresses, each 32 bits in IPv4.
`
`
`
`5
`
`Petitioner Alarm.com's Exhibit 1031
`1031.0007
`
`

`
`
`
`computer network that uses the Internet Protocol for communication. An IP
`
`address serves
`
`two principal functions: host or network
`
`interface
`
`identification and location addressing.
`
`13. The designers of the Internet Protocol defined an IP address as
`
`a 32-bit number and
`
`that
`
`system,
`
`known
`
`as Internet
`
`Protocol
`
`Version 4 (IPv4), is still in use today. However, because of the growth of
`
`the Internet and the predicted depletion of available addresses, a new version
`
`of IP (IPv6), using 128 bits for the address, was developed in the 1990s.
`
`The IPv6 specification was published as RFC 2460 in 1998, and its
`
`deployment has been ongoing since the mid-2000s.
`
`14.
`
`IP addresses are usually written and displayed in human-
`
`readable
`
`notations
`
`such
`
`as
`
`172.16.254.1
`
`(IPv4)
`
`or
`
`2001:db8:0:1234:0:567:8:1 (IPv6).
`
`15. Since the early days of the Internet, The Internet Assigned
`
`Numbers Authority (IANA) has managed the IP address space allocations
`
`globally. The IANA has delegated five regional Internet Registries (RIRs)
`
`to allocate IP address blocks to local Internet registries (Internet service
`
`providers or “ISPs”) and other entities.
`
`16. The third layer is the Transport layer for which there are two
`
`primary standards, TCP/IP (RFC 793 (September 1981)) and UDP (RFC
`
`
`
`6
`
`Petitioner Alarm.com's Exhibit 1031
`1031.0008
`
`

`
`
`
`768 (August 1980)). TCP/IP and UDP add the concept of “ports” to the
`
`Internet. A port is a 16-bit number that specifies a specific input/output
`
`channel of a host process. See Ex. 1019, RFC 793 (September 1981), p. 81.
`
`Ports enable multiple processes on a single computer to communicate over
`
`the Internet independently.
`
`17. The fourth layer is the Application layer, which includes the
`
`well-known Hypertext Transport Protocol (HTTP) defined in RFC 2616
`
`(June 1999) used for the World Wide Web. I provide background
`
`information on HTTP in section III.C below. As of 1989, other common
`
`well-known Internet application protocols included FTP, Telnet, and email
`
`protocols like SMTP. See Ex. 1020, RFC 1122 (October 1989), at p. 8-9.
`
`B. Network Address Translation
`18. Network Address Translation (NAT) is the process where a
`
`network device, usually a firewall, assigns a public address to a computer (or
`
`group of computers) inside a private network. It has been in use since at
`
`least the 1990s. See Ex. 1021, RFC 2663 (August 1999), at p. 1-2.
`
`19. One form of implementing NAT is to use “static NAT,” also
`
`called “basic NAT”, a type of NAT in which a private IP address is mapped
`
`to a public IP address, wherein the public address is always the same IP
`
`address (i.e., it has a static address). This allows an internal host, such as a
`
`
`
`7
`
`Petitioner Alarm.com's Exhibit 1031
`1031.0009
`
`

`
`
`
`Web server, to have an unregistered (private) IP address and still be
`
`reachable over the Internet. Static NAT is discussed in Ex. 2012 to the Cole
`
`Declaration at page 3 (explaining Figure 1) and Figure 1, as follows:
`
`NAT works by creating bindings between addresses. In the simplest
`
`case, a one-to-one mapping may be defined between public and
`
`private addresses. Known as static NAT, this can be accomplished by
`
`a straightforward, stateless implementation that transforms only the
`
`network part of the address, leaving the host part intact.
`
`As explained above, in a static NAT system there is a “one-to-one mapping”
`
`between a terminal and its assigned IP address, allowing that address to
`
`serve as a terminal identification. See also Ex. 1021, RFC 2663 (August
`
`1999) § 4.1.1.
`
`20. An alternate approach, “dynamic NAT,” is a type of NAT in
`
`which a private IP address is mapped to a public IP address drawing from a
`
`pool of registered (public) IP addresses. Typically, the NAT router in a
`
`network will keep a table of registered IP addresses, and when a private IP
`
`address requests access to the Internet, the router chooses an IP address from
`
`the table that is not at the time being used by another private IP address. See
`
`also Ex. 1021, RFC 2663 (August 1999) at § 4.1.2.
`
`C.
`
`The World Wide Web (WWW)
`
`
`
`8
`
`Petitioner Alarm.com's Exhibit 1031
`1031.0010
`
`

