Inter Partes Review
`United States Patent No. 6,829,634
`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 IPR2015-019961
`Patent No. 6,829,634 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 IPR2016-00964, has been joined as a peti-
`
`tioner in this proceeding.
`
`

`
`
`
`Inter Partes Review
`United States Patent No. 6,829,634
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`I. PO INTRODUCES NEW MATTER THROUGH CONSTRUCTIONS ..... 2
`II. PO FAILS TO PROPERLY ADDRESS THE STATE OF THE ART ........ 4
`III. PO FAILS TO ESTABLISH PATENTABILITY OVER THE ART .......... 4
`A. Overview of Shoubridge, Lin, DP, and Gautier .............................................. 9
`B. “A dynamic, overlay…network” that “overlays an underlying network”
`(Cls.26-27) ..................................................................................................... 13
`C. “[P]articipants can join and leave the network using the broadcast channel”
`(Cls. 25, 27) ................................................................................................... 19
`D. “[E]ach participant being an application program [that] interacts with a
`broadcast channel with a channel type and a channel instance” ................... 21
`IV. CLAIMS 25 AND 27 ARE INDEFINITE UNDER § 112, ¶2...................... 25
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`
`

`
`Inter Partes Review
`United States Patent No. 6,829,634
`
`Patent Owner’s (“PO”) Motion (Pap.31, “Mot.”) fails to satisfy PO’s burden
`
`
`
`of establishing proposed cls. 25-27 (“Claims”) are patentable, and should be de-
`
`nied. §42.20(c)2; Synopsys, Inc. v. Mentor Graphics Corp., 814 F.3d 1309, 1323
`
`(Fed. Cir. 2016). PO fails to (1) establish written description support for the
`
`Claims, as interpreted by PO, or propose proper constructions, (2) provide suffi-
`
`cient information regarding the state of the art for newly added features, (3) estab-
`
`lish patentability over the prior art, and (4) establish § 112, ¶2 patentability.3
`
`I.
`
`PO INTRODUCES NEW MATTER THROUGH CONSTRUCTIONS
`
`Rather than expressly amend, PO argues “application layer” limitations by
`
`construction (Mot.5-6)—presumably recognizing the term lacks written descrip-
`
`tion 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 “dy-
`
`namic, overlay…network” constructions require “application layer” operation and
`
`PO limits “connection” and “broadcast channel” to the context of game application
`
`programs (lacking written description) and a logical broadcast channel that over-
`
`lays an underlying network, respectively, and for both requires “application layer”
`
`
`2 Section cites are to 35 U.S.C. or 37 C.F.R., and all emphases added.
`
`3 Karger’s second declarations (Exs1124, 25) oppose Goodrich’s (Ex2022,
`
`IPR2015-01964 Ex2022 originally; re-filed as Motion Exs2099 and 98).
`
`
`
`2
`
`

`
`
`operation. Mot.5-7. But PO can’t show “support in the original disclosure..”
`
`Inter Partes Review
`United States Patent No. 6,829,634
`
`§42.121(b)(1). ‘634 gives no indication that the disclosed overlay network is at the
`
`application layer (cf. Mot.7). Ex1125 ¶255.’634 lacks discussion of network layers,
`
`the OSI layer construct, or “application layer” operation. Ex1125 ¶255; see Ariad.
`
`v. Eli Lilly., 598 F.3d 1336, 1352 (Fed. Cir. 2010). 4 PO cannot circumvent
`
`§42.121(a)(2)(ii) by reading in this limitation.
`
`PO has not shown the inventors acted as lexicographers or disavowed scope.
`
`Info-Hold v. Applied Media, 783 F.3d 1262, 1266 (Fed. Cir. 2015). PO’s construc-
`
`tions, which duplicate existing limitations wrongly “render other limitations super-
`
`fluous.” Baby Trend v. Wonderland, IPR2015-00842, Pap.81, 72-75. Failing to
`
`reasonably construe new limitations, PO does not adequately provide information
`
`for determining patentability. Id. Alternatively, terms not construed at Institution
`
`(Pap.8, 6-8) should receive plain meaning, e.g.: “connection” (connection between
`
`participants); “overlay computer network that overlays an underlying network”
`
`(computer network that overlays an underlying network); “dynamic, overlay com-
`
`puter network” (overlay computer network that is dynamic); “broadcast channel”
`
`(channel on the network through which messages are broadcast). Ex1125 ¶257.
`
`
`4 Named-inventors’ declarations (Exs2024-2025) and the alleged invention disclo-
`
`sure form (Ex2028) are devoid of any discussion of an “application layer.”
`
`
`
`3
`
`

