REDACTED
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`ARISTA NETWORKS, INC.,
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`CISCO SYSTEMS, INC.,
`Patent Owner
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-00309
`Patent 7,224,668
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`PETITIONER’S REPLY TO
`PATENT OWNER’S RESPONSE TO PETITION
`
`

`

`REDACTED
`
`Case IPR2016-00309
`Attorney Docket No: 40963-0006IP3
`
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`I. 
`INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................... 1 
`II.  GROUND 1: OBVIOUSNESS OVER AMARA/COREBUILDER .................. 2 
`A.  Amara/CoreBuilder Teaches That “the control plane port services operate
`on packets . . . in a way that is independent of the physical port interfaces and
`services applied thereto” ......................................................................................... 2 
`1. 
`The Challenged Claims do not require that both “port services” and
`“control plane port services” be applied to control plane packets ...................... 2 
`2.  Applying plain meaning, it is immaterial whether Amara discloses
`applying both “port services” and “control plane port services” to the control
`plane packets ....................................................................................................... 7 
`3. 
`Even under Cisco’s flawed construction, Amara discloses applying both
`“port services” and “control plane port services” to the control plane packets .. 8 
`B.  Amara/CoreBuilder Discloses “the port services providing the ability to
`control and monitor packet flows, as defined by control plane configurations” . 11 
`1.  Because Amara discloses port services that “monitor packet flows,”
`CoreBuilder need not ........................................................................................ 11 
`2.  Although duplicative and unnecessary, CoreBuilder also teaches
`monitoring of packet flows because CoreBuilder teaches packet filtering ...... 12 
`C.  CoreBuilder Is Prior Art .............................................................................. 13 
`III.  GROUND 2: OBVIOUSNESS OVER AMARA/COREBUILDER AND
`MOBERG ................................................................................................................. 16 
`A.  Moberg Teaches Distributing Control Plane Processes Across Multiple
`Processors ............................................................................................................. 16 
`B.  Moberg Is Prior Art ..................................................................................... 17 
`1.  Cisco has not met its burden to prove an earlier invention date .............. 17 
`2.  Cisco has not shown the diligence required to antedate Moberg’s
`publication ......................................................................................................... 18 
`3.  Moberg is available as prior art under Cisco’s alleged invention date .... 21 
`IV.  GROUND 4: OBVIOUSNESS OVER AMARA/COREBUILDER AND
`HENDEL .................................................................................................................. 22 
`V.  THERE IS NO NEXUS FOR THE SECONDARY CONSIDERATIONS ..... 26 
`
`
`
`i
`
`

`

`REDACTED
`
`Case IPR2016-00309
`Attorney Docket No: 40963-0006IP3
`
`
`VI.  CONCLUSION ................................................................................................. 27 
`
`
`
`ii
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`REDACTED
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-00309
`Attorney Docket No: 40963-0006IP3
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`Page
`
`Cases
`Banks v. Unisys Corp.,
`228 F.3d 1357 (Fed. Cir. 2000) .......................................................................... 21
`Bey v. Kollonitsch,
`806 F.2d 1024 (Fed. Cir. 1986) .......................................................................... 20
`Brown v. Barton,
`102 F.2d 193 (C.C.P.A. 1939) ............................................................................ 20
`Cisco Sys., Inc. v. C-Cation Techs., LLC,
`IPR2014-00454, Paper 12 (PTAB Aug. 29, 2014) ............................................. 26
`Constant v. Advanced Micro-Devices, Inc.,
`848 F.2d 1560 (Fed. Cir. 1988) .......................................................................... 14
`Costco Wholesale Corp. v. Robert Bosch LLC,
`IPR2016-00036, Paper 16 (PTAB Apr. 25, 2016) ............................................. 13
`Eaton Corp. v. ZF Meritor LLC,
`No. 03-74844, 2008 WL 920073 (E.D. Mich. Apr. 3, 2008) ....................... 14, 15
`In re Hall,
`781 F.2d 897 (Fed. Cir. 1986) ............................................................................ 13
`KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex, Inc.,
`550 U.S. 398 (2007) ............................................................................................ 25
`Masterimage 3D, Inc. v. RealD Inc.,
`IPR2015-00040, Paper 84 (PTAB Apr. 14, 2016) ............................................. 26
`Maxlinear, Inc. v. Cresta Tech. Corp. et al.,
`IPR2015-00594, Paper 90 (PTAB Aug. 15, 2016) ............................................. 22
`MCM Portfolio LLC v. Hewlett-Packard Co.,
`812 F.3d 1284 (Fed. Cir. 2015) .......................................................................... 11
`
`
`
`iii
`
`

