Inter Partes Review
`United States Patent No. 6,829,634
`IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`Attorney Docket No.:
`109869-0003-654
`Customer No.: 28120
`
`Petitioners: Activision Blizzard,
`Inc.; Electronic Arts Inc.; Take-
`Two Interactive Software, Inc.;
`2K Sports, Inc.; and Rockstar
`Games, Inc.
`
`§§§§§§§§§
`
`
`United States Patent No.: 6,829,634
`Inventors: Fred B. Holt, Virgil E. Bourassa
`Formerly Application No.: 09/629,576
`Issue Date: December 7, 2004
`Filing Date: July 31, 2000
`Former Group Art Unit: 2155
`Former Examiner: M. Won
`
`
`For: BROADCASTING NETWORK
`
`MAIL STOP PATENT BOARD
`Patent Trial and Appeal Board
`United States Patent and Trademark Office
`Post Office Box 1450
`Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450
`
`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW OF
`UNITED STATES PATENT NO. 6,829,634
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`
`
`
`Inter Partes Review
`United States Patent No. 6,829,634
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`V. 
`
`I. 
`INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................... 1 
`II.  MANDATORY NOTICES UNDER § 42.8 ................................................... 4 
`III. 
`PETITIONERS HAVE STANDING .............................................................. 6 
`A.  Grounds for Standing Under § 42.104(a) .............................................. 6 
`B. 
`Claims and Statutory Grounds Under §§ 42.22 and 42.104(b) ............. 6 
`IV.  SUMMARY OF THE ’634 PATENT AND ITS TECHNICAL FIELD ........ 7 
`A.  Overview of the ’634 Patent .................................................................. 7 
`B. 
`Overview of the Prosecution History .................................................... 9 
`C. 
`Overview of the Technical Field ......................................................... 10 
`THERE IS A REASONABLE LIKELIHOOD THAT PETITIONERS
`WILL PREVAIL WITH RESPECT TO AT LEAST ONE CLAIM ............ 12 
`A. 
`Claim Construction Under § 42.104(b)(3) .......................................... 13 
`B. 
`Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art and State of the Art ....................... 14 
`C. 
`Grounds for Unpatentability ................................................................ 14 
`1. 
`Ground 1: Claims 1-18 Are Obvious in View of the
`Teachings of DirectPlay and Shoubridge ................................. 15 
`Ground 2: Claims 1-5, 8-11, 15, and 18 Are Anticipated
`by Shoubridge ........................................................................... 56 
`Ground 3: Claims 1-18 Are Obvious in View of
`Shoubridge and the Knowledge of a POSITA .......................... 56 
`VI.  CONCLUSION .............................................................................................. 59 
`
`2. 
`
`3. 
`
`
`
`ii
`
`
`
`
`
`

`
`
`
`Inter Partes Review
`United States Patent No. 6,829,634
`
`LIST OF EXHIBITS
`
`Ex. 1107
`
`
`Exhibit Description
`Ex. 1101 U.S. Patent No. 6,829,634 to Fred B. Holt et al. (“’634 patent”).
`Ex. 1102 Declaration of David K. Lin and the Certified File Wrapper for U.S.
`Patent No. 6,829,634.
`Ex. 1103 Bradley Bargen & Peter Donnelly, INSIDE DIRECTX, (Microsoft Press,
`1998) (“DirectPlay”).
`Ex. 1104 Declaration of Glenn Little and, as Exhibit B, Meng-Jang Lin, et al.,
`Gossip versus Deterministic Flooding: Low Message Overhead and
`High Reliability for Broadcasting on Small Networks, Technical Report
`No. CS1999-0637 (Univ. of Cal. San Diego, 1999) (“Lin”).
`Ex. 1105 Peter J. Shoubridge & Arek Dadej, Hybrid Routing in Dynamic Net-
`works, in 3 IEEE INT’L CONF. ON COMMC’NS CONF. REC. 1381-86
`(Montreal, 1997) (“Shoubridge”).
`Ex. 1106 Declaration of Steven Silvio Pietrobon and, as Exhibit F, Peter J.
`Shoubridge, Adaptive Strategies for Routing in Dynamic Networks,
`Ph.D. Thesis (Univ. S. Austl., 1996) (“Shoubridge Thesis”)
`John M. McQuillan, et al., The New Routing Algorithm for the AR-
`PANET, COM-28, No. 5 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON COMMC’NS, 711-19
`(1980) (“McQuillan”).
`Ex. 1108 Yogen Kantilal Dalal, Broadcast Protocols in Packet Switched Com-
`puter Networks (Ph.D. Thesis, Stanford University 1977) and support-
`ing (“Dalal”)
`Ex. 1109 S. Alagar, et al., Reliable Broadcast in Mobile Wireless Networks, Mil-
`itary Communications Conference, 1 IEEE MILCOM ’95 CONF. REC.,
`236-40 (San Diego, Cal., 1995) (“Alagar”).
`Ex. 1110 Certificate of Authenticity and a Press Release, Microsoft Boosts Ac-
`cessibility to Internet Gaming Zone with Latest Release (Apr. 27, 1998)
`(PR Newswire) (“IGZ”).
`Ex. 1111 Donald M. Topkis, Concurrent Broadcast for Information Dissemina-
`tion, SE-11, No. 10 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON SOFTWARE ENGINEERING,
`1107-11 (1985) (“Topkis”).
`Ex. 1112 Dimitri Bertsekas & Robert Gallager, DATA NETWORKS (Prentice Hall,
`2d ed. 1992) (“Bertsekas”).
`Ex. 1113 Kuo-Jui Raymond Lin, Routing and Broadcasting in Two-dimensional
`Linear Congruential Graphs of Degree Four, Master’s Thesis (Con-
`cordia Univ. Montreal, Canada, 1994) (“Kuo-Jui Lin”).
`
`
`
`iii
`
`

`
`Inter Partes Review
`United States Patent No. 6,829,634
`
`
`Ex. 1114 William S. Davis and David C. Yen, THE INFORMATION SYSTEM CON-
`SULTANT’S HANDBOOK: SYSTEMS ANALYSIS AND DESIGN (CRC Press,
`1998) (“Davis”).
`Ex. 1115 V. G. Cerf, et al., Topological Design Considerations in Computer
`Commc’n Networks, COMPUTER COMMC’N NETWORKS (R. L. Grims-
`dale et al. eds., 1975) (“Cerf”).
`Ex. 1116 U.S. Patent No. 6,122,277 to Derrick Garmire et al. (“Garmire”).
`Ex. 1117 U.S. Patent No. 5,181,017 to Alexander H. Frey, Jr. et al. (“Frey”).
`Ex. 1118 Flaviu Cristian et al., Atomic Broadcast: From Simple Message Diffu-
`sion to Byzantine Agreement, 118 INFORMATION AND COMPUTATION
`158-79 (Albert R. Meyer ed., 1995) (“Cristian”).
`Ex. 1119 Expert Declaration of David R. Karger
`Ex. 1120 Declaration of Peter John Shoubridge and, as Exhibit A, Peter J.
`Shoubridge, Adaptive Strategies for Routing in Dynamic Networks,
`Ph.D. Thesis (Univ. S. Austl., 1996) (“Shoubridge Thesis”), and as Ex-
`hibit B, Peter J. Shoubridge & Arek Dadej, Hybrid Routing in Dynamic
`Networks, in 3 IEEE INT’L CONF. ON COMMC’NS CONF. REC. 1381-86
`(Montreal, 1997) (“Shoubridge”).
`Ex. 1121 SUPPORTING MICROSOFT WINDOWS 95, Vol. 1 (Microsoft Press 1995)
`(“Supporting Windows 95”).
`Ex. 1122 Declaration of Matthew R. Shapiro
`Ex. 1123 Declaration of Julian D. Moore
`
`
`
`
`
`
`iv
`
`

`
`Inter Partes Review
`United States Patent No. 6,829,634
`Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. §§ 311-319 and 37 C.F.R. § 42, the undersigned, on
`
`behalf of and representing Activision Blizzard, Inc., Electronic Arts Inc., Take-
`
`Two Interactive Software, Inc., 2K Sports, Inc., and Rockstar Games, Inc. (collec-
`
`tively “Petitioners”), hereby petition for inter partes review of claims 1-18 of U.S.
`
`Patent No. 6,829,634 (“the ’634 patent”). The ’634 patent was issued to The Boe-
`
`ing Company and is purportedly assigned to Acceleration Bay LLC (“Patent Own-
`
`er”). Petitioners assert there is a reasonable likelihood that at least one claim is
`
`unpatentable and respectfully request review of, and judgment against, claims 1-18
`
`(“the Challenged Claims”) as unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103 and/or § 102.
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`The ’634 patent is directed to a computer network in which information is
`
`broadcast from one participant to every other participant. See, e.g., Ex. 1101, Ab-
`
`stract. In particular, the ’634 patent claims the use of “flooding” to broadcast in-
`
`formation in computer networks configured as non-complete, “m-regular graphs.”
`
`Id. at 1:29-31, 4:49-5:6; cl. 1. This purported invention, however, was disclosed in
`
`printed publications that pre-date its filing date of July 31, 2000.
`
`“Flooding” refers to a simple, reliable technique for broadcasting infor-
`
`mation, in which the sender of a message transmits it to each of its neighbors, who
`
`in turn forward the message to each of their neighbors, who themselves forward it
`
`to each of their neighbors, and so on, until every participant has received the mes-
`
`
`
`1
`
`

`
`
`sage. Karger ¶ 46. (“Karger” will be used in this Petition to refer to Ex. 1119, the
`
`Inter Partes Review
`United States Patent No. 6,829,634
`
`expert declaration of David R. Karger). This technique was well-known to persons
`
`of ordinary skill in the art (“POSITA”) for decades prior to the filing date of
`
`the ’634 patent. Karger ¶ 46; Ex. 1111 at 2; Ex. 1112 at 29-30; Ex. 1118 at 12.
`
`Similarly, long before July 2000, a POSITA would have understood that the
`
`topology of a network—the configuration of connections between its partici-
`
`pants—could have a significant impact on the network’s characteristics, such as its
`
`performance, scalability, and reliability. Karger ¶ 50; Ex. 1115 at 6-7; Ex. 1114 at
`
`6-12. As a result, many types of network topologies—including those based on
`
`non-complete, m-regular graphs—were well-known in the art. Karger ¶ 51; Ex.
`
`1113 at 20. (An m-regular graph is one in which each node has exactly m connec-
`
`tions to other nodes, i.e., its neighbors; a non-complete graph is one in which at
`
`least two nodes are not connected to each other. Karger ¶¶ 40-41.) Moreover, the
`
`use of flooding over this particular type of topology was also well known. Karger
`
`¶ 51; Ex. 1104 at 9, 17 (flooding over 4-regular “Harary” graphs); Ex. 1108 at 88-
`
`89, 157, 161 (“hot potato forwarding” for controlled flooding over a 4-regular
`
`graph); Ex. 1105 at 2-4 (constrained flooding over a 4-regular graph); Ex. 1116 at
`
`1:59-66, 5:29-43, 6:62-66 (flooding over an m-regular “torus” network, an example
`
`of which is shown below in Section IV.C).
`
`The dependent claims of the ’634 patent add commonplace features that
`
`
`
`2
`
`

`
`
`would also have been well-understood implementation choices to any POSITA.
`
`Inter Partes Review
`United States Patent No. 6,829,634
`
`Indeed, the combined teachings of (1) a 1998 book by Bradley Bargen and Peter
`
`Donnelly, Inside DirectX (“DirectPlay”) (Ex. 1103), and (2) a 1997 IEEE paper
`
`published by Peter J. Shoubridge & Arek Dadej, “Hybrid Routing in Dynamic
`
`Networks” (“Shoubridge”) (Ex. 1105), render obvious all of the Challenged
`
`Claims.
`
`Neither of these two references was considered by the USPTO during prose-
`
`cution, although during prosecution of the related 6,714,966 and 6,701,344 patents
`
`(see Related Matters Under Rule § 42.8(b)(2) below) a service related to Direct-
`
`Play was mentioned in a news article the Examiner considered, and Ex. 1105 was
`
`listed in the Examiner’s search report. The combination renders all of the claims
`
`unpatentable, and Petitioners respectfully request that the Board find each of the
`
`Challenged Claims obvious under § 103 in view of the teachings of DirectPlay and
`
`Shoubridge as Ground 1. Furthermore, for many of the Challenged Claims,
`
`Shoubridge by itself discloses all of the limitations. Accordingly, Petitioners re-
`
`spectfully request that the Board find claims 1-5, 8-11, 15, and 18 anticipated un-
`
`der § 102 by Shoubridge as Ground 2. Finally, Petitioners respectfully request
`
`that the Board find claims 1-18 obvious under § 103 by Shoubridge in view of the
`
`knowledge of a POSITA as Ground 3.
`
`
`
`3
`
`