`
`
`II.
`
`Inter Partes Review
`United States Patent No. 6,829,634
`
`PO FAILS TO PROPERLY ADDRESS THE STATE OF THE ART
`PO’s Motion also fails to provide any information about whether added fea-
`
`tures were known, alone or in combination with other elements, and, if known,
`
`why adapting them or use with the rest of each claim would not have been obvious.
`
`Toyota, IPR2013-00422, Pap.25, 4. PO, e.g., provides no information on whether
`
`new “dynamic, overlay network” and “join[ing] and leav[ing] [a] network using
`
`the broadcast channel” features were known, alone or in combination. PO also re-
`
`quires the network operate at the application layer (Mot.15-16), but gives no indi-
`
`cation whether PO’s interpretation was known. PO’s conclusory statement “the
`
`closest material art is already of record” (Mot.22) is “not meaningful” for estab-
`
`lishing the “technical knowledge” of feature added. Toyota at 4-5.
`
`III. PO FAILS TO ESTABLISH PATENTABILITY OVER THE ART
`PO has also not established the Claims are patentable over the material 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’s 10 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.17-22;
`
`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
`
`
`
`4
`
`

`
`
`flooding. USPN 6,122,277 (Pet.11), discloes “flooding” over a 4-regular “torus”
`
`Inter Partes Review
`United States Patent No. 6,829,634
`
`network used “in a communications fabric designed to interconnect many pro-
`
`cessing elements for parallel work on… computationally intensive problems,”
`
`such as “a distributed database application.” Ex1116 13:57-67. PO’s arguments
`
`focus on adding an “application layer” requirement, but ignore ’277’s highly mate-
`
`rial disclosure of applications communicating over its 4-regular network using
`
`flooding. E.g., Mot.3, 7, 15-16; Ex1125 ¶251. PO also ignores the obviousness of
`
`combining the record art teachings in Lin (Ex1104) and DirectPlay (“DP”)
`
`(Ex1103) to implement Lin’s m-regular network at DP’s application layer—
`
`focusing instead on un-amended claim are (Mot.19). PO’s failure to explain why
`
`m-regular network flooding at the application layer would not have been obvious,
`
`especially in light ’277’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] limitations.”); Prod. Miniature v. POP Dis-
`
`plays, IPR2015-00266, Pap.43, 38-40. As the Petition (Pet.25-37, 40-50, 57-58)
`
`and Reply show, original cl.10 is anticipated and cls.5, 8, and 10 rendered obvious
`
`by Shoubridge. See Inst.9-17. As shown below, amended cl.10 is also anticipated
`
`by Lin, and cls.5, 8, and 10 are also obvious over Lin and/or DP in view of Lin
`
`
`
`5
`
`