`

`REDACTED
`
`Case IPR2016-00309
`Attorney Docket No: 40963-0006IP3
`
`
`Microsoft Corp. v. Surfcast Inc.,
`IPR2013-00292, Paper 92 (PTAB Oct. 14, 2014) ........................................ 19, 20
`In re Mouttet,
`686 F.3d 1322 (Fed. Cir. 2012) .......................................................................... 11
`Orion IP, LLC v. Hyundai Motor Am.,
`605 F.3d 967 (Fed. Cir. 2010) ............................................................................ 15
`Rieser v. Williams,
`255 F.2d 419, 424 (C.C.P.A. 1958) .................................................................... 17
`Toshiba Corp. v. Juniper Networks, Inc.,
`248 F. App’x 170 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (unpublished) ................................................ 4
`Wm. Wrigley Jr. Co. v. Cadbury Adams USA LLC,
`683 F.3d 1356 (Fed. Cir. 2002) .......................................................................... 27
`Woods v. DeAngelo Marine Exhaust, Inc.,
`692 F.3d 1272 (Fed. Cir. 2012) ............................................................................ 6
`STATUTES
`35 U.S.C. §102(a) .................................................................................. 16, 17, 20, 21
`35 U.S.C. §102(e) .............................................................................................. 16, 21
`35 U.S.C. §103 ......................................................................................................... 16
`35 U.S.C. §103(c) .............................................................................................. 21, 22
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`iv
`
`

`

`REDACTED
`
`Case IPR2016-00309
`Attorney Docket No: 40963-0006IP3
`
`LIST OF EXHIBITS
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,224,668 to Smethurst et al. (“the ’668
`Patent”)
`Declaration of Dr. Bill Lin
`Curriculum Vitae of Dr. Bill Lin
`U.S. Patent No. 6,674,743 (“Amara”)
`U.S. Patent No. 6,460,146 (“Moberg”)
`U.S. Patent No. 6,970,943 (“Subramanian”)
`U.S. Patent No. 6,115,378 (“Hendel”)
`IETF RFC 2661, “Layer Two Tunneling Protocol
`‘L2TP’” (“IETF RFC 2661”)
`3Com CoreBuilder 3500 Implementation Guide, 3Com
`MSD Technical Publications, November 1999
`(“CoreBuilder”)
`Declaration of Patricia Crawford
`File History of U.S. Patent No. 7,224,668
`Declaration of Ralph A. Phillips in Support of Motion
`for Pro Hac Vice Admission
`Declaration of Christopher W. Dryer in Support of
`Motion for Pro Hac Vice Admission
`Declaration of Matthew Powers in Support of Motion
`for Pro Hac Vice Admission
`Declaration of Paul Ehrlich in Support of Motion for
`Pro Hac Vice Admission
`Declaration of William Nelson in Support of Motion for
`Pro Hac Vice Admission
`
`v
`
`ARISTA-1001
`
`ARISTA-1002
`ARISTA-1003
`ARISTA-1004
`ARISTA-1005
`ARISTA-1006
`ARISTA-1007
`ARISTA-1008
`
`ARISTA-1009
`
`ARISTA-1010
`ARISTA-1011
`ARISTA-1012
`
`ARISTA-1013
`
`ARISTA-1014
`
`ARISTA-1015
`
`ARISTA-1016
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`ARISTA-1017
`
`ARISTA-1018
`
`ARISTA-1019
`
`ARISTA-1020
`
`ARISTA-1021
`
`ARISTA-1022
`ARISTA-1023
`ARISTA-1024
`
`ARISTA-1025
`
`REDACTED
`
`Case IPR2016-00309
`Attorney Docket No: 40963-0006IP3
`
`William Strunk Jr. & E.B. White, The Elements of Style
`(4th Ed. 2000) (excerpt)
`Hearing Testimony of Kevin Almeroth, Certain
`Network Devices, Related Software and Components
`Thereof (II), Inv. No. 337-TA-945 (U.S.I.T.C. Nov. 13,
`2015) (excerpt)1
`Kevin Almeroth Hearing Demonstrative CDX-0013C-
`087, Certain Network Devices, Related Software and
`Components Thereof (II), Inv. No. 337-TA-945
`(U.S.I.T.C.)1
`Hearing Exhibit CX-0221 (Arista Networks User
`Manual), Certain Network Devices, Related Software
`and Components Thereof (II), Inv. No. 337-TA-945
`(U.S.I.T.C.) (excerpt)
`Deposition Transcript of Kevin Almeroth, January 17,
`2017
`Excerpt of Ex. 2015, reflecting limitation 1b
`Declaration of Christopher Butler and Exhibit A Thereto
`Jury Verdict, Cisco Systems, Inc. v. Arista Networks,
`Inc., No. 5:14-cv-05344 (N. D. Cal. Dec. 14, 2016)
`Arista’s Motion for Judgment as a Matter of Law and
`Conditional Motion for a New Trial, Cisco Systems, Inc.
`v. Arista Networks, Inc., No. 5:14-cv-05344 (N. D. Cal.
`Jan. 17, 2017)
`
`
`1 Although this exhibit bears a confidentiality legend, the testimony was
`
`designated as containing Arista confidential business information. Arista has
`
`agreed to file this exhibit in the public PTAB record.
`
`
`
`vi
`
`