`
`
`
`21. The key standard regarding the delivery of information over the
`
`WWW is the Hypertext Transfer Protocol (HTTP), an application protocol
`
`for distributed, collaborative, hypermedia information systems. Hypertext
`
`refers to structured text that uses logical links (hyperlinks) between nodes
`
`containing text. HTTP is the fundamental protocol used to exchange or
`
`transfer hypertext over the Web. HTTP has been in use on the Internet since
`
`1990, and was standardized by the IETF in 1996 (version 1.0) and 1997
`
`(version 1.1).
`
`22. Another key WWW standard is HTML. First developed by
`
`Tim Berners-Lee in 1990, HTML is short for the Hypertext Markup
`
`Language. HTML is used to create electronic documents (called “web
`
`pages”) that are available for display on the World Wide Web. Each web
`
`page usually contains a series of connections to other web pages called
`
`“hyperlinks.” HTML thus defines the content and structure of web pages. It
`
`supports the ability to embed media content—images, audio, video in a
`
`page. The HTML standard has been published by the World Wide Web
`
`Consortium (W3C) since its formation in 1994.
`
`IV.
`CONSTRUING “TERMINAL IDENTIFIER”
`23. The Patent Owner’s Response begins (Paper 19 at 9-14) by
`
`asserting that the Board’s construction of one term from the claims of the
`
`
`
`9
`
`Petitioner Alarm.com's Exhibit 1031
`1031.0011
`
`

`
`
`
`’727 patent is incorrect: terminal identifier. This term (or the equivalent
`
`term “identifier of a remote terminal”) is used (directly or by reference) in
`
`the challenged ’727 claims 1-9, 14-18 and 22-38.
`
`24.
`
`In ¶¶ 23-26 of my Initial Declaration I provided my opinion that
`
`the broadest reasonable construction for the term “terminal identifier” as
`
`used in those claims is “an identifier associated with a terminal that enables
`
`the home network management facility to identify or communicate with the
`
`terminal,” a construction that the Board agreed with in the Institution
`
`Decision. In proposing that construction, I focused on the two ways that
`
`the ’727 Patent discloses that the terminal identifier is used: (a) as a way to
`
`identify the model type of the identified terminal (see, for example, the table
`
`in Figure. 6 of the patent) and (b) as an identifier allowing the home network
`
`management server to communicate with a specific terminal via the Internet
`
`(see, for example, the patent at 3:1-2),
`
`25. To the contrary, on pp. 9 and 10 of their Response, the Patent
`
`Owner asserted that:
`
`In the Institution Decision, the construction of the term “terminal
`
`identifier” was “an identifier associated with a terminal that enables
`
`the home network management facility to identify or communicate
`
`with the terminal” —adopting the construction proposed by the
`
`
`
`10
`
`Petitioner Alarm.com's Exhibit 1031
`1031.0012
`
`