`
`Inter Partes Review
`United States Patent No. 6,829,634
`
`
`II. MANDATORY NOTICES UNDER § 42.8
`The Real Parties in Interest Under § 42.8(b)(1) are Activision Blizzard,
`
`Inc.; Blizzard Entertainment, Inc.; Activision Publishing, Inc.; Activision Enter-
`
`tainment Holdings, Inc.; Electronic Arts Inc.; Take-Two Interactive Software, Inc.;
`
`2K Games, Inc.; 2K Sports, Inc.; and Rockstar Games, Inc. (The listing of non-
`
`Petitioner RPI entities should not be deemed as an acknowledgement or admission
`
`that any such entity actually controls this matter.)
`
`Related Matters Under Rule § 42.8(b)(2). Patent Owner has asserted
`
`the ’634 patent against Petitioners in Acceleration Bay LLC v. Activision Blizzard,
`
`Inc., Case No. 1:15-cv-00228-RGA (D. Del., filed Mar. 11, 2015); Acceleration
`
`Bay LLC v. Electronic Arts Inc., Case No. 1:15-cv-00282-RGA (D. Del., filed Mar.
`
`30, 2015); and Acceleration Bay LLC v. Take-Two Interactive Software, Inc. et al.,
`
`Case No. 1:15-cv-00311-RGA (D. Del., filed Apr. 13, 2015). Petitioners have also
`
`filed petitions for inter partes review of U.S. Patents Nos. 6,701,344 (“the ’344 pa-
`
`tent”; all claims) (IPR2015-01970, -01972) and 6,714,966 (“the ’966 patent”; all
`
`claims) (IPR2015-01951, -01953), which have the same substantive specification
`
`(with the exception of one section that differs between the ’344 patent (16:29-
`
`17:11) and ’966 patent (16:24-17:26) and is not present in the ’634 patent, and the
`
`fact that only the ’634 patent contains a “Summary of the Invention,” Ex. 1101 at
`
`2:44-67), filing date, and assignee as the ’634 patent, and which are also asserted in
`
`
`
`4
`
`

`
`
`the aforementioned litigations. Claims 1-18 of the ’634 patent are similar to the
`
`Inter Partes Review
`United States Patent No. 6,829,634
`
`Challenged Claims of the ’344 and ’966 patents.
`
`This Petition demonstrates that the Challenged Claims of the ’634 patent are
`
`unpatentable in view of the DirectPlay and/or Shoubridge references. Petitioners
`
`have concurrently filed a separate petition for inter partes review of claims 1-18 of
`
`the ’634 patent, asserting that these claims are obvious under § 103 in view of the
`
`combination of DirectPlay and a different reference called “Lin” (Ex. 1104). Be-
`
`cause these two petitions against the ’634 patent involve different combinations of
`
`prior art and substantive analyses, Petitioners respectfully request that the Board
`
`institute review on both petitions. If the Board institutes trial on the grounds in on-
`
`ly one petition against the ’634 patent under 35 U.S.C. § 325(d), Petitioners request
`
`that the Board institute the grounds in this Petition, which asserts the Direct-
`
`Play/Shoubridge combination.
`
`Lead/Back-Up Counsel Under § 42.8(b)(3) & (4). Lead: J. Steven
`
`Baughman (Reg. No. 47,414, ROPES & GRAY LLP, 2099 Pennsylvania Ave.,
`
`NW, Washington, DC 20006, P: 202-508-4606/F: 202-383-8371, steven.baugh-
`
`man@ropesgray.com). Backup: Gene Lee (Reg. No. 55,369, ROPES & GRAY
`
`LLP, 1211 Avenue of the Americas, NY, NY 10036-8704, P: 212-596-9053/
`
`F: 646-728-2562, gene.lee@ropesgray.com), Andrew N. Thomases (Reg. No.
`
`40,841, ROPES & GRAY LLP, 1900 University Ave., 6th Floor, East Palo Alto,
`
`
`
`5
`
`

`
`
`CA 94303, P: 650-617-4712/ F: 650-566-4275, andrew.thomases@ropesgray.com).
`
`Inter Partes Review
`United States Patent No. 6,829,634
`
`III. PETITIONERS HAVE STANDING
`A. Grounds for Standing Under § 42.104(a)
`Petitioners certify that the ’634 patent is eligible for (and that Petitioners are
`
`not barred or estopped from requesting) inter partes review. Petitioner Activision
`
`Blizzard was served with a Complaint asserting infringement of the ’634 patent on
`
`or after March 11, 2015, and no Petitioner or any other real party-in-interest, or
`
`privy of Petitioners, was served with a complaint before that date, or has initiated a
`
`civil action challenging validity of the ’634 patent.
`
`B. Claims and Statutory Grounds Under §§ 42.22 and 42.104(b)
`Petitioners request inter partes review of the Challenged Claims of the ’634
`
`patent and assert that these claims are unpatentable as follows: Ground 1:
`
`Claims 1-18 are obvious under § 103 in view of the combination of the teachings
`
`of DirectPlay and Shoubridge; Ground 2: Claims 1-5, 8-11, 15, and 18 are antici-
`
`pated under § 102 by Shoubridge; Ground 3: Claims 1-18 are obvious under
`
`§ 103 in view of Shoubridge and the knowledge of a POSITA. These grounds for
`
`unpatentability are discussed in detail below in Section V. In further support of the
`
`proposed grounds of rejection, the Declaration of technical expert David R. Karger
`
`is submitted herewith as Ex. 1119.
`
`
`
`6
`
`