`

`
`
`ARISTA-1026
`
`ARISTA-1027
`
`REDACTED
`
`Case IPR2016-00309
`Attorney Docket No: 40963-0006IP3
`
`Dorothy Atkins, “Jury Clears Arista in Cisco’s 335M IP
`Infringement Suit,” IPLaw 30 (Dec. 14, 2016)
`A Cisco Guide to Defending Against Distributed Denial
`of Service Attacks,
`http://www.cisco.com/c/en/us/about/security-
`center/guide-ddos-defense.html (accessed January 26,
`2017)
`
`
`
`ii
`
`

`

`REDACTED
`
`Case IPR2016-00309
`Attorney Docket No: 40963-0006IP3
`
`INTRODUCTION
`The parallels between the ’668 patent and the prior art are undeniable. Both
`
`
`I.
`
`the ’668 patent (Ex. 1001) and Amara (Ex. 1004) disclose internetworking devices
`
`that provide paths for internal (red) and transient (blue) packet traffic.
`
`Both teach the devices including ports (yellow), logic for executing port services
`
`(blue), and control plane port services (pink), as well as a control plane (green).
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`
`

`

`REDACTED
`
`Case IPR2016-00309
`Attorney Docket No: 40963-0006IP3
`
`Not surprisingly, Cisco ignores these unmistakable similarities. Instead,
`
`
`
`Cisco presents arguments premised on limitations not found in the claims, implicit
`
`claim construction positions unsupported by the record, and ineffectual attempts at
`
`disqualifying references as prior art. The record clearly establishes that the prior
`
`art invalidates claims 1-10, 12-13, 15-28, 30-31, 33-36, 55-64, 66-67, and 69-72
`
`(“the Challenged Claims”) of the ’668 patent.
`
`II. GROUND 1: OBVIOUSNESS OVER AMARA/COREBUILDER
`A. Amara/CoreBuilder Teaches That “the control plane port services
`operate on packets . . . in a way that is independent of the physical
`port interfaces and services applied thereto”
`1.
`The Challenged Claims do not require that both “port
`services” and “control plane port services” be applied to
`control plane packets
`Cisco argues that Amara/CoreBuilder combination (“Amara/CoreBuilder”)
`
`“does not teach or suggest both ‘control plane port services’ and ‘port services’
`
`operating on packets destined to the control plane, as required by the claims.”
`
`POR at 15. This supposed requirement does not appear in the claims. Indeed, the
`
`patent explicitly recognizes that some packets entering a physical network
`
`
`
`2
`
`

`

`REDACTED
`
`Case IPR2016-00309
`Attorney Docket No: 40963-0006IP3
`
`
`interface port will not receive normal port services,2 but will receive control plane
`
`port services, if they are destined for the control plane. Ex. 1001, 2:63-66
`
`(referring to an interface with “no configuration”), 6:38-42, 9:36-40.
`
`Having tried and failed to unreasonably narrow the meaning of “port
`
`services,” Cisco further attempts to read the requirement that “both port services
`
`and control plane port services are applied to control plane packets” into the word
`
`“thereto.” POR at 16-17; Almeroth Dec. ¶77 (“ . . . because they state that the port
`
`“services [are] applied thereto” (original emphasis)). Cisco appears to read the
`
`phrase “services applied thereto” in the limitation as referring back to “packets”
`
`(highlighted in pink below) and not the immediately adjacent “physical port
`
`interfaces.”
`
`
`
`
`2 The ’668 patent calls the services applied to the physical port interfaces
`
`“normal” port services. Col. 6:41-44, 6:67-7:1, 8:8-10, FIG. 4 (step 402), FIG. 6
`
`(step 602).
`
`
`
`3
`
`

`

`REDACTED
`
`Case IPR2016-00309
`Attorney Docket No: 40963-0006IP3
`
`
`Ex. 1001, 9:37-41. Applying the ordinary meaning of the claim language,
`
`“services applied thereto” means services (if any) applied to the physical port
`
`interfaces—i.e., normal port services. In other words, limitation 1d.ii requires the
`
`control plane port services to operate on packets in a way that is independent of
`
`any port services that have been applied to a physical port interface,3 but does not
`
`require a packet to receive normal port services as a prerequisite to receiving
`
`control plane port services.
`
`Not only does the specification contradict Cisco’s position—it explicitly
`
`describes that any given packet may receive control plane port services but not
`
`normal port services (Ex. 1001, 2:63-66, 6:32-44)—the claim language itself
`
`shows that Cisco’s construction is not the “plain meaning” of the phrase. First, the
`
`term “thereto” acts as a modifier in identifying to what the recited “services” are
`
`applied. Because the object “physical port interfaces” comes immediately before
`
`this phrase, grammar dictates that the term “thereto” references “physical port
`
`interfaces.” See Ex. 1017 at 30 (“Modifiers should come, if possible, next to the
`
`words they modify.”); Toshiba Corp. v. Juniper Networks, Inc., 248 F. App’x 170,
`
`174 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (unpublished) (holding the phrase “from which” to refer to an
`
`
`3 See Ex. 1001, Col. 9:1-4; FIG. 4 (steps 402, 405); FIG. 6 (steps 602, 606).
`
`
`
`4
`
`

`

`REDACTED
`
`Case IPR2016-00309
`Attorney Docket No: 40963-0006IP3
`
`
`adjacent term). Thus, the “physical port interfaces” are what the recited “services”
`
`are applied to.4 Moreover, this reading is the only one that removes all ambiguity
`
`as to what type of “services” are referred to in the “services thereto” portion of
`
`1d.ii—i.e., normal port services.
`
`By referring to services applied to the physical port interfaces, the limitation
`
`echoes the specification, which refers to services being applied to ports: “port input
`
`services are applied to the port 120.” Ex. 1001, 6:12-16. The patent also mentions
`
`services applied to ports in the Abstract, and columns 3:54-56 and 4:8-12. Further,
`
`claim 17 recites “[a] device as in claim 1 wherein the services applied to the
`
`control plane port . . . .” Id., 10:24-25; id., 11:45-46.
`
`
`4 In claims 19 and 55, “port services applied thereto” likewise refers to the port
`
`services applied to the “individual physical port interface configuration.” Ex.
`
`1001, 10:50-54, 13:30-34. The patent refers to applied port services as a
`
`configuration of the physical interface ports. Id., 4:8-12 (noting a rate limiting
`
`service can be “applied to the single control plane port rather than modifying the
`
`configuration on all ports”); 2:59-67 (describing a port interface with no port
`
`services as “[a]n interface which previously had no configuration”).
`
`
`
`5
`
`