`
`
`
`Petitioner. (Institution Decision, pp. 9-10.) However, the Petitioner’s
`
`construction is incorrect under any claim construction standard. (Ex.
`
`2026, Cole Decl., ¶¶ 151–152.) The inclusion of “… or communicate
`
`with the terminal” within the meaning of a “terminal identifier” is
`
`incorrect for two reasons. (Id., ¶¶ 153.) First, such a construction
`
`improperly allows for the exclusion of a requirement of any “terminal
`
`identifier” – “identifying the terminal.” (Id. ¶ 158)
`
`26. The Patent Owner relies on a statement from their expert, Mr.
`
`Tipton Cole, as found at ¶¶151-153 of his supporting Declaration. There,
`
`Mr. Cole, focusing on only the right half of my proposed construction,
`
`opined that:
`
`153. It is my opinion that the definition of “terminal identifier”
`
`adopted by the Institution Decision, which excludes identifying a
`
`terminal, is first contrary to the explicit terms of “terminal identifier,”
`
`and second, unreasonably broad and unsupported by portions of the
`
`’727 patent relied upon by Alarm.com and Dr. Rhyne. … Instead, the
`
`construction of “terminal identifier” should mean “an identifier
`
`associated with a terminal that enables a terminal to be identified.”
`
`27.
`
`I disagree with the construction proposed by the Patent Owner
`
`and Mr. Cole. First, that construction omits the “home network management
`
`
`
`11
`
`Petitioner Alarm.com's Exhibit 1031
`1031.0013
`
`

`
`
`
`facility” without explaining why. The ’727 Patent repeatedly discloses that
`
`it is the home network management facility which makes use of the
`
`transmitted terminal identifier during communication with the home-located
`
`devices. See, for example, the Abstract, 3:1-16, and 8:33-43.
`
`28. Second, the Patent Owner objects to the term’s inclusion of “or
`
`an identifier associated with a terminal that enables the home network
`
`management facility to … communicate with the terminal,” a phrase which
`
`the Patent Owner and Mr. Cole interpret as omitting any form of
`
`identification of the terminal. I disagree, however, noting that in order to
`
`communicate with a specific terminal in a network environment such as the
`
`Internet, an identification of the specific terminal is always required.
`
`29.
`
`In support of the Patent Owner’s position, Mr. Cole notes that
`
`the ’727 patent does not use the word “address” to describe the data element
`
`it refers to as the “terminal ID” which the terminal adds to each
`
`communication with the management facility in the ’727 patent. See Ex.
`
`1001 at 14:48-51 (“Further, with regard to the transmission of information
`
`from terminal 1 to home network management facility 5, terminal 1 adds the
`
`terminal ID to the information in the transmission.”). However, the ’727
`
`patent’s teaching that the terminal adds a terminal ID to each HTTP request
`
`is consistent with the well-known means by which a web client machine
`
`
`
`12
`
`Petitioner Alarm.com's Exhibit 1031
`1031.0014
`
`

`
`
`
`adds a source IP address to each HTTP request. Thus, under the Broadest
`
`Reasonable Interpretation standard, it is perfectly reasonable and consistent
`
`with the ’727 patent’s teaching to include any identifier used for
`
`communication with the terminal in the construction or “terminal identifier.”
`
`30. Communicating with a terminal based on its IP address, for
`
`example, is clearly a method of identifying which specific terminal is being
`
`communicated with, a point that Mr. Cole agreed with during his deposition.
`
`See his transcript, Ex. 1030 at 24:25-25:3 (“The term ‘terminal identifier’
`
`distinguishes a terminal from all other terminals, okay?”); at 61:25-62:5
`
`(“what you see is the terminal ID identifies terminal 1 and that further
`
`communications are specific
`
`to
`
`terminal 1.· That
`
`is, ·4· ·further
`
`communications do not go anywhere other than to terminal 1.”); at 64:2-6
`
`(“This says that terminal one identifies itself using the terminal ID. And
`
`from that point forward every communication is specifically linked to that
`
`terminal.”); and at 64:13-19 (“The terminal ID is linked to terminal 1. It’s
`
`transmitted as part of
`
`the
`
`initial connection here and
`
`the, every
`
`communication relies on the fact that, whether it’s coming from the terminal
`
`to the server or going from the server to the terminal, that it goes back to that
`
`similar terminal. That's what the terminal ID is for.”). Clearly, as of his
`
`
`
`13
`
`Petitioner Alarm.com's Exhibit 1031
`1031.0015
`
`

