Arista Networks, Inc. (Petitioner)
`v.
`Cisco Systems, Inc. (Patent Owner)
`
`Demonstratives
`Trial No. IPR2016-00309
`U.S. Patent No. 7,224,668
`
`Before Hon. Bryan F. Moore, Matthew R. Clements, and Peter P. Chen
`Administrative Patent Judges
`
`1
`
`

`

`Table of Contents
`
`Topic
`U.S. Patent No. 7,224,668 – Overview
`Disputed Issues For First Instituted Ground
`Claims Do Not Require Both “Port Services” And “Control Plane
`Port Services”
`Amara & CoreBuilder Teach the Limitation “Control And Monitor
`Packet Flows”
`CoreBuilder Is Prior Art
`Disputed Issues For Second Instituted Ground
`Moberg is Prior Art under 102(a)
`Moberg is Prior Art under 102(e)
`Moberg Discloses Distributing Control Plane Processes
`Disputed Issues For Third Instituted Ground
`Overview of Hendel
`Motivation to Combine Amara/CoreBuilder & Hendel
`
`Slide
`3-7
`8, 9
`10-13
`
`14-22
`
`23-31
`32
`33-42
`43-49
`50-56
`57, 58
`59-61
`62-70
`
`2
`
`

`

`U.S. Patent No. 7,224,668
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,224,668
`
`3
`
`

`

`668 Patent Overview
`
`Ex. 1001 (668 Patent)
`
`4
`
`

`

`668 Patent Overview
`
`Ex. 1001 (668 Patent) at 5:5-15;
`Petition (Paper No. 1) at 4
`
`Ex. 1001 (668 Patent) at Fig. 1 (annotated);
`Reply to POR (Paper No. 33) at 1
`
`5
`
`

`

`Amara Teaches “Control Plane Port Services” That Are “Independent Of
`The Physical Port Interfaces And Services Applied Thereto”
`
`Ex. 1004 (Amara) at Fig. 3 (annotated);
`Reply to POR (Paper No. 33) at 1
`
`668 Patent, Claim 1
`1. An internetworking device comprising:
`***
`
`b. port services, for operating on packets
`entering and exiting the physical network
`interface ports, the port services providing
`an ability to control and monitor packet flows,
`as defined by control plane configurations;
`
`***
`d. wherein: i. a control plane port entity
`provides access to the collection of control
`plane processes, so that a set of control plane
`port services can be applied thereto; and
`ii. the control plane port services operate
`on packets received from specific,
`predetermined physical ports and
`destined to the collection of control plane
`processes in a way that is independent of
`the physical port interfaces and services
`applied thereto.
`Ex. 1001 (668 Patent), 3:35‐41 
`
`6
`
`

`

`Grounds Instituted in Inter Partes Review
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`References
`Amara1 &
`CoreBuilder2
`
`Basis
`35 U.S.C. § 103
`
`Amara, CoreBuilder,
`& Moberg3
`Amara, CoreBuilder,
`& Hendel4
`
`35 U.S.C. § 103
`
`35 U.S.C. § 103
`
`Instituted Claims
`1–6, 8, 9, 15–22, 24–
`27, 33–36, 55–58,
`60–63, and 69–72
`7, 23, and 59
`
`10, 12, 13, 28, 30, 31,
`64, 66, and 67
`
`Institution Decision (Paper No. 8) at 23
`
`1. U.S. Patent No 6,674,743 B2 (Ex. 1004)
`2. CoreBuilder 3500 Implementation Guide, 3Com MSD Technical Publications,
`November 1999 (Ex. 1009)
`3. U.S. Patent No. 6,460,146 B1 (Ex. 1005)
`4. U.S. Patent No. 6,115,378 (Ex. 1007)
`
`7
`
`

`

`Disputed Issues For First Instituted Ground
`
`References
`
`Basis
`
`1
`
`Amara & CoreBuilder
`
`35 U.S.C. § 103
`
`Claims Challenged
`by Cisco
`1, 2-6, 8, 9, 15-18, 19,
`20-22, 24-27, 33-36,
`55, 56-58, 60-63, and
`69-72
`
`Claims Not Separately Contested
`2-6, 8, 9, 15-18, 20-22, 24-27, 33-36, 56-58,
`60-63, and 69-72
`
`POR (Paper No. 18) at 11-31
`
`8
`
`