`

`REDACTED
`
`Case IPR2016-00309
`Attorney Docket No: 40963-0006IP3
`
`The phrase “specific predetermined physical ports” similarly does not
`
`
`
`incorporate any requirement that normal port services must be applied to packets
`
`destined for the control plane, as Cisco asserts, POR at 17. This phrase does not
`
`take antecedent basis from limitation 1b, which recites the different phrase “the
`
`physical network interface ports.” During prosecution, Cisco did not introduce the
`
`“specific predetermined physical ports” limitation using a definite article that
`
`referred back to the physical network interface ports limitation 1b. Rather, this
`
`phrase is broad enough to encompass ports that have no normal port services
`
`applied to them. See Ex. 1001, 2:63-66.5
`
`Lacking any legitimate hook in the claim language, Cisco attempts to import
`
`a preferred embodiment into the claim language. POR at 18-22. First, Cisco is
`
`wrong because the specification describes “embodiments of the invention” in
`
`which port services are “typically” (but by definition, not always) applied to
`
`operate on packets entering into or exiting from each individual physical port. Ex.
`
`1001, 3:35-41. Second, nothing in the patent indicates Cisco’s purported
`
`
`5 Even if “specific predetermined physical ports” referred back to 1b (Cisco does
`
`not explain why it refers to 1b rather than 1a), the Board correctly determined that
`
`the port services of 1b do not have to act on every packet, ID at 16, such that some
`
`of the ports could be configured with no normal port services.
`
`
`
`6
`
`

`

`REDACTED
`
`Case IPR2016-00309
`Attorney Docket No: 40963-0006IP3
`
`
`“preferred embodiment” is meant to be limiting. The claims define the invention,
`
`not the disclosed embodiments. Woods v. DeAngelo Marine Exhaust, Inc., 692
`
`F.3d 1272, 1283 (Fed. Cir. 2012). Under the BRI standard, the claims do not
`
`require packets destined for the control plane to receive both normal port services
`
`and control plane port services.
`
`2.
`
`Applying plain meaning, it is immaterial whether Amara
`discloses applying both “port services” and “control plane
`port services” to the control plane packets
`Cisco wrongly characterizes Amara as “incapable” of applying “port
`
`services” to control plane packets. POR at 22-25. This purported distinction is
`
`irrelevant, however, because the claims include no such limitation. See Section
`
`II.A.1.
`
`Amara plainly teaches applying port services at policy engines 224, 226, 228
`
`in a way that is independent of the port services applied at policy engine 232. In
`
`particular, as Figure 3 (reproduced, with annotations, on page 1, supra) shows,
`
`transit packets (path shown in blue) pass through (and are operated on by) policy
`
`engines 226, 228 both when entering and exiting the device, respectively. Ex.
`
`1004, FIG. 3. Cisco does not dispute that these policy engines 226, 228 apply
`
`“port services” as the claims use that term; that is all that is needed to meet the
`
`plain meaning of the claim language.
`
`
`
`7
`
`

`

`
`
`REDACTED
`
`Case IPR2016-00309
`Attorney Docket No: 40963-0006IP3
`
`3.
`
`Even under Cisco’s flawed construction, Amara discloses
`applying both “port services” and “control plane port
`services” to the control plane packets
`Even if the Board were to apply Cisco’s incorrect construction,
`
`Amara/CoreBuilder would still invalidate the claims. Amara discloses applying at
`
`least one normal port service to packets destined for the control plane—namely,
`
`the service of packet classification performed by packet classifiers 214, 216, 218.
`
`Amara’s Figure 3 (below) shows that all packets received by the device
`
`through interfaces 202, 204, 206 are operated on by packet classifiers 214, 216,
`
`218, respectively, which perform normal port services. The classifiers determine
`
`where to direct packets, some of which are then sent through internal interface 220
`
`to policy engine 232, which performs control plane port services, before reaching
`
`internal applications 230.
`
`
`
`8
`
`

`

`
`
`REDACTED
`
`Case IPR2016-00309
`Attorney Docket No: 40963-0006IP3
`
`
`
`Ex. 1004, FIG. 3 (annotations added). The ’668 patent explicitly recognizes packet
`
`classification as an example of a service that can be applied to a port. Ex. 1001,
`
`Claim 17 (reciting services that may be applied to the control plane port, including
`
`“packet classification”); Ex. 2005 at 94:20–95:3 (“[C]laim 17 explicitly includes
`
`packet classification as a port service.”). A packet classifier thus provides a port
`
`service to both control and transit packets.
`
`Incredibly, Cisco argues that one of ordinary skill (“POSITA”) would not
`
`understand Amara’s “packet classifiers” to perform “packet classification” (a port
`
`
`
`9
`
`