`
`
`
`deposition, Mr. Cole agreed that a terminal identification was used during
`
`communication with a terminal as a means for identifying that terminal.
`
`31. On pp. 9 and 10 of their Response, the Patent Owner went on to
`
`assert that:
`
`Second, the construction is based on Petitioner’s incorrect notion that
`
`the “terminal identifier” encompasses an IP address. (Id., ¶ 158.)
`
`Here, too, I disagree with this assertion.
`
`32. As the primary support for the above assertion, the Patent
`
`Owner relied on a statement made in the ¶ 158 of Cole Declaration where, in
`
`an attempt to show that an IP address cannot be an example of a terminal
`
`identification that is used to communicate with a specific terminal via the
`
`Internet, Mr. Cole opined that:
`
`158. To further broaden the scope of “terminal identifier,” Alarm.com
`
`and Dr. Rhyne attempt to define “terminal identifier” as an “IP
`
`address or other address which is used to accomplish data packet
`
`communication.” (See Pet., 13; Ex. 1009, ¶ 26.) Based on my review,
`
`this understanding is also incorrect.
`
`33. As a further basis for the above opinion, the Patent Owner then
`
`asserted that IP addresses are not terminal identifiers because of the
`
`
`
`14
`
`Petitioner Alarm.com's Exhibit 1031
`1031.0016
`
`

`
`
`
`possibility of the gateway server using NAT, something supported by Mr.
`
`Cole. See ¶166 of his Declaration:
`
`166. A POSA would have understood that a “gateway server”
`
`discussed in the ’727 patent effectively functions (or is paired with) a
`
`“NAT router” and “NAT routers or NATificators sit on the border
`
`between private [i.e., mobile packet communication network 2] and
`
`public networks [i.e., Internet 4], converting private addresses in each
`
`IP packet into legally registered public ones.”
`
`34. Here, while I agree that some Internet users access that network
`
`via a NAT router, I disagree with Mr. Cole’s apparent opinion that the
`
`challenged claims of the ’727 patent require such a system. There is no
`
`disclosure of the use of Network Address Translation in the ’727 patent, nor
`
`would such a procedure be necessary to implement the challenged claims.
`
`Thus, terminals which communicate directly with the Internet by using an
`
`assigned IP address are well within the scope of the challenged ’727 claims,
`
`and there is nothing in the disclosure of the ’727 patent that is inconsistent
`
`with implementations in which IP addresses fully identify a “terminal”.
`
`35. Further, even if NAT is being used with a gateway server, the
`
`gateway server could assign a unique IP address to each mobile terminal
`
`using “static NAT,” a possibility ignored by Mr. Cole (see his transcript, Ex.
`
`
`
`15
`
`Petitioner Alarm.com's Exhibit 1031
`1031.0017
`
`

`
`
`
`1030 at 32:11-35-10), despite such a configuration being explained in one of
`
`his own supporting documents. See Ex. 2012 at page 3, including Figure 1,
`
`which, as I noted above, explains that figure as follows:
`
`NAT works by creating bindings between addresses. In the simplest
`
`case, a one-to-one mapping may be defined between public and
`
`private addresses. Known as static NAT, this can be accomplished by
`
`a straightforward, stateless implementation that transforms only the
`
`network part of the address, leaving the host part intact.
`
`36. As explained in section III.B above, in a static NAT system
`
`there is a “one-to-one mapping” between a terminal and its assigned IP
`
`address. As a result, the IP address here can serve as a terminal identifier,
`
`even under Mr. Cole’s definition of “identification”, something Mr. Cole
`
`admitted during his deposition. See Ex. 1030 at 34:12-24, 36:4-9.
`
`V. THE JOHNSON ’950 PATENT AND THE “TERMINAL
`IDENTIFIER”
`37.
`
`I identified the inherent disclosure of an IP address by the
`
`Johnson ’950 patent as a disclosure of the terminal identifier of the Nagaoka
`
`claims which include that term. I note here that Mr. Cole admitted that
`
`Johnson ’950 inherently used IP addresses for communication over the
`
`Internet during his deposition. See Ex. 1030 at 26:21-27:7. Contrary to Mr.
`
`Cole’s opinions, those IP addresses are terminal identifiers.
`
`
`
`16
`
`Petitioner Alarm.com's Exhibit 1031
`1031.0018
`
`