`
`Inter Partes Review
`United States Patent No. 6,829,634
`
`
`IV. SUMMARY OF THE ’634 PATENT AND ITS TECHNICAL FIELD
`A. Overview of the ’634 Patent
`The ’634 patent describes a computer network in which information is
`
`broadcast from one participant to every other participant. See, e.g., Ex. 1101, Ab-
`
`stract; Karger ¶ 26. The Challenged Claims require that each participant is con-
`
`nected to the same (m) number of neighbors, so the network is m-regular, where m
`
`is at least three. Ex. 1101, cls. 1, 10; Karger ¶ 27. Claim 1 is representative:
`
`1. A non-routing table based computer network having a plurality of
`participants, each participant having connections to at least three
`neighbor participants, wherein an originating participant sends data to
`the other participants by sending the data through each of its connec-
`tions to its neighbor participants, wherein each participant sends data
`that it receives from a neighbor participant to its other neighbor partic-
`ipants, wherein data is numbered sequentially so that data received out
`of order can be queued and rearranged, further wherein the network is
`m-regular and m-connected, where m is the number of neighbor par-
`ticipants of each participant, and further wherein the number of partic-
`ipants is at least two greater than m thus resulting in a non-complete
`graph.
`
`Ex. 1101 at 29:12-251; Karger ¶¶ 30, 60.
`
`By mandating that the number of participants be at least two greater than m,
`
`
`1 All emphasis in quotations is added unless otherwise noted.
`
`
`
`7
`
`

`
`
`the Challenged Claims also require that the network form a non-complete graph,
`
`Inter Partes Review
`United States Patent No. 6,829,634
`
`where each node on the graph represents a participant, and two nodes connected by
`
`a line (edge) on the graph are neighbors. Ex. 1101 at Abstract; id. cls. 1, 10; id. at
`
`4:49–5:6. Karger ¶¶ 27-28. A complete graph is one that is fully connected,
`
`meaning that each node is connected to every other node, whereas in a non-
`
`complete graph, at least two nodes are not connected to each other. Karger ¶ 28,
`
`41. All of the claims further require that the network
`
`is also m-connected. Ex. 1101, cls. 1, 10; Karger ¶ 27.
`
`A graph is m-connected when it would take the re-
`
`moval of at least m nodes to divide the graph into two
`
`or more separate parts. Ex. 1101 at 5:1-5; Karger ¶ 27.
`
`Figure 1 of the ’634 patent, for example, “illustrates a
`
`Ex. 1101: Figure 1
`
`graph that is [both] 4-regular and 4-connected.” Ex. 1101 Fig. 1, 3:3-4; Karger
`
`¶ 27.
`
`Finally, the Challenged Claims further require that the participants broadcast
`
`messages to each other using a technique whereby the originating participant sends
`
`the data to be transmitted to each of its neighbors, who in turn forward the data to
`
`each of their neighbors. See, e.g., Ex. 1101 cl. 1; Karger ¶ 29. This forwarding
`
`process is repeated until every participant has received the message. See Ex. 1101
`
`cl. 1; id. at 7:55-8:7; Karger ¶ 29. The message is thereby reliably broadcast across
`
`
`
`8
`
`

`
`
`the entire network. Ex. 1101 at 7:55-66, 8:8-9; Karger ¶ 29. Although the term is
`
`Inter Partes Review
`United States Patent No. 6,829,634
`
`not expressly used in the specification, this technique (and its variations), are
`
`commonly referred to as “flooding.” Karger ¶ 29; Ex. 1104 at 9.
`
`B. Overview of the Prosecution History
`The application that led to the ’634 patent was filed July 31, 2000, and Ap-
`
`plicants did not claim priority to any earlier-filed application. During prosecution
`
`the application was subject to a single office action where the Examiner rejected
`
`original claims 1-49 as anticipated by U.S. Patent No. 6,611,872 to McCanne. Ex.
`
`1102 at 164.
`
`In response to this rejection, Applicants amended the preamble of each inde-
`
`pendent claim to indicate that the claim is directed to a “non-routing table based
`
`computer network.” Id. at 260. According to Applicants McCanne only disclosed
`
`the use of an “overlay protocol that uses routing tables to route information.” Id.
`
`Applicants also added an additional limitation to issued independent claims 1 and
`
`10 to require that “data is numbered sequentially so that data received out of order
`
`can be queued and rearranged.” Id. at 253, 260-61. According to Applicants,
`
`McCanne failed to disclose such a sequential numbering technique. Id. at 260-61.
`
`Thereafter the Examiner entered an Examiner’s Amendment which amended
`
`each independent claim to further recite that “the network is m-regular and m-
`
`connected, where m is the number of neighbor participants of each participant, and
`
`
`
`9
`
`

`
`
`further wherein the number of participants is at least two greater than m thus re-
`
`Inter Partes Review
`United States Patent No. 6,829,634
`
`sulting in a non-complete graph,” and removed the limitation from final independ-
`
`ent claim 10 requiring that “data is numbered sequentially so that data received out
`
`of order can be queued and rearranged.” Thus, each independent claim requires an
`
`m-regular, incomplete structure. Id. at 267-68. The Examiner noted in his reasons
`
`for allowance that McCanne “does not disclose, teach, or suggest the claim limita-
`
`tion of wherein the network is m-regular and m-connected, where m is the number
`
`of neighbor participants of each participant, and further wherein the number of par-
`
`ticipants is at least two greater than m thus resulting in a non-complete graph as re-
`
`cited in the amended claims 1, 19, and 44, therefore the claims are found allowable
`
`over prior art of record.” Id. at 269-70.
`
`C. Overview of the Technical Field
`The use of flooding to broadcast information over a computer network, in
`
`general, had been known for decades before the July 2000 filing date of the ’634
`
`patent. Karger ¶ 46; see, e.g., Ex. 1107 at 5 (“We considered different approaches
`
`for distributing the updates [8] and decided on ‘flooding,’ in which each node
`
`sends each new update it receives on all its lines except the line on which the up-
`
`date was received.”); see also, Ex. 1111 at 2; Ex. 1112 at 29-30; Ex. 1118 at 12.
`
`Moreover, the use of flooding in networks based on m-regular, non-complete
`
`graphs, in particular, was also well known in the art. Karger ¶ 51. For example,
`
`
`
`10
`
`

`
`
`Shoubridge discloses the use of flooding over m-regular, non-complete “torus”
`
`Inter Partes Review
`United States Patent No. 6,829,634
`
`graphs, such as the graph in Figure 4.2 (shown below (left)). Karger ¶ 51; see Ex.
`
`1105 at 3. (Figure 4.2 is from Ex. 1106, a 175-page Ph.D. thesis also by Peter J.
`
`Shoubridge, hereinafter “Shoubridge Thesis,” which discloses the same body of
`
`work that is described in more concise form in the six-page IEEE publication of Ex.
`
`1105. See Ex. 1106 at 94; id. at 189.)2
`
`Ex. 1106 : Fig 4.2
`
`
`
`Ex. 1117: Fig. 1
`
`
`
`Similarly, a paper by Yogen Dalal (1977) discloses the use of flooding over non-
`
`complete, 4-regular networks. Karger ¶ 51; see Ex. 1108 at 88-89, 157, 161.
`
`Flooding over a 4-regular “torus” network (shown above (right)) is also disclosed
`
`in U.S. Patent No. 6,122,277 (Ex. 1116; Karger ¶ 51) (which incorporates by refer-
`
`ence the disclosure of U.S. Patent No. 5,181,017 (Ex. 1117; Karger ¶ 51)) and thus
`
`2 Peter John Shoubridge, “Adaptive Strategies For Routing In Dynamic Networks,”
`
`Ph.D. thesis, University of South Australia, 1996), is also prior art under § 102(b).
`
`Ex. 1106; Ex. 1120.
`
`
`
`11
`
`

`
`
`is prior art under § 102(e), as the filing date is August 19, 1997. See Ex. 1116 at
`
`Inter Partes Review
`United States Patent No. 6,829,634
`
`1:59-66, 5:29-43, 6:62; Ex. 1117 at Fig. 1.
`
`Also, long before July 2000, a POSITA would have understood that the to-
`
`pology of a network could have a significant impact on the network’s characteris-
`
`tics, such as its performance, scalability, and reliability. Karger ¶ 51; Ex. 1115 at
`
`6-7; Ex. 1114 at 6-12. As a result, many types of network topologies—including
`
`those based on non-complete, m-regular graphs—were well-known in the art.
`
`Karger ¶ 51; Ex. 1113 at 20. These topologies were routinely represented using
`
`graph theory (with computers as nodes, and connections as edges), with mathemat-
`
`ical proofs or simulations developed to model the performance and reliability of
`
`the network. Karger ¶ 37, ¶¶ 36-45; see, e.g., Ex. 1115 at 7 (“This paper presents a
`
`study of networks which are represented as linear graphs, and it is assumed the
`
`reader is familiar with elementary notions of graph theory.”); Ex. 1108 at 114
`
`(“The various classes of networks are distinguished by certain topological proper-
`
`ties of the graphs that represent them, like the degree of the nodes, or whether the
`
`graph is regular or not.”) (citation omitted).
`
`V. THERE IS A REASONABLE LIKELIHOOD THAT PETITIONERS
`WILL PREVAIL WITH RESPECT TO AT LEAST ONE CLAIM
`
`Petitioners submit there is at least “a reasonable likelihood that the petition-
`
`er[s] would prevail with respect to at least one of the claims challenged in the peti-
`
`
`
`12
`
`

`
`
`tion.” § 314(a). Indeed, they are all at least obvious under the stated Grounds.
`
`Inter Partes Review
`United States Patent No. 6,829,634
`
`A. Claim Construction Under § 42.104(b)(3)
`Pursuant to § 42.100(b), for the purposes of this review, Petitioners construe
`
`the claim language such that it is “given its broadest reasonable construction in
`
`light of the specification of the patent in which it appears” (“BRI”). Because the
`
`standard for claim construction at the USPTO is different than that used in District
`
`Court litigation, see In re Am. Acad. of Sci. Tech Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359, 1364, 1369
`
`(Fed. Cir. 2004), MPEP § 2111, Petitioners reserve the right to argue a different
`
`claim construction in a different forum for any term in the ’634 patent as appropri-
`
`ate in that proceeding. For terms not specifically listed and construed below, and
`
`in the absence (to date) of arguments from Patent Owner concerning claim con-
`
`struction, Petitioners interpret them for purposes of this review with their plain and
`
`ordinary meaning consistent with the specification of the ’634 patent. Petitioners
`
`also reserve their right to assert in litigation that the claims are invalid for reasons
`
`other than prior art, including under §§ 101 and/or 112.
`
`As used in the Challenged Claims, for purposes of this review:
`
`“m-regular” (cls. 1, 10) means “each node is connected to exactly m other
`
`nodes.” See, e.g., Ex. 1101 at 4:64-65, 15:32-41.
`
`“non-complete graph” (cls. 1, 10) means “graph in which at least two
`
`nodes are not connected to each other.” See, e.g., id. at 29:23-25, 29:58-60.
`
`
`
`13
`
`

`
`Inter Partes Review
`United States Patent No. 6,829,634
`
`“m-connected” (cls. 1, 10) means “dividing the network into two or more
`
`
`
`separate parts would require the removal of at least m nodes.” See, e.g., id. at 5:1-5.
`
`Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art and State of the Art
`
`B.
`Petitioners submit that the applicable POSITA would have a minimum of:
`
`(1) a bachelor’s degree in computer science, computer engineering, applied math-
`
`ematics, or a related field of study; and (2) four or more years of industry experi-
`
`ence relating to networking protocols or network topologies. Karger ¶ 19. Addi-
`
`tional graduate education could substitute for professional experience, or signifi-
`
`cant experience in the field could substitute for formal education. Id.
`
`C. Grounds for Unpatentability
`The Challenged Claims of the ’634 patent are directed to a non-routing table
`
`based computer network. As discussed further below, DirectPlay discloses an Ap-
`
`plication Program Interface for developing multiparticipant (multiplayer) games
`
`that can run over a variety of computer networks. See Section V.C.1.a.
`
`Shoubridge discloses the main elements of the claimed computer network and
`
`some of the dependent limitations thereof. See Section V.C.1.b. The combination
`
`of the teachings of DirectPlay and Shoubridge renders obvious all of the Chal-
`
`lenged Claims (Ground 1), Shoubridge anticipates some of those claims (1-5, 8-11,
`
`15, and 18) (Ground 2), and Shoubridge in view of the knowledge of a POSITA
`
`renders obvious all of those claims (1-18) (Ground 3).
`
`
`
`14
`
`