`
`
`(“DP&Lin”).5 POSITA would have been motivated to combine DP and Lin be-
`
`Inter Partes Review
`United States Patent No. 6,829,634
`
`cause (1) DP discloses a flexible interface for enabling multiplayer games to run
`
`over any computer network, such as Lin’s; (2) both address the problem of broad-
`
`casting 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 ¶¶81-86; IPR2015-01964, Pap.10 (“LinInst.”), 11-19.
`
`Claims
`Claim 1 [preamble]
`A non-routing table
`based computer net-
`work having a plu-
`rality of participants,
`
`Prior Art (see Ex1145 Appendix C; Ex1124 §X)6
`[DP&Lin] DirectPlay discloses an interface for computer
`networks (e.g., “network[]”) having a plurality of partici-
`pants (e.g., “multiparticipant,” “players”). E.g., Ex1103
`19; 22-23; 54; Fig. 18-3. Ex1145 ¶¶87-88, 90. [DP&Lin,
`Lin] Lin discloses a non-routing table based (e.g., “flood-
`ing”) computer network (e.g., “network”) having a plurali-
`ty of participants (e.g., “processors,” “nodes”). E.g.,
`Ex1104 8; 9; 10; 14. Ex1145 ¶¶87, 89-90.
`[DP&Lin] DirectPlay discloses each participant (e.g.,
`“player”) having connections to at least three neighbor
`participants (e.g., Fig. 18-3(a) graph). E.g., Ex1103 19; 23;
`Fig. 18-3(a); Ex1145 ¶¶91, 92. [Lin] Lin also discloses
`each participant (e.g., “processors,” “nodes”) having con-
`nections (e.g., “links,” “edges”) to at least three neighbor
`participants. E.g., Ex1104 9; 10; 14; Figs. 2 & 4; 24-25.
`
`5 PO hasn’t attempted and shouldn’t be permitted to belatedly attempt to show that
`
`[1a] each participant
`having connections to
`at least three neighbor
`participants,
`
`element was actually reduced to practice (or conceived followed by diligence) be-
`
`fore Lin’s priority date. In re Steed, 802 F.3d 1311, 1318 (Fed.Cir. 2015). See also
`
`Ex1124 §VI; Reply in IPR2015-01970, §III.
`
`6 “Discloses” in this table refers to discloses or alternatively renders obvious.
`
`
`
`6
`
`

`
`Inter Partes Review
`United States Patent No. 6,829,634
`
`Ex1145 ¶¶91, 93.
`[DP&Lin] DirectPlay discloses an originating participant
`(e.g., “player”) sends data (e.g., “messages”) to the other
`participants. E.g., Ex1103 72; 73, Tb. 20-25; 86; 123;
`Ex1145 ¶¶94, 98-100. [DP&Lin, Lin] Lin discloses an
`originating participant (e.g., “node,” “processor”) sends
`data (e.g., “information”) to the other participants by send-
`ing the data (e.g., “m”) through each of its connections
`(e.g., “links,” “edges”) to its neighbor participants (e.g.,
`“neighbors”), 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”). E.g.,
`Ex1104 9. Ex1145 ¶¶94-98, 100.
`
`[DP&Lin] DirectPlay discloses data is numbered sequen-
`tially (e.g., “TCP/IP” sequence numbers) so that data re-
`ceived out of order can be queued and rearranged. E.g.,
`Ex1103 19-21; 30, Fig. 19-1, 74, Tb. 20-26. Ex1145
`¶¶101, 102. [Lin] Lin discloses data is numbered sequen-
`tially so that data received out of order can be queued and
`rearranged. E.g., Ex1104 9. Ex1145 ¶¶101, 108, 191-93.
`[DP&Lin, Lin] Lin discloses the network is m-regular
`(e.g., “regular graph,” the 4-regular graphs in Fig. 4) and
`m-connected (e.g., “t-node connected,” the 4-connected
`graphs in Fig. 4), where m (e.g., “t”) is the number of
`neighbor participants of each participant (e.g., “node”).
`E.g., Ex1104 15; 21; 14; Figs. 2 & 4; Ex1145 ¶¶103-08.
`
`[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). E.g., Ex1104 24 to 25. Ex1145 ¶¶109-
`14; Ex 1004 at 14; Figs. 2 & 4
`
`E.g., Claim 1. Ex1145 ¶87-114. [DP&Lin] DirectPlay fur-
`ther discloses all the participants are peers and that the
`connections are peer-to-peer connections (e.g.,“peer-to-
`peer”). E.g., Ex1103 22-23. Ex1145 ¶¶119-21. [Lin] Lin
`7
`
`
`
`[1b] wherein an orig-
`inating
`participant
`sends data to the oth-
`er participants by
`sending
`the
`data
`through each of its
`connections
`to
`its
`neighbor participants,
`wherein each partici-
`pant sends data that it
`receives
`from
`a
`neighbor participant
`to its other neighbor
`participants,
`[1c] wherein data is
`numbered sequential-
`ly so that data re-
`ceived out of order
`can be queued and re-
`arranged,
`
`[1d] further wherein
`the network
`is m-
`regular
`and m-
`connected, where m
`is
`the number of
`neighbor participants
`of each participant,
`[1e]
`and
`further
`wherein the number
`of participants is at
`least two greater than
`m thus resulting in a
`non-complete graph.
`Claim 5. The com-
`puter
`network
`of
`claim 1 wherein the
`connections are peer-
`
`
`
`

`
`
`to-peer connections.
`
`Claim 8 The comput-
`er network of claim 1
`wherein a computer
`hosts more than one
`participant.
`
`Claim 10 [preamble]
`A non-routing table
`based
`broadcast
`channel for partici-
`pants, comprising:
`
`[10a] a communica-
`tions network
`that
`provides peer-to-peer
`communications be-
`tween the participants
`connected
`to
`the
`broadcast channel;
`
`[10b] and for each
`participant connected
`to
`the
`broadcast
`channel, an indication
`of four neighbor par-
`ticipants of that par-
`ticipant;
`
`Inter Partes Review
`United States Patent No. 6,829,634
`
`further discloses all the participants are peers (e.g., the 4-
`connected graphs in Fig. 4) and the connections are peer-
`to-peer connections. E.g., Ex1104 9; Figs. 2 & 4; Ex1145
`¶¶119, 121, 194-98.
`E.g., Claim 1. Ex1145 ¶¶87-114. [DP&Lin] DirectPlay
`further discloses a computer hosts more than one partici-
`pant (e.g., “application,” “player”). Ex1103 99 Fig. 21-2;
`98-100. Ex1145 ¶¶132-35. [Lin] Lin further discloses a
`computer (e.g., “simulator”) hosts more than one partici-
`pant. E.g., Ex1104 24-25. Ex1145 ¶¶132, 135, 205-08.
`[DP&Lin] DirectPlay discloses a broadcast channel (e.g.,
`“session”) for participants (e.g., “games in progress”).
`E.g., Ex1103 21; 22; 24; 99- 100. Ex1145 ¶¶140-41, 144.
`[DP&Lin, Lin] Lin discloses a non-routing table based
`e.g., (“flooding”) broadcast channel (e.g., “communica-
`tions graph”) for participants (e.g., “links,” “edges”). E.g.,
`Ex1104 8; 9; Figs. 2 & 4; 24 - 25. Ex1145 ¶¶140, 142-44.
`See Claim 5 above. Ex1145 ¶119-21. [DP&Lin] Direct-
`Play discloses a communications network (e.g., “net-
`work[]”) that provides peer-to-peer communications (e.g.,
`“peer-to-peer”) between the participants (e.g., “player”)
`connected to the broadcast channel (e.g., “session”). E.g.,
`Ex1103 22; 23; 123; Ex1145 ¶145-46. [DP&Lin, Lin] Lin
`discloses a communications network (e.g., “network”) that
`(e.g.,
`provides peer-to-peer communications
`the 4-
`connected graphs in Fig. 4) between the participants (e.g.,
`“links,” “edges”) connected to the broadcast channel (e.g.,
`“communications graph”). E.g., Ex1104 9; Figs. 2 & 4;
`Ex1145 ¶145, 147.
`[DP&Lin] DirectPlay discloses for each participant (e.g.,
`“player”) connected to the broadcast channel (e.g., Fig. 18-
`3(a) graph), an indication of four neighbor participants
`(e.g., Fig. 18-3(a) graph of that participant. E.g., Ex1103
`19. Ex1145 ¶¶148-50, 152. [DP&Lin, Lin] Lin also dis-
`closes for each participant (e.g., “processors,” “nodes”)
`connected to the broadcast channel, an indication of four
`neighbor participants (e.g., “links,” “edges”) of that partic-
`ipant. E.g., Ex1104 9; 10; Figs. 2 & 4; 24-25. Ex1145
`¶¶148, 151-52.
`
`
`
`8
`
`

`
`Inter Partes Review
`United States Patent No. 6,829,634
`
`See Claim 1[b] above. Ex1145 ¶¶94-100. [DP&Lin] Di-
`rectPlay discloses a broadcast component that receives da-
`ta (e.g., “messages”) from a neighbor participant (e.g.,
`“player”) using a communications network. E.g., Ex1103
`20, Tb. 18-1; 72; 73 Tb. 20-25; 86; 123; Ex1145 ¶¶153-54,
`58. [DP&Lin, Lin] Lin discloses a broadcast component
`that receives data (e.g., “m”) from a neighbor participant
`(e.g., “node,” “processor”) using the communications net-
`work and that sends the received data to its other neighbor
`participants to effect the broadcasting of the data to each
`participant of the to broadcast channel (e.g., “graph-based
`flooding,” “all of its neighbors except for the one which
`forwarded it m”). E.g., Ex1104 8; 9. Ex1145¶¶153,155-58.
`
`[DP&Lin, Lin] Lin discloses the network is m-regular and
`m-connected, where m is the number of neighbor partici-
`pants of each participant. E.g., Claim 1[d], above. Ex1145
`¶¶159-60.
`
`[DP&Lin, Lin] Lin discloses the number of participants is
`at least two greater than m thus resulting in a non-
`complete graph. E.g., Claim 1[e], above. Ex1145 ¶¶161-
`63.
`
`
`[10c] and a broadcast
`component
`that
`re-
`ceives data from a
`neighbor participant
`using the communica-
`tions network and
`that sends
`the
`re-
`ceived data to its oth-
`er neighbor partici-
`pants
`to effect
`the
`broadcasting of
`the
`data to each partici-
`pant of the to broad-
`cast channel,
`[10d] wherein
`the
`network is m-regular
`and
`m-connected,
`where m is the num-
`ber of neighbor par-
`ticipants of each par-
`ticipant,
`[10e]
`further
`and
`wherein the number
`of participants is at
`least two greater than
`m thus resulting in a
`non-complete graph.
`
`PO’s newly-added limitations are rendered obvious, see infra, by Lin
`
`(Ground 1), DP in view of Lin (Ground 2), Lin in view of Gautier (Ex1130)
`
`(Ground 3), Shoubridge (Ground 4), and Shoubridge in view of Gautier (Ground
`
`5). Grounds 2-3 and 5 also rely on DP and Gautier if PO argues further disclosure
`
`is required. Ex1124 §X, App’x.A; Ex1125 §X, App’x.A.
`
`A. Overview of Shoubridge, Lin, DP, and Gautier
`
`
`
`9
`
`

`
`
`Shoubridge discloses “flooding” in which a node, upon first receiving a message ,
`
`Inter Partes Review
`United States Patent No. 6,829,634
`
`broadcasts it to all neighbors except the one from which it was received over a 4-
`
`regular graph. Ex1105 2-3; Pet.17-21; Ex1125 ¶259. Lin (at least §102(a)) teaches
`
`a broadcast protocol superimposing a communication graph on a generic network
`
`and executing “flooding” over it to implement a broadcast channel. Ex1104 9, 13;
`
`Ex1124 ¶200. 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 all players game updates. Ex1103 19-20,22; Pet.15-19; Ex1124 ¶200.
`
`Gautier (Ex1130) (pub’d 7/1998, at least §102(b)) (Exs1131-33, 1149-51; Ex1124
`
`¶201; Ex1125 ¶260-261) describes MiMaze, a multiplayer game used to study per-
`
`formance of distributed network protocols. Ex1130 2. Gautier discloses a “com-
`
`pletely distributed communication architecture based on IP multicast” (“MBone”)
`
`for each player’s application program to broadcast “Application Data Units” con-
`
`taining game status updates to the other players’ applications. Id., Abstract. MBone
`
`is an overlay network built on top of the Internet’s generic point-to-point capabil-
`
`ity. Id. Abstract, 2, Figs. 2, 5. ; Ex1124 ¶201; Ex1125 ¶261.
`
`Lin + Gautier. POSITA would have been motivated to apply Gautier’s teachings
`
`in implementing Lin. (1) both are in the same field and address broadcasting in-
`
`
`
`10
`
`

`
`
`formation to multiple computer network participants. Ex1104 9; Ex1130 Abstract,
`
`Inter Partes Review
`United States Patent No. 6,829,634
`
`Fig. 2; Ex1124 ¶202. (2) POSITA would have been motivated to apply Gautier’s
`
`teaching of advantageously using distributed architecture for gaming applications
`
`in implementing Lin’s “scalab[le],” “adaptab[le],” “reliab[le]” distributed architec-
`
`ture and broadcast protocol to distribute gaming data.7 Ex1124 ¶203; Pet.21-25;
`
`Ex1104 27 (“substantially lower message overhead.…”); Ex1130 1-2 (“many ad-
`
`vantages compared to server-based architectures”); Ex1124 ¶204. Gautier teaches
`
`using a broadcasting scheme to send all players messages in a multiplayer envi-
`
`ronment. Ex1124 ¶204. POSITA would have recognized Lin’s overlay broadcast
`
`network provides such a scheme, can advantageously be “appl[ied] to many differ-
`
`ent physical networks,” and strikes a beneficial balance between information dis-
`
`semination speed and overhead introduced by broadcast messages. Ex1124 ¶204;
`
`
`7 Contrary to PO (Mot.17-18), 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 ¶¶84, 100, 158. POSITA would recognize that
`
`varying its degree of regularity “t” would reduce Lin’s network latency and ac-
`
`commodate information changing even faster. Ex1124 ¶204; Ex1104 10.
`
`
`
`11
`
`

`
`
`Ex1104 8-9, 16-17. (3) it was obvious to apply Gautier’s teachings of using a dis-
`
`Inter Partes Review
`United States Patent No. 6,829,634
`
`tributed architecture for gaming in implementing Lin’s broadcast network, e.g.,
`
`Ex1104 27-28 (citing multicast applications, e.g. [4], [10], [16]); Ex1124 ¶205; In
`
`re Fulton, 391 F.3d 1195, 1200 (Fed.Cir. 2004), and recognized this combination
`
`would work as expected. Ex1124 ¶205.
`
`Shoubridge + Gautier. POSITA would have been similarly motivated to apply
`
`Gautier’s teachings in implementing Shoubridge: (1) both are in the same field,
`
`addressing broadcasting information to multiple computer network participants
`
`(Ex1105 1-3; Ex1130 Abstract, Fig. 2); (2) Gautier distributed architecture for
`
`gaming applications could beneficially be used in implementing Shoubridge’s reli-
`
`able, scalable network to distribute gaming data (Ex1105 1, 3, 4; Ex1130 1-2); (3)
`
`would have been obvious to apply Gautier’s teachings of architectures with high
`
`“dynamicity” (Ex1130 2) in implementing Shoubridge’s broadcast network, which
`
`is effective and reliable for such dynamic networks (Ex1105 4). Ex1125 ¶262-265.
`
`This high dynamicity results from players frequently joining and leaving, and
`
`POSITA would have known dynamicity is a factor in selecting an appropriate rout-
`
`ing scheme. Shoubridge teaches the advantageous use of flooding in dynamic net-
`
`works. Ex1105 1. POSITA would have been motivated to implement Gautier’s
`
`teachings in Shoubridge’s flooding protocol instead of Shoubridge’s alternative
`
`routing scheme for more static networks, and recognized this combination would
`
`
`
`12
`
`