`
`
`
`38. Further, Mr. Cole’s hypothesis concerning the possible use of
`
`NAT is not relevant since there is no mention of NAT in the Johnson ’950
`
`disclosure. See the Cole deposition, Ex. 1030 at 40:2-41:6. In fact, the prior
`
`art discussed in my Initial Declaration does not expressly disclose NAT, or
`
`any gateway server or router. To the contrary, the Johnson ’950 patent
`
`discloses that the control unit is connected directly to the Internet via a dial-
`
`up modem or other modem, without any intervening router. See Ex. 1003 at
`
`Fig. 5. Connecting to the Internet without NAT was perfectly practical and
`
`well known in the relevant time period. Dial up modems, as disclosed by
`
`Johnson ’950, connected to the Internet via a serial port to a CPU, and did
`
`not use an intervening gateway server or router.
`
`39. Dial up modems using the Serial Line Interface (SLIP) protocol
`
`had IP address manually assigned to the computer using such a modem.4
`
`
`4 See “How to Connect to the Internet in Windows 95 and Windows 98”
`
`(Ex. 1022) which states on page 5 that “Confirm that your IP address in the
`
`SLIP Connection IP Address dialog box is correct by typing the IP address
`
`that noted in step 4, and then click OK. If you are not sure what your IP
`
`address is, contact your ISP and ask how to determine your IP address for
`
`your SLIP account.”
`
`
`
`17
`
`Petitioner Alarm.com's Exhibit 1031
`1031.0019
`
`

`
`
`
`SLIP was supported in the Windows 95 and 98 operating systems of the
`
`1990s, and was in use since the 1980s.
`
`40. By using a dial-up modem, the home computer of Johnson ’950
`
`would have its own public IP address assigned by the Internet Service
`
`Provider, which would necessarily uniquely identify that computer to the
`
`data center.
`
`41. Further, even if NAT were to be used, static NAT assigned
`
`unique public IP addresses to each device on the local network. And, even if
`
`dynamic NAT were to be used, the source IP address, in connection with
`
`other received information (the TCP or UDP port), would still uniquely
`
`identify the terminal and enable the destination host to communicate with
`
`the source.
`
`42. Thus, contrary to Mr. Cole’s opinion, nothing about the
`
`disclosures in Johnson ’950 would prevent the data center from using IP
`
`addresses to identify specific terminals.
`
`43. On page 25 of the Reply, the Patent Owner also asserted that
`
`“the use of terminal’s IP address as a ‘terminal identifier’ would also be
`
`inconsistent with claim 5 of the ’727 patent, which recites that the ‘terminal
`
`identifier and said server identifier are the same.’”
`
`
`
`18
`
`Petitioner Alarm.com's Exhibit 1031
`1031.0020
`
`

