`v.
`Cisco Systems, Inc.
`
`IPR2016-00309
`U.S. Patent No. 7,224,668
`
`
`PATENT OWNER’S DEMONSTRATIVES
`
`Sterne, Kessler, Goldstein & Fox P.L.L.C.
`
`March 7, 2017
`
`1
`
`Exhibit 2048
`IPR2016-00309
`
`
`
`’668 Instituted Grounds
`
` Claims 1-6, 8, 9, 15-22, 24-27, 33-36, 55-58, 60-
`63, and 69-72 as unpatentable under 35 U.S.C.
`§ 103(a) over a combination of Amara and
`CoreBuilder
`
` Claims 7, 23, and 59 as unpatentable under 35
`U.S.C. § 103(a) over a combination of Amara,
`CoreBuilder, and Moberg
`
` Claims 10, 12, 13, 28, 30, 31, 64, 66, and 57
`unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over a
`combination of Amara, CoreBuilder, and
`Hendel
`
`2
`
`
`
`Source: ’668 Institution Decision, p. 23
`
`
`
`control plane vs. data plane
`
`Data Plane (fast path)
`
`vs.
`
`Control Plane (slow path)
`
`\
`
`’668 Patent, 1:54-56
`
`\
`’668 Patent, 1:56-59
`
`The data plane, for example, in the case of a router or
`switch, performs the forwarding of packets according the
`configuration specified by the control plane.
`
`
`
`
` Almeroth, ¶ 44
`
`[T]he control plane typically holds the configuration of a
`network device, and is responsible for providing the
`configuration mechanisms of a device, like a command-line
`interface. The control plane is often a collection of
`processes, typically executed by one or more CPUs.
`
`
`
`
` Almeroth, ¶ 44
`
`The control plane, on the other hand is typically only
`required to handle small amounts of traffic because a
`network device is not reconfigured that often. Thus, the
`“control plane” is often referred to as the “slow path.”
`
`
`
`
` Almeroth, ¶ 44
`
`[T]he data plane is designed to handle very high amounts of
`traffic, and thus is less susceptible to DoS attacks. The speed
`at which the data plane operates can be referred to as “line
`speed” or “fast path.”
`
`
`
`
`
` Almeroth, ¶ 44
`
`
`
`Source: ’668 POR, pp. 4-5; Ex. 2006, Almeroth Decl.
`
`3
`
`
`
`Overview of the ’668 patent – aggregate embodiments
`
`Aggregate Embodiments
`
`Source: ’668 POR, pp. 7-9; ’668 patent Figure 2
`
`4
`
`
`
`Overview of the ’668 patent – distributed embodiments
`
`Distributed Embodiments
`
`Source: ’668 POR, pp. 7-9; ’668 patent Figure 1
`
`5
`
`
`
`Amara does not disclose applying
`both “port services” and “control plane
`port services” to control plane
`destined packets
`
`6
`
`
`
`The ’668 patent, claim 1
`
`Source: ’668 patent, Claim 1
`
`7
`
`
`
`Claims require that packets that have “control plane port services”
`applied must also have “port services” applied
`
`No dispute between parties that the claimed “services applied thereto”
`are “port services” Reply, p. 4
`
`Claim 1
`
`Source: ’668 POR, p. 7; ’668 patent, Claim 1
`
`8
`
`
`
`The specification is consistent with the requirement that packets that have
`“control plane port services” applied must also have “port services” applied
`
`Input port
`services
`
`After input port
`services are
`applied,
`determine,
`whether packet
`is destined for
`the control
`plane
`
`Source: ’668 POR, pp. 19-21; Ex. 2006, Almeroth Decl., ¶¶ 79, 80; ’668 patent, Figures 4 and 6
`
`9
`
`
`
`The specification is consistent with the requirement that packets that have
`“control plane port services” applied must also have “port services” applied
`
`’668 patent, 9:1-4
`
`’668 patent, 6:12-15
`
`Source: ’668 POR, p. 19-21
`
`10
`
`
`
`Amara does not disclose applying both “port services”