`

`REDACTED
`
`Case IPR2016-00309
`Attorney Docket No: 40963-0006IP3
`
`
`service) as that term is used in claim 17. POR at 26-27. Under a plain reading of
`
`the claim, there can be no doubt that a POSITA would understand a “packet
`
`classifier” to engage in, at least, “packet classification.” That is what Amara
`
`discloses. Moreover, Cisco’s failure to offer “packet classification” as a term for
`
`construction should end this discussion. POR at 11. Cisco points to no
`
`definitional language within the specification that would warrant departing from
`
`the plain meaning of “packet classification” as “classifying packets.” Instead,
`
`Cisco relies on attorney argument (regarding the need for the recited service to be
`
`multi-functional) and draws unsupported conclusions from testimony given in a
`
`different forum, where the expert was not opining on whether a classifier is a “port
`
`service” but rather a “policy.” POR at 27.6
`
`Although claim 17 discusses control plane port services, in the ’668 patent,
`
`control plane port services and normal port services are the same except for the
`
`location at which they are applied. Ex. 1001, 5:66-6:4 (stating the “control plane
`
`port” can be “treated as a traditional hardware port” such that “traditional port
`
`control features can be applied”); 6:36-38 (noting the control plain port can be
`
`controlled “just as if [it] were a hardware interface”); Institution Decision (“ID”) at
`
`4-5. Indeed, Cisco has not provided an example of one service that would be
`
`
`6 This testimony does not address claim 17, and is no admission by Arista.
`
`
`
`10
`
`

`

`REDACTED
`
`Case IPR2016-00309
`Attorney Docket No: 40963-0006IP3
`
`
`applicable to only the control plane port and not the physical ports. Accordingly,
`
`in the ’668 patent, classification can serve as a “normal” port service as well as a
`
`control plane port service.7
`
`B. Amara/CoreBuilder Discloses “the port services providing the
`ability to control and monitor packet flows, as defined by control
`plane configurations”
`Cisco faults CoreBuilder for not teaching “monitor[ing] packet flows.” POR
`
`at 29-30. However, each of Amara and CoreBuilder discloses this limitation, and
`
`in any event, only one reference in the combination needs to show that detail.
`
`1.
`
`Because Amara discloses port services that “monitor packet
`flows,” CoreBuilder need not
`Amara plainly teaches “port services” that provide “the ability to control and
`
`monitor packet flows.” Petition at 26-27; ID at 16-17. For example, Amara
`
`discloses “packet filtering, in which certain packets are dropped, diverted, and/or
`
`logged.” Ex. 1004, 1:36-38. As the Board properly found, “[t]he ability to drop,
`
`prioritize, or filter external packets is sufficient to teach ‘an ability to control and
`
`
`7 The Abstract describes services “unique” to the control plane, but this statement
`
`means that the control plane may have its own unique set of services, not services
`
`that are inapplicable to the physical ports. Ex. 1001, 4:1-13.
`
`
`
`11
`
`

`

`REDACTED
`
`Case IPR2016-00309
`Attorney Docket No: 40963-0006IP3
`
`
`monitor packet flows.’” ID at 16-17.8 Logging, in particular, is evidence of
`
`monitoring because the log reflects the results of the monitoring. Ex. 1002, ¶36.
`
`Contrary to Cisco’s assertions, CoreBuilder need not disclose “logging”
`
`because Petitioner is relying on CoreBuilder to show that port services can be
`
`“defined by control plane processes.” Petition at 27. CoreBuilder need not
`
`disclose the exact same set of port services as Amara. “[T]he test for obviousness
`
`is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated
`
`into the structure of the primary reference.” MCM Portfolio LLC v. Hewlett-
`
`Packard Co., 812 F.3d 1284, 1294 (Fed. Cir. 2015); In re Mouttet, 686 F.3d 1322,
`
`1332-33 (Fed. Cir. 2012). Rather, it is enough that CoreBuilder teaches the
`
`limitation found missing in Amara—that the port services can be “defined by
`
`control plane processes.” Here, the record is clear that CoreBuilder provides this
`
`teaching. Ex. 2005 at 156:1-10.
`
`2.
`
`Although duplicative and unnecessary, CoreBuilder also
`teaches monitoring of packet flows because CoreBuilder
`teaches packet filtering
`CoreBuilder discloses an Administration Console through which “the
`
`administrator can, for example, create standard or custom packet filters, edit and
`
`save custom filters, and load custom filters onto the CoreBuilder router.” Petition
`
`
`8 Cisco does not challenge this finding.
`
`
`
`12
`
`