`

`Cisco Contests Only a Few Elements Of Claims 1–6, 8,
`9, 15–22, 24–27, 33–36, 55–58, 60–63, and 69–72
`
`Claim 1
`1. An internetworking device comprising:
`
`Claim 19
`19. A method for processing packets in an
`internetworking device comprising the steps
`of:
`
`a. a plurality of physical network interface
`ports, each for providing a physical
`connection point to a network for the
`internetworking device, the ports being
`configurable by control plane processes;
`b. port services, for operating on packets
`entering and exiting the physical network
`interface ports, the port services providing an
`ability to control and monitor packet flows, as
`defined by control plane configurations;
`
`a. configuring a plurality of physical network
`interface ports, each port for providing a
`physical connection point into a network,
`and the ports being configurable by control
`plane processes;
`b. executing port services on packets
`entering and exiting the physical network
`interface ports, the port services for
`controlling and monitoring packet flows as
`defined by control plane configurations;
`
`Claim 55
`55. A computer readable storage medium
`containing instructions readable by a computer
`to configure the computer to perform a method
`for processing packets in an internetworking
`device comprising:
`a. configuring a plurality of physical network
`interface ports, each port for providing a
`physical connection point into a network, and
`the ports being configurable by control plane
`processes;
`b. executing port services on packets entering
`and exiting the physical network interface ports,
`the port services for controlling and monitoring
`packet flows as defined by control plane
`configurations;
`
`c. a control plane, comprising a plurality of
`internetworking control plane processes, the
`control plane processes for providing high-
`level control and configuration of the ports
`and the port services;
`d. wherein:
`
`i. a control plane port entity provides access
`to the collection of control plane processes,
`so that a set of control plane port services
`can be applied thereto; and
`ii. the control plane port services operate on
`packets received from specific,
`predetermined physical ports and destined to
`the collection of control plane processes in a
`way that is independent of the physical port
`interfaces and services applied thereto.
`
`c. executing a plurality of control plane
`processes, the control plane processes
`providing high level control and
`configuration of the ports and port services,
`
`c. executing a plurality of control plane
`processes, the control plane processes
`providing high level control and configuration of
`the ports and port services,
`
`and additionally comprising the steps of:
`
`and additionally comprising the steps of:
`
`i. accessing the collection of control plane
`processes as a control plane port entity, so
`that a set of control plane port services are
`applied thereto as a set; and
`ii. operating on packets received from
`specific, predetermined physical ports and
`destined to the collection of control plane
`processes in a way that is independent of
`the individual physical port interface
`configuration and port services applied
`thereto.
`
`i. accessing the collection of control plane
`processes as a control plane port entity, so that
`a set of control plane port services are applied
`thereto as a set; and
`ii. operating on packets received from specific,
`predetermined physical ports and destined to
`the collection of control plane processes in a
`way that is independent of the individual
`physical port interface configuration and port
`services applied thereto.
`
`Uncontested
`
`Uncontested
`
`Contested
`
`Uncontested
`
`Uncontested
`Uncontested
`
`Contested
`
`POR (Paper No. 18) at 15-30
`
`9
`
`

`

`Amara & CoreBuilder: Cisco’s Arguments
`
`1.
`
`Independent claims require that both “port services” and
`“control plane port services” be applied to packets destined
`for the control plane; not disclosed by Amara (POR (Paper
`No. 18) at 15-28)
`2. Because CoreBuilder does not disclose logging packets,
`the combination of Amara & CoreBuilder does not teach the
`limitation “control and monitor packet flows” (POR (Paper
`No. 18) at 29-30)
`3. CoreBuilder is not prior art (POR (Paper No. 18) at 30-31)
`
`10
`
`

`

`Claims Do Not Require Both “Port Services” And
`“Control Plane Port Services” For Control Plane Packets
`
`•
`
`“services applied thereto” refers to
`“physical port interfaces,” not “packets”
`
`Ex. 1001 (668 Patent) (annotated);
`Reply to POR (Paper No. 33) at 3
`
`668 Patent, Claim 1
`1. An internetworking device comprising:
`***
`
`b. port services, for operating on packets
`entering and exiting the physical network
`interface ports, the port services providing
`an ability to control and monitor packet flows,
`as defined by control plane configurations;
`
`***
`d. wherein: i. a control plane port entity
`provides access to the collection of control
`plane processes, so that a set of control plane
`port services can be applied thereto; and
`ii. the control plane port services operate
`on packets received from specific,
`predetermined physical ports and
`destined to the collection of control plane
`processes in a way that is independent of
`the physical port interfaces and services
`applied thereto.
`
`11
`
`

`

`Claims Do Not Require Both “Port Services” And
`“Control Plane Port Services” For Control Plane Packets
`Specification: Embodiments where port services are “typically”
`(by definition, not always) applied to packets
`
`Cisco:
`“Furthermore, the 
`only embodiments 
`described in the 
`specification—
`aggregate control 
`plane services and 
`distributed control 
`plane services—apply 
`port services to 
`control plane 
`packets.”
`
`POR (Paper No. 18) at 19
`
`Ex. 1001 (668 Patent) at 3:35-41;
`Reply to POR (Paper No. 33) at 6
`
`12
`
`

`

`Claims Do Not Require Both “Port Services” And
`“Control Plane Port Services” For Control Plane Packets
`Specification: Describes physical port interfaces which do not
`apply port services to packets
`
`Cisco:
`“Furthermore, the 
`only embodiments 
`described in the 
`specification—
`aggregate control 
`plane services and 
`distributed control 
`plane services—apply 
`port services to 
`control plane 
`packets.”
`
`POR (Paper No. 18) at 19
`
`Ex. 1001 (668 Patent) at 2:63-66;
`Reply to POR (Paper No. 33) at 5 n. 4
`
`13
`
`

`

`Amara & CoreBuilder: Cisco’s Arguments
`
`1.
`
`Independent claims require that both “port services” and
`“control plane port services” be applied to packets destined
`for the control plane; not disclosed by Amara (POR (Paper
`No. 18) at 15-28)
`2. Because CoreBuilder does not disclose logging packets,
`the combination of Amara & CoreBuilder does not teach the
`limitation “control and monitor packet flows” (POR (Paper
`No. 18) at 29-30)
`3. CoreBuilder is not prior art (POR (Paper No. 18) at 30-31)
`
`14
`
`

`

`Amara & CoreBuilder Teach The Disