Arista Networks, Inc. (Petitioner)
`v.
`Cisco Systems, Inc. (Patent Owner)
`
`Demonstratives
`Trial No. IPR2016-00306
`U.S. Patent No. 7,023,853
`
`Before Hon. Bryan F. Moore, Miriam L. Quinn,
`and Matthew R. Clements
`Administrative Patent Judges
`
`1
`
`
`v.
`Cisco Systems, Inc. (Patent Owner)
`
`Demonstratives
`Trial No. IPR2016-00306
`U.S. Patent No. 7,023,853
`
`Before Hon. Bryan F. Moore, Miriam L. Quinn,
`and Matthew R. Clements
`Administrative Patent Judges
`
`1
`
`
`
`853 Patent
`
`Ex. 1001 – US Patent No. 7,023,853 (“the 853 patent”)
`
`2
`
`
`
`Grounds Instituted In Inter Partes Review
`
`References
`Spinney1
`
`Basis
`35 U.S.C. § 102
`
`Instituted Claims
`63
`
`Institution Decision (Paper No. 8) at 21
`
`1. U.S. Patent No. 5,414,704 (“Spinney”) (Ex. 1004)
`
`3
`
`
`
`Cisco Does Not Dispute That Spinney Discloses
`Most Elements Of Claim 63
`
`NOT
`DISPUTED
`
`63. A method of processing a packet comprising:
`selecting an output interface to which to forward the
`packet;
`determining forwarding permission for the packet, wherein
`the determining comprises
`matching one or more characteristics of said packet
`with one or more access control specifiers in at
`least one access control element;
`processing said packet based on said forwarding
`permission;
`wherein, the selecting step is performed in parallel with the
`determining step.
`
`NOT
`DISPUTED
`
`NOT
`DISPUTED
`POR (Paper No. 19) at 22‐35
`
`4
`
`
`
`Cisco’s Arguments For The “Determining . . .” Step
`
`Cisco:
`• Spinney discloses only “determining forwarding
`permission” based on lack of a match, not an affirmative
`match
`• Spinney discloses only that the CAM contains “items,”
`not “one or more access control specifiers”
`• The claimed “access control specifiers” must be access
`control lists (“ACLs”)
`• Spinney’s controller alone is the claimed “access control
`element” so the “access control specifiers” in the CAM
`are not “in” the “access control element”
`
`POR (Paper No. 19) at i‐ii, 24‐35
`
`5
`
`
`
`Spinney Discloses “Determining Forwarding
`Permissions” Based On A Match As Claimed
`
`Cisco:
`“To the extent the
`‘filtering’ described in
`Spinney relates to the
`dropping of a packet,
`that would at best be
`based on lack of a
`match . . . there is no
`disclosure of filtering
`based on affirmative
`match in the CAM.”
`
`POR (Paper No. 19) at 22
`
`Ex. 1004 (Spinney) at 6:14‐32;
`Reply to POR (Paper No. 24) at 7‐8
`
`6
`
`
`
`Spinney Discloses “Determining Forwarding
`Permissions” Based On A Match As Claimed
`
`Cisco:
`“To the extent the
`‘filtering’ described in
`Spinney relates to the
`dropping of a packet,
`that would at best be
`based on lack of a
`match . . . there is no
`disclosure of filtering
`based on affirmative
`match in the CAM.”
`
`POR (Paper No. 19) at 22
`
`Ex. 1004 (Spinney) at 9:3‐12;
`Reply to POR (Paper No. 24) at 8
`
`Ex. 1004 (Spinney) at 9:23‐26;
`Reply to POR (Paper No. 24) at 8
`
`7
`
`
`
`Spinney Discloses “Determining Forwarding
`Permissions” Based On A Match As Claimed
`
`Cisco:
`“To the extent the
`‘filtering’ described in
`Spinney relates to the
`dropping of a packet,
`that would at best be
`based on lack of a
`match . . . there is no
`disclosure of filtering
`based on affirmative
`match in the CAM.”
`
`POR (Paper No. 19) at 22
`
`Ex. 1004 (Spinney) at 11:7‐11; Reply to POR (Paper No. 24) at 9
`
`Ex. 1004 (Spinney) at 14:55‐66;
`Reply to POR (Paper No. 24) at 9
`
`8
`
`
`
`Cisco’s Arguments For The “Determining . . .” Step
`
`Cisco:
`• Spinney discloses only “determining forwarding
`permission” based on lack of a match, not an affirmative
`match
`• Spinney discloses only that the CAM contains “items,”
`not “one or more access control specifiers”
`• The claimed “access control specifiers” must be access
`control lists (“ACLs”)
`• Spinney’s controller alone is the claimed “access control
`element” so the “access control specifiers” in the CAM
`are not “in” the “access control element”
`
`POR (Paper No. 19) at i‐ii, 24‐35
`
`9
`
`
`
`Cisco: Spinney Discloses Only That The CAM Contains
`“Items” Not “One Or More Access Control Specifiers”
`
`POR (Paper No. 19) at 29‐30
`
`10
`
`
`
`Claim Construction: “Access Control Specifier”
`
`Institution Decision (Paper No. 8) at 11
`
`11
`
`
`
`Spinney Discloses “One Or More Access Control
`Specifiers In At Least One Access Control Element”
`
`Cisco:
`“Spinney does not
`disclose the contents
`of the CAM . . .
`Spinney generally
`describes the
`information in its CAM
`as ‘items’—nothing
`more.”
`
`POR (Paper No. 19) at 29‐30
`
`Ex. 1004 (Spinney) at Claim 2;
`Reply to POR (Paper No. 24) at 12
`
`Ex. 1004 (Spinney) at 3:25‐30;
`Reply to POR (Paper No. 24) at 12
`
`Ex. 1004 (Spinney) at 5:57‐59;
`Reply to POR (Paper No. 24) at 12
`
`12
`
`
`
`Spinney Discloses “One Or More Access Control
`Specifiers In At Least One Access Control Element”
`
`Cisco:
`“Spinney does not
`disclose the contents
`of the CAM . . .
`Spinney generally
`describes the
`information in its CAM
`as ‘items’—nothing
`more.”
`
`POR (Paper No. 19) at 29‐30
`
`Ex. 1004 (Spinney) at 9:23‐26;
`Reply to POR (Paper No. 24) at 12‐13
`
`Ex. 1004 (Spinney) at 9:34‐37;
`Reply to POR (Paper No. 24) at 12‐13
`
`13
`
`
`
`Cisco’s Arguments For The “Determining . . .” Step
`
`Cisco:
`• Spinney discloses only “determining forwarding
`permission” based on lack of a match, not an affirmative
`match
`• Spinney discloses only that the CAM contains “items,”
`not “one or more access control specifiers”
`• The claimed “access control specifiers” must be access
`control lists (“ACLs”)
`• Spinney’s controller alone is the claimed “access control
`element” so the “access control specifiers” in the CAM
`are not “in” the “access control element”
`
`POR (Paper No. 19) at i‐ii, 24‐35
`
`14
`
`
`
`Cisco: The Claimed “Access Control Specifiers”
`Must Be Access Control Lists (“ACLs”)
`
`POR (Paper No. 19) at 29
`
`15
`
`
`
`Claim 63 Does Not Require
`“Access Control Specifiers” To Be ACLs
`
`63. A method of processing a
`packet comprising:
`
`selecting an output interface to
`which to forward the packet;
`
`determining forwarding
`permission for the packet, wherein
`the determining comprises
`
`matching one or more
`characteristics of said packet
`with one or more access
`control specifiers in at least one
`access control element;
`
`processing said packet based on
`said forwarding permission;
`
`wherein, the selecting step is
`performed in parallel with the
`determining step.
`
`Ex. 1001 (853 patent) at Claim 63
`
`Institution Decision (Paper No. 8) at 11
`
`Q: Is it your view that claim 63
`requires access control lists?
`
`A: No. Not specifically access
`control lists. I don’t believe
`that that’s language in the
`claim. And I don’t think I’m
`saying that in paragraph 136.
`
`Ex. 1021 (Almeroth Dep. Tr.) at 22:18‐23:2
`
`16
`
`
`
`Cisco’s Arguments For The “Determining . . .” Step
`
`Cisco:
`• Spinney discloses only “determining forwarding
`permission” based on lack of a match, not an affirmative
`match
`• Spinney discloses only that the CAM contains “items,”
`not “one or more access control specifiers”
`• The claimed “access control specifiers” must be access
`control lists (“ACLs”)
`• Spinney’s controller alone is the claimed “access control
`element” so the “access control specifiers” in the CAM
`are not “in” the “access control element”
`
`POR (Paper No. 19) at i‐ii, 24‐35
`
`17
`
`
`
`Cisco: Controller Alone Is The “Access Control Element”
`So The “Access Control Specifiers” Are Not “In” It
`
`POR (Paper No. 19) at 34
`
`18
`
`
`
`Spinney’s Controller 10 And CAM 23 Together Disclose
`The Claimed “Access Control Element”
`
`63. A method of processing a
`packet comprising:
`
`selecting an output interface to
`which to forward the packet;
`
`determining forwarding
`permission for the packet, wherein
`the determining comprises
`
`matching one or more
`characteristics of said packet
`with one or more access
`control specifiers in at least one
`access control element;
`
`processing said packet based on
`said forwarding permission;
`
`wherein, the selecting step is
`performed in parallel with the
`determining step.
`
`Ex. 1001 (853 patent) at Claim 63
`
`Ex. 1004 (Spinney) at Fig. 1A, 9:3‐12;
`Petition (Paper No. 1) at 15; Reply to POR (Paper No. 24) at 14‐15
`
`19
`
`
`
`Spinney Discloses All Limitations Of Claim 63
`
`63. A method of processing a
`packet comprising:
`
`selecting an output interface to
`which to forward the packet;
`
`determining forwarding
`permission for the packet, wherein
`the determining comprises
`
`matching one or more
`characteristics of said packet
`with one or more access
`control specifiers in at least one
`access control element;
`
`processing said packet based on
`said forwarding permission;
`
`wherein, the selecting step is
`performed in parallel with the
`determining step.
`
`Ex. 1001 (853 patent) at Claim 63
`
`Ex. 1004 (Spinney) at 1:33‐38;
`Petition (Paper No. 1) at 11
`
`Ex. 1004 (Spinney) at 6:14‐21;
`Petition (Paper No. 1) at 11
`
`20
`
`
`
`Spinney Discloses All Limitations Of Claim 63
`
`63. A method of processing a
`packet comprising:
`
`selecting an output interface to
`which to forward the packet;
`
`determining forwarding
`permission for the packet, wherein
`the determining comprises
`
`matching one or more
`characteristics of said packet
`with one or more access
`control specifiers in at least one
`access control element;
`
`processing said packet based on
`said forwarding permission;
`
`wherein, the selecting step is
`performed in parallel with the
`determining step.
`
`Ex. 1001 (853 patent) at Claim 63
`
`Ex. 1004 (Spinney) at 5:18‐24;
`Petition (Paper No. 1) at 11‐14
`
`Ex. 1004 (Spinney) at 6:21‐26;
`Petition (Paper No. 1) at 11‐14
`
`21
`
`
`
`Spinney Discloses All Limitations Of Claim 63
`
`63. A method of processing a
`packet comprising:
`
`selecting an output interface to
`which to forward the packet;
`
`determining forwarding
`permission for the packet, wherein
`the determining comprises
`
`matching one or more
`characteristics of said packet
`with one or more access
`control specifiers in at least one
`access control element;
`
`processing said packet based on
`said forwarding permission;
`
`wherein, the selecting step is
`performed in parallel with the
`determining step.
`
`Ex. 1001 (853 patent) at Claim 63
`
`Ex. 1004 (Spinney) 6:14‐32; Petition (Paper No. 1) at 14‐15
`
`22
`
`
`
`Spinney Discloses All Limitations Of Claim 63
`
`63. A method of processing a
`packet comprising:
`
`selecting an output interface to
`which to forward the packet;
`
`determining forwarding
`permission for the packet, wherein
`the determining comprises
`
`matching one or more
`characteristics of said packet
`with one or more access
`control specifiers in at least one
`access control element;
`
`processing said packet based on
`said forwarding permission;
`
`wherein, the selecting step is
`performed in parallel with the
`determining step.
`
`Ex. 1001 (853 patent) at Claim 63
`
`Ex. 1004 (Spinney) 6:14‐32; Petition (Paper No. 1) at 15‐16
`
`23
`
`
`
`Spinney Discloses All Limitations Of Claim 63
`
`63. A method of processing a
`packet comprising:
`
`selecting an output interface to
`which to forward the packet;
`
`determining forwarding
`permission for the packet, wherein
`the determining comprises
`
`matching one or more
`characteristics of said packet
`with one or more access
`control specifiers in at least one
`access control element;
`
`processing said packet based on
`said forwarding permission;
`
`wherein, the selecting step is
`performed in parallel with the
`determining step.
`
`Ex. 1004 (Spinney) at 16:39‐47; Petition (Paper No. 1) at 16
`
`Ex. 1001 (853 patent) at Claim 63
`
`Ex. 1004 (Spinney) at Fig. 8; Petition (Paper No. 1) at 16
`
`24
`
`
`
`Assignor Estoppel
`
`“Under the AIA, ‘a person who is not the owner of a patent
`may file with the Office a petition to institute an inter partes
`review of the patent.’ 35 U.S.C. § 311(a) (emphasis added).
`Consequently, under the statute, an assignor of a patent, who
`is no longer an owner of the patent at the time of filing, may
`file a petition requesting inter partes review. This statute
`presents a clear expression of Congress’s broad grant of the
`ability to challenge the patentability of patents through inter
`partes review.”
`
`Athena Automation Ltd. v. Husky Injection Molding Sys. Ltd.,
`Case IPR2013-00290, slip op. at 12-13 (PTAB Oct. 25, 2013) (Paper 18);
`Institution Decision (Paper No. 8) at 19-20 (collecting and citing similar cases and
`“declin[ing] to apply assignor estoppel to this inter partes review proceeding”);
`Reply to POR (Paper No. 24) at 21
`
`25
`
`
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
Still Working On It
This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.
Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.
A few More Minutes ... Still Working
It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.
Thank you for your continued patience.
This document could not be displayed.
We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
Set your membership
status to view this document.
With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll
get a whole lot more, including:
- Up-to-date information for this case.
- Email alerts whenever there is an update.
- Full text search for other cases.
- Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.
One Moment Please
The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.
Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.
Your document is on its way!
If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.
Sealed Document
We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.
If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.
Access Government Site