`

`REDACTED
`
`Case IPR2016-00309
`Attorney Docket No: 40963-0006IP3
`
`
`at 17. CoreBuilder explains that packet filters allow a router “to make a permit-or-
`
`deny decision for each packet based on the packet contents.” Ex. 1009 at 210; ID
`
`at 13. “The ability to drop, prioritize, or filter [] packets is sufficient to teach ‘an
`
`ability to control and monitor packet flows.’” ID at 16-17. The permit or deny
`
`decision in CoreBuilder thus controls packet flows and the examination of the
`
`packet contents necessary for that decision is monitoring such flows.9 As such,
`
`CoreBuilder’s packet filters “control and monitor packet flows” per claim 1.
`
`C. CoreBuilder Is Prior Art
`Although Cisco asserts that the CoreBuilder router handbook was not
`
`publicly available at least as early as November 1999—three years before the ’668
`
`patent’s November 2002 filing date—these assertions fall far short of overcoming
`
`Petitioner’s evidence of publication.
`
`First, the Crawford declaration is not an “improper incorporation by
`
`reference.” The Petition itself recites the necessary facts: “CoreBuilder (ARISTA-
`
`
`9 Similarly, for “control and monitor packet flows,” Cisco’s expert identified
`
`“ACLs,” which are quintessential packet filters like the filters in CoreBuilder,
`
`during his testimony in the ITC investigation related to the ’668 patent. Ex. 1018,
`
`1048:6:15; Ex. 1019; Ex. 1020; Ex. 2024 at 835; Ex. 1021, 49:3-51:19. He repeats
`
`this assertion here. Ex. 1022 (excerpt of Ex. 2015); Ex. 2006, ¶102.
`
`
`
`13
`
`

`

`REDACTED
`
`Case IPR2016-00309
`Attorney Docket No: 40963-0006IP3
`
`
`1009) was shipped with the CoreBuilder 3500 Switch to 3Com customers at least
`
`as early as November 1999.” Petition at 3. These facts establish CoreBuilder as
`
`prior art, and Petitioner properly cited to the Crawford declaration as admissible
`
`evidence supporting them. Costco Wholesale Corp. v. Robert Bosch LLC,
`
`IPR2016-00036, Paper 16, at 12 & n.3 (PTAB Apr. 25, 2016).
`
`Second, the Crawford declaration establishes that a POSITA, exercising
`
`reasonable diligence, could have located it by late 2002—within the 3 year
`
`window after its publication. Ms. Crawford explains from personal knowledge that
`
`manuals were packed with the products. Thus a POSITA need only open the
`
`router package to discover the user manual. Courts routinely find adequate proof
`
`of public availability under much less compelling circumstances. See, e.g., In re
`
`Hall, 781 F.2d 897, 900 (Fed. Cir. 1986) (holding that “a single catalogued thesis
`
`in one university library” was sufficiently accessible).
`
`Ms. Crawford was employed by 3Com from 1994 to 2000, first as a
`
`technical writer and later as a Software Quality Assurance Engineer. Ex. 1010, ¶3.
`
`She was personally aware of practices related to 3Com’s CoreBuilder user manuals
`
`for 3Com routers and the CoreBuilder 3500 product itself. Based on her personal
`
`knowledge of 3Com’s practices and procedures during the relevant time frame,
`
`Ms. Crawford declared that CoreBuilder shipped with 3Com’s products starting in
`
`
`
`14
`
`

`

`REDACTED
`
`Case IPR2016-00309
`Attorney Docket No: 40963-0006IP3
`
`
`November, 1999.10 Id., ¶¶4-9. The circumstances thus indicate that CoreBuilder
`
`was published in November 1999, and Ms. Crawford’s declaration is entirely
`
`proper and sufficient to meet Petitioner’s burden of proof. Constant v. Advanced
`
`Micro-Devices, Inc., 848 F.2d 1560, 1569 (Fed. Cir. 1988) (“Evidence of routine
`
`business practice can be sufficient to prove that a reference was made accessible
`
`before a critical date.”); Eaton Corp. v. ZF Meritor LLC, No. 03-74844, 2008 WL
`
`920073, at *2-*3 (E.D. Mich. Apr. 3, 2008) (holding that testimony from
`
`individuals familiar with “routine” library procedures was admissible to show
`
`public availability of dissertation).
`
`Finally, Cisco argues that the Board should not rely on the publication date
`
`of CoreBuilder, citing Standard Innovation Corp. v. Lelo, Inc., IPR2014-00148,
`
`Paper 42 (PTAB Apr. 23, 2015). In that case, the petitioner sought to establish
`
`publication solely by a document’s copyright date: “©2003-2014.” Id. at 13. The
`
`petitioner offered no testimony interpreting the date or explaining its significance
`
`
`10 The document also states: “The most current versions of guides and release
`
`notes are available in Adobe Acrobat Reader Portable Document Format (PDF) or
`
`HTML from the 3Com World Wide Web site: http://www.3com.com,” Ex. 1009 at
`
`21. An Internet Archive webpage from 6/21/2000 also confirms that CoreBuilder
`
`3500 with Software Release 3.0 was sold. Ex. 1023.
`
`
`
`15
`
`

`

`REDACTED
`
`Case IPR2016-00309
`Attorney Docket No: 40963-0006IP3
`
`
`vis-a-vis publication. Here, in contrast, Petitioner is not relying on solely a
`
`document date, but rather on Ms. Crawford’s declaration, which explains the
`
`meaning and significance of the November 1999 date. Ex. 1010, ¶8; Orion IP,
`
`LLC v. Hyundai Motor Am., 605 F.3d 967, 974-75 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (holding that
`
`reference constituted a prior art printed publication where copyright date was
`
`supported by witness testimony).
`
`III. GROUND 2: OBVIOUSNESS OVER AMARA/COREBUILDER AND
`MOBERG
`A. Moberg Teaches Distributing Control Plane Processes Across
`Multiple Processors
`Cisco repeats the previously rejected argument that the “routing table
`
`computation” and “network management” functions are disclosed as being in the
`
`“primary CPU.” POR at 44-45; see ID at 19. Moberg provides a router with a
`
`primary and secondary CPU where the “secondary processor [can] off load work
`
`from the primary processor” and thereby “make[] use of both processors
`
`simultaneously.” Ex. 1005, 2:26–30; ID at 19. Significantly, Moberg explains that
`
`the “secondary processor [has] the ability to perform some functions that are
`
`conventionally the duties of the primary processor.” Ex. 1005, 4:32-39; 8:10-14.
`
`These duties include the routing table computation and network management
`
`functions. Id., 4:44-46; ID at 19.
`
`
`
`16
`
`

`

`REDACTED
`
`Case IPR2016-00309
`Attorney Docket No: 40963-0006IP3
`
`Cisco also points to Moberg’s discussion of “communication intensive
`
`
`
`tasks” as somehow delineating what tasks the secondary processor may or may not
`
`be perform. POR at 46. However, Moberg clearly states that the “communication
`
`intensive tasks” are not performed by either the primary or secondary processors,
`
`but by a third set of processors contained in the interfaces 160. Ex. 1005, 5:6-20.
`
`Thus, Moberg teaches distributing control plane processes over two
`
`redundant control plane processors. Ex. 1002, ¶74.
`
`B. Moberg Is Prior Art
`Moberg qualifies as prior art under §102(a) and/or §102(e) and may be
`
`combined with other references pursuant to §103.
`
`1.
`
`Cisco has not met its burden to prove an earlier invention
`date
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`17
`
`

`

`REDACTED
`
`Case IPR2016-00309
`Attorney Docket No: 40963-0006IP3
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`2.
`
`Cisco has not shown the diligence required to antedate
`Moberg’s publication
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`