`
`
`work as expected. Ex1125 ¶262-265. To the extent argued further disclosure is re-
`
`Inter Partes Review
`United States Patent No. 6,829,634
`
`quired, it would have been obvious in view of the cited disclosures. Ex1125 ¶262-
`
`265.
`
`B. “A dynamic, overlay…network” that “overlays an underlying net-
`work” (Cls.26-27)
`
`Cls. 26-27 recite a “dynamic, overlay” network that “overlays an underlying
`
`network.” Cl. 25 recites “the network is an underlying network that overlays an
`
`underlying network” and is “dynamic.” Cl. 27 recites “the broadcast channel…is
`
`part of the overlay network.” Grounds 1-5 each renders obvious these limitations
`
`(even under PO’s constructions (see §I)). Ex1124 ¶206; Ex1125 ¶266.
`
`Claim
`[25.G]
`…further
`the
`wherein
`is
`network
`an
`overlay
`network that
`overlays an
`underlying
`net-
`work…and
`further
`the
`wherein
`is
`network
`dynamic….8
`
`Prior Art
`[Grs.1-3] Lin discloses a dynamic (e.g., “adaptab[le],” “add” and
`“remove”), overlay, (e.g., “superimpose[d]”) non-routing table based
`(e.g., “flooding”) 9 computer network (e.g., “communications
`graph”), which includes a broadcast channel (e.g., “broadcast[ing]”
`over the “superimpose[d]…communications graph,”), that overlays
`an underlying network (e.g., “local-area” or “wide-area network[]”),
`which is a communications network. E.g., Ex1104 8-9 (“proto-
`col…broadcasts messages to all of the processors in a net-
`work…[and]superimposes a communications graph on top of the
`processors and sends messages only along the edges of this
`graph.…nodes incident on…edge can directly send each other mes-
`sages at the transport level.”), 11 (“adaptability[—]It is not hard to
`add or remove processors...”), 24 (“environment of local-area net-
`works and small wide-area networks….[Gossip and Harary graph
`
`
`8 The limitations are shown as PO amended them. Mot.28-30.
`
`
`
`13
`
`

`
`Inter Partes Review
`United States Patent No. 6,829,634
`
`flooding] are similar in adaptability. [A]dding or removing a single
`processor causes only t processors to change their neighbors in Ha-
`rary graph flooding…. Ethernet-based networks.”); Ex1124 ¶207-
`223. [Gr.2] DP10 discloses a dynamic (e.g., “players join and leave
`game sessions”) overlay computer network (e.g., “[n]etwork[]”),
`which includes a broadcast channel (e.g., “session”), that overlays an
`underlying network (e.g., “TCP/IP network”), which is a communi-
`cations network. E.g., Ex1103 19 (“Networked multiplayer sup-
`port… networked world…hundreds[/]thousands of players… without
`getting tangled up in the details of the specific transport me-
`dia….…TCP/IP network.”), 22 (“whole point…a painless, hardware-
`independent way to move game data ….Messages can be sent to the
`entire session….”), 34 (“don't care whether…requires TCP/IP or
`SPX/IPX…. Connection shortcuts make it possible to insulate the
`user….”), 47 (“users…list of available sessions…decide …to join an
`existing session or create a new one….”), 52, 122 (“managing a ses-
`sion…how will players join and leave game sessions?”), 39 (“when
`sessions are enumerated ….Establishing …or joining an existing
`
`A
`
`
`
`[26.A]
`dynamic,
`overlay,
`non-routing
`table based
`computer
`network,
`which over-
`lays an un-
`derlying
`network …
`
`[27.B] …a
`dynamic,
`overlay net-
`work
`that
`overlays
`a
`
`
`9 POSITA would have understood that Lin’s disclosure of flooding a communica-
`
`tions graph is a non-routing table based computer network; and, at minimum,
`
`would have found it obvious to not use a routing table because it is not needed to
`
`flood. See Ex1145 ¶¶46-47, 89; Ex1124 ¶209.
`
`10 As discussed (§III), 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 of its reliability and scalability, and to apply Lin’s superimposed commu-
`
`nication graph in implementing DP’s overlay network, recognizing this combina-
`
`tion would work as expected. Ex1124 ¶214.
`
`
`
`14
`
`

`
`Inter Partes Review
`United States Patent No. 6,829,634
`
`one”); Ex1124 ¶210-14, 221.
`[Grs.4-5] Shoubridge discloses a dynamic (e.g., “very dynamic”)11
`overlay, non-routing table based (e.g., “flooding”) computer network
`(e.g., “grid network”)12, which includes a broadcast channel (e.g.,
`“broadcast[ing]” over “grid network”), that overlays an underlying
`network (e.g., underlying “com-
`munication network” forming
`“links”). E.g., Ex1105 at 1 (“As
`topology or traffic loads
`change…network becomes dy-
`namic ….Flooding algorithms
`simply broadcast user traffic
`through a network.”), 1 (“[F]looding… very dynamic network.”), 1
`(“Flooding based routing procedures do not maintain routing ta-
`bles...”); 2 (“Flood search routing …robustness in dynamic net-
`works.”), 3 (“A 64 node network with connectivity of degree 4 is
`modeled as G. The network. forming a manhattan grid network that
`has been wrapped around itself as a torus…. Transmission links
`function as a single server queueing system with service rate defined
`by packet size and link capacity.”). Ex1125 ¶267-279. [Grs.3, 5]
`
`
`communica-
`tions
`net-
`work,
`the
`wherein
`communica-
`tion network
`is an under-
`lying
`net-
`work…the
`broadcast
`channel
`which is part
`of the over-
`lay
`net-
`work….
`
`
`
`
`11 POSITA would have understood (or found it obvious) for users to frequently
`
`join/leave Shoubridge’s network using the broadcast channel. Ex1125 ¶¶272-79.
`
`12 POSITA would have understood (or 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 ¶272-79; see also Pet.57-58; Ex1119 ¶¶213-17.
`
`
`
`15
`
`

`
`Inter Partes Review
`United States Patent No. 6,829,634
`
`
`
`Gautier13 discloses a dynamic (e.g., “join and leave the session dy-
`namically,” “[h]igh level of dynamicity”) overlay, computer network
`(e.g., “network”), which includes a broadcast channel (e.g., “ses-
`sion,” “multicast tree” in Fig. 5), that overlays an underlying network
`(e.g., “Internet”), which is a communications network. 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.…MiMaze archi-
`tecture guarantee[s] the consistency ….”), 2 (“The characteristics of
`… MiMaze are…[h]igh level of dynamicity in group structure and
`topology. Participants join and leave the session dynamical-
`ly…particularly convenient.”), 6 (“architecture of the experiment
`multicast tree is given figure 5…. have a network with a delay that
`is, on average, smaller than 100ms.”), Fig. 5. Ex1124 ¶215-19, 222;
`Ex1125 ¶272-279.
`Grounds 1-5: If PO argues further disclosure of “join[ing] and leav[ing] the net-
`
`work using the broadcast channel” (see §§I (PO’s construction of dynamic), III.C)
`
`is required, it would have been obvious for a participant to advantageously inform
`
`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 communication graph by configuring the “processors” in
`
`Lin’s (or Shoubridge’s) nodes to execute Gautier’s gaming applications, and rec-
`
`ognized this combination (yielding the claimed limitations) would work as ex-
`
`pected. Ex1104 8, 9; Ex1105 1,6; Ex1124 ¶¶219; Ex1125 ¶276.
`
`
`
`16
`
`

`
`
`other network participants of its arrival/departure using the broadcast channel, e.g.,
`
`Inter Partes Review
`United States Patent No. 6,829,634
`
`by broadcasting over the overlay network, so, e.g., neighbor’s connections can be
`
`updated. Ex1124 ¶233; Ex1125 ¶276. Lin (Grounds 1-3): To the extent PO is also
`
`attempting to improperly limit the claimed network to an “application layer” over-
`
`lay and to the extent further disclosure is required beyond Lin’s “superim-
`
`pose[d]…communications graph,” it would have been obvious to implement Lin’s
`
`network as an application level overlay that overlays an underlying network, such
`
`as the Internet, to advantageously support Lin’s broadcast protocol without modi-
`
`fying the underlying network. Ex1104 8; Ex1124 ¶220. PO incorrectly asserts
`
`(Mot.17-19) that Lin’s teachings are limited to a broadcast protocol at the transport
`
`layer. Lin explains that the nodes of the “superimpose[d]...communications graph”
`
`are capable of sending messages to each other using the underlying network’s
`
`“transport level.” Ex1104 3. If PO tries to require that the overlay be part of an
`
`end-user application, it would have been obvious to incorporate the application
`
`layer overlay as part of an end-user application running on Lin’s “processors” that
`
`would be sending the “messages,” such as, e.g., a gaming application. Ex1104 9;
`
`Ex1124 ¶220. Shoubridge (Grounds 4-5) teaches “nodes” that interact with a logi-
`
`cal broadcast channel (e.g., “broadcast” over “grid network”) that overlays an un-
`
`derlying network (e.g., underlying “communication network” forming “links”).
`
`Ex1105 1-3. POSITA would have understo