`
`
`
`44. The Patent Owner also cites to ¶ 173 of the Cole Declaration
`
`for support, in which Mr. Cole states:
`
`173. Furthermore, the use of a terminal’s IP address as a “terminal
`
`identifier” would also be inconsistent with dependent claim 5 further
`
`discussed in Section IX.B.1. Dependent claim 5 requires that the
`
`“terminal identifier and said server identifier are the same,” which
`
`would be inconsistent with HTTP communications protocol over
`
`TCP/IP, because HTTP communication over TCP/IP expects that the
`
`terminal and the server have different IP addresses. (Ex. 2028, p.
`
`1)(Ex. 2027, p. 6)(“The internet protocol provides for transmitting
`
`blocks of data called datagrams from sources to destinations, where
`
`sources and destinations are hosts [i.e., a source host and destination
`
`host that are different].”)
`
`45. Here, I first note that dependent claim 5 does not involve any
`
`communications between the terminal and the server, as Mr. Cole admitted
`
`during his deposition. Ex. 1030 55:10-25. In claim 5, the terminal
`
`communicates with the management facility only, as depicted in Figure 11
`
`of the Patent. Therefore, Mr. Cole’s objection has no relevance to claim 5 at
`
`all.
`
`
`
`19
`
`Petitioner Alarm.com's Exhibit 1031
`1031.0021
`
`

`
`
`
`46. Further, I note
`
`that Mr. Cole
`
`is
`
`incorrect
`
`that HTTP
`
`communication is not possible using same source and destination IP address,
`
`an opinion he could not identify any basis for during his deposition. First,
`
`he admitted that he had misquoted The DARPA Internet Program Protocol,
`
`his Reference 2027 when he wrote “a source host and destination host that
`
`are different”, in that the protocol does not state that. See his deposition, Ex.
`
`1030 at 48:21-49:15. Next, he admitted that he had no support for his
`
`assertion in the DARPA document. See his deposition, Ex. 1030 at 50:6-
`
`51:9.
`
`47.
`
`In fact, in my opinion, there is nothing in the DARPA IP
`
`specification (or in the specifications for TCP/IP or HTTP) that precludes
`
`the source and destination IP addresses from being the same. TCP/IP
`
`communication between two programs (such as a web server and a web
`
`browser) running on the same computer was and is perfectly possible
`
`through the use of separate ports for each program, something which I
`
`believe is a common web development scenario. I address this issue further
`
`in the next section.
`
`
`
`20
`
`Petitioner Alarm.com's Exhibit 1031
`1031.0022
`
`

`
`
`
`VI.
`JOHNSON ’950 ALSO RENDERS OBVIOUS USING A
`TERMINAL AND SERVER WITH SAME IDENTIFIER
`(CLAIM 5)
`48. With respect to dependent claim 5’s requirement that the
`
`“terminal identifier and said server identifier are the same,” Patent Owner
`
`claims that “Johnson950 explicitly teaches that its local computer cannot be
`
`the control unit 30”. See the Response at p. 36.
`
`49. The Patent Owner next cites to ¶ 206 of Mr. Cole’s Declaration
`
`as support, in which he opines:
`
`206. But Dr. Rhyne ignores the explicit teaching that “it is an
`
`essential feature of the present invention that control unit 30 always
`
`connects to the data center [20] and that the control unit 30 cannot be
`
`directly connected to for preventing unauthorized access to the
`
`control unit 30.” (Ex. 1003, 7:17-20, emphasis added.) Thus, a POSA
`
`would have understood that while a local computer can be used to
`
`connect to the control unit 30, the connection between control unit 30
`
`and the local computer cannot be direct in Johnson950. Therefore,
`
`contrary to Dr. Rhyne’s conclusory statement “that [home located]
`
`computer can be both their terminal and home server,” Johnson950
`
`explicitly teaches that Johnson950’s local computer cannot be the
`
`control unit 30.
`
`
`
`21
`
`Petitioner Alarm.com's Exhibit 1031
`1031.0023
`
`

`
`
`
`50.
`
`In ¶¶ 139-140 of my Initial Declaration I explained that when a
`
`terminal and a server are on the same computer, the terminal identifier and
`
`server identifier will be the same, a conclusion that Patent Owner and Mr.
`
`Cole do not dispute. Instead, they claim that the quoted passage of Johnson
`
`’950 means that the two computers cannot be the same. I disagree for the
`
`following reasons:
`
`51. First, when the same computer is used a