`
`
`
`Inter Partes Review
`United States Patent No. 6,829,634
`
`1. Ground 1: Claims 1-18 Are Obvious in View of the Teach-
`ings of DirectPlay and Shoubridge
`a. Overview of DirectPlay
`DirectPlay is prior art under at least § 102(b). Ex. 1103. DirectPlay disclos-
`
`es an Application Program Interface (“API”) for developing multiparticipant (mul-
`
`tiplayer) games that can run over a wide variety of computer networks. Id. at 19;
`
`Karger ¶ 74. This was designed as a “flexible and open” solution that avoided “in-
`
`flict[ing] a specific approach” on developers, while providing “shared data and
`
`messaging mechanisms” that could be used, for example, to send messages to eve-
`
`ry player connected to a gaming “session.” Ex. 1103 at 20, 22; Karger ¶ 74.
`
`DirectPlay discloses that this “allow[ed] the developer to provide multipar-
`
`ticipant capability without getting tangled up in the details of the specific transport
`
`media,” by abstracting aspects of this communication to a layer of “service provid-
`
`ers” that “plug[ged] in underneath.” Ex. 1103 at 19; Karger ¶ 75. In addition to
`
`shipping with several default providers that supported a variety of communication
`
`protocols and transport media, the “specification for [custom] service providers”
`
`was “available to anyone who might be interested.” Ex. 1103 at 19-20; Karger
`
`¶ 75. “Anyone [could] create special-purpose service providers … and if [a] game
`
`use[d] DirectPlay, it [could] automatically take advantage of these new communi-
`
`cation channels.” Ex. 1103 at 27; Karger ¶ 75. The designers of DirectPlay
`
`
`
`15
`
`

`
`
`“wanted to avoid making presumptions that would inflict a specific approach on
`
`Inter Partes Review
`United States Patent No. 6,829,634
`
`the developer. And we wanted to create a standard that could be applied to many
`
`design scenarios, which meant that the solution had to be flexible and open.” Ex.
`
`1103 at 20; see also, id. at 24, 119; Karger ¶ 75. The “primary goal of DirectPlay
`
`was … [to] provide a consistent interface,” while recognizing that “there are many
`
`different ways to implement a networked application.” Ex. 1103 at 20; id. at 15
`
`(“what [DirectPlay] doesn’t do is attempt to impose a general-purpose ‘automatic’
`
`communication model on the developer. A communication model that was great
`
`for a chess game would be completely inappropriate for a driving game, and vice
`
`versa.… This philosophy has the additional benefit of leaving plenty of room for
`
`third-party tool vendors to add value to DirectX.”); Karger ¶ 75.
`
`DirectPlay discloses the use
`
`of both “peer-to-peer” and “client-
`
`server” architectures. Ex. 1103 at
`
`23-24; Karger ¶ 76. As simple il-
`
`lustrations of each, DirectPlay pre-
`
`sents one example in which four
`
`Ex. 1103: Fig. 18-3
`
`players are connected to each other using “peer-to-peer” links between each player;
`
`and one in which four players are connected to each other via a single central serv-
`
`er. Ex. 1103 at 23, Fig. 18-3; id. at 22 (“You may be wondering whether the Di-
`
`
`
`16
`
`

`
`
`rectPlay communication architecture is peer-to-peer or client/server .... [T]he an-
`
`Inter Partes Review
`United States Patent No. 6,829,634
`
`swer to this question is that DirectPlay can be a little bit of both.”); Karger ¶ 76.
`
`Additionally, DirectPlay discloses a matchmaking service in which players
`
`can gather to identify gaming sessions to which they want to connect. Ex. 1103 at
`
`24, 98; Karger ¶ 77. Players can use so-called “lobby clients” to meet in a virtual
`
`lobby, where they can meet potential opponents, chat with other players, and set up
`
`networked game sessions. Ex. 1103 at 24, 98-100; Karger ¶ 77. The lobby client
`
`could be a web-based application, accessible via the Internet. Ex. 1103 at 98-100;
`
`Karger ¶ 77. When a group of players decides to play a game together, the lobby
`
`launches the game application simultaneously on the players’ computers to form a
`
`networked gaming session. Ex. 1103 at 24, 99-100; Karger ¶ 77. DirectPlay de-
`
`scribes a future of computer gaming “with hundreds or even thousands of players
`
`participating in a single gaming universe” (Ex. 1103 at 19), and, accordingly,
`
`teaches that developers should consider factors such as network scalability, along
`
`with the reliability of message delivery. See, e.g., Ex. 1103 at 24, 129; Karger ¶ 77.
`
`b. Overview of Shoubridge
`Shoubridge is prior art under § 102(b). Ex. 1105; Ex. 1120; Karger ¶ 78.
`
`Shoubridge discloses techniques for