`and “control plane port services”
`
`Source: ’668 POR, p. 23; Ex. 2006, Almeroth Decl., ¶¶ 81, 82
`
`11
`
`
`
`Amara does not disclose applying both “port services”
`and “control plane port services”
`
`Petition argues “policy engines 224-228” perform
`the claimed “port services”
`
`Petition argues “policy engine 232” performs the
`claimed “control plane port services”
`
`Petition, p. 26
`
`Source: ’668 POR, pp. 15-16
`
`12
`
`Petition, p. 29
`
`
`
`Amara does not disclose applying both “port services”
`and “control plane port services”
`
`Amara, 6:9-16
`
`Source: ’668 POR, pp. 12-13, 22-25; Ex. 2006, Almeroth Decl., ¶¶ 81, 82
`
`13
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s Expert’s new theory regarding packet
`classifiers in Amara
`
`Dr. Lin’s new theory:
`
`• Amara’s “packet classifiers” operate on all
`packets
`
`• Claim 17 of ‘668 allegedly recites that packet
`classification is a “port service”
`
`• Amara’s “packet classifiers” thus perform
`“port services” because they allegedly
`perform “packet classification”
`
`
`
`Lin Dep. Tr., 94:16-95:8
`
`Source: ’668 POR, pp. 25-26; Ex. 2005
`
`14
`
`
`
`Dr. Lin admitted his new packet classifier theory was not
`in his declaration
`
`\
`
`\
`
`Lin Dep. Tr., 114:21-25
`
`Source: ’668 POR, pp. 25-26; Ex. 2005
`
`15
`
`
`
`Amara’s packet classifier does not perform
`“port services”
`
`Claim 17 recites that “packet classification” is “control plane port
`service” NOT a “port service
`
`Source: ’668 POR, pp. 26-27; ’668 patent, Claim 17
`
`16
`
`
`
`Amara does not disclose applying both “port services”
`and “control plane port services”
`
`Source: ’668 POR, p. 23; Ex. 2006, Almeroth Decl., ¶¶ 81, 82
`
`17
`
`
`
`Amara’s packet classifier does not perform
`“port services”
`Claim 17 recites that “packet classification” is an “access policy”
`
`Both experts agree that Amara’s packet classifier only determines whether a packet is
`internal or external, which is not performing “port services”
`
`Dr. Lin:
`
`Dr. Almeroth:
`
`In reality, the packet classifiers of the Amara
`perform a single task: to determine whether a
`received packet is internally-destined or
`externally-destined.
`
`Almeroth Decl., ¶ 86
`
`Source: ’668 POR, pp. 25-27; ’668 patent, Claim 17; Ex. 2005; Ex. 2006
`
`18
`
`Lin Dep. Tr., 94:16-95:8
`
`
`
`19
`
`
`
`Petitioner fails to show that the
`combination of Amara and CoreBuilder
`disclose “the port services providing the
`ability to control and monitor packet flows,
`as defined by control plane configurations”
`
`
`
`
`CoreBuilder’s Administrative Console
`
`CoreBuilder discloses an Administration Console for
`configuration of a router
`
`Source: ’668 POR, pp. 13-14; Ex. 1009, CoreBuilder, p. 32
`
`20
`
`
`
`CoreBuilder’s packet filters do not log packets
`
`Almeroth Decl., ¶ 89
`
`Source: ’668 POR, p. 29-30; Ex. 2006
`
`21
`
`
`
`22
`
`
`
`Amara, CoreBuilder, and Hendel do
`not render obvious
`Claims 10, 12, 13, 28, 30, 31, 64, 66
`and 67
`
`
`
`
`Exemplary claims 10, 12, 13
`
`Source: ’668 patent, claims 1, 10, 12, and 13
`
`23
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s mapping of Amara to claim elements
`
`Source: Petition, p. 16
`
`24
`
`
`
`Hendel’s distributed network elements
`
`Source: ’668 POR, p. 48; Ex. 1007
`
`25
`
`
`
`A POSITA would not be motivated to combine Hendel
`with Amara and CoreBuilder
`
`Petitioner argues a POSITA would have been motivated to
`distribute in Hendel’s subsystems, Amara’s:
`
`•
`Interface ports 202-06
`• Packet classifiers 214 -218
`• Packet forwarder 222
`•
`Internal interface 220
`• Policy engines 224-28
`• Policy engine 232
`
`
`
`Source: ’668 POR, pp. 50-54
`
`Petition, p. 54
`
`26
`
`
`
`Motivation to combine
`
`The Petition:
`
`Petitioner’s Expert:
`
`Source: ’668 Petition, pp. 56-57; Lin Decl., ¶ 101
`
`27
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s expert has no evidence to support the motivation to
`combine Hendel with Amara and CoreBuilder
`
`Dr. Lin’s Testimony:
`
`Lin Dep. Tr., 179:24-180:2
`
`Lin Dep. Tr., 165:21-166:9
`
`Source: ’668 POR, pp. 52-53; Ex. 2005
`
`28
`
`
`
`There is no need to distribute Amara’s policy engine 232
`to Hendel’s subsystems
`
`Hendel, 7:53-57
`
`Source: ’668 POR, p. 54; Ex. 1007
`
`29
`
`
`
`Control plane traffic represents less than 5% of
`overall traffic
`
`Ex. 1004, 5:36-39
`
`Source: ’668 POR, 52; Ex. 2005; Ex. 1004
`
`Ex. 2005, 131:13-19
`
`30
`
`
`
`Increasing the number of ports would not increase
`control plane traffic
`
`Almeroth Decl., ¶ 98
`
`Source: ’668 POR, p. 52; Ex. 2006
`
`31
`
`
`
`CoreBuilder is limited to 24 ports
`
`Must look back to 2002
`Only switch of record is CoreBuilder, which only had 24 ports
`
`Source: ’668 POR, p. 53; Ex. 1009, p. 59
`
`32
`
`
`
`33
`
`
`
`Amara, CoreBuilder, and Moberg do
`not render obvious
`Claims 7, 23, 41, and 59
`
`
`
`
`Moberg provides processor redundancy in a system such
`as a router
`
`Moberg, 2:33-35
`
`Moberg, 2:49-53
`
`Source: ’668 POR, pp. 33-34; Ex. 1005
`
`Moberg, 1:57-67
`
`34
`
`
`
`Moberg does not distribute control plane processes
`
`Moberg only distributes “fast path” processes,
`which are not “control plane” processes
`
`Moberg, 4:36-39
`
`Moberg, 5:14-21
`
`Source: ’668 POR, pp. 45-46; Ex. 1005
`
`35
`
`
`
`Moberg is not available as prior art under 103(c)
`
`
`• Relevant time period is September 30, 2002 – November 27th,
`2002
`
` •
`
`Inventors conceived of the ’668 patent’s invention before
`October 1, 2002
`
`• Constructive reduction to practice included diligent patent
`drafting and filing
`
`• Moberg is, at most, 102(e) art because it was published on
`October 1, 2002 – after the conception of the ‘668 patent
`
`
`• Both the ‘668 invention and Moberg were at all times owned
`by Cisco
`
`Source: ’668 POR, pp. 35-43
`
`36
`
`
`
`The inventors of the ‘668 patent conceived of the
`invention prior to critical date
`
`The entire relevant period was during the application
`drafting of the ‘668 patent
`
`The application was filed earlier than Cisco’s self-imposed
`deadline
`
`Nearly every day of the relevant period is accounted for
`
`•
`
`•
`
`•
`
`
`Source: ’668 POR, pp. 35-43
`
`37
`
`
`
`38
`
`
`
`Objective indicia
`of
`non-obviousness
`
`
`
`
`Arista copied the ’668 patent
`
`• Arista was founded in 2004 by former Cisco executives
`
`• Four out of seven members of Arista’s Board of Directors were
`employed by Cisco
`
`• Arista’s switches with EOS compete with Cisco’s switches with IOS
`
`• Arista advertises that “Arista CLI commands are the same as Cisco
`IOS”
`
`• Arista copied Cisco’s name – Control Plane Policing
`
`• Arista copied every element of independent claims 1, 19 and 55
`
`• Arista copied verbatim the series of unique command-line
`expressions used by Cisco’s CoPP feature
`
`Source: ’668 POR, pp. 61-66
`
`39
`
`
`
`The ’668 patent, claims 19 and 55
`
`Source: ’668 patent, Claims 19 and 55
`
`40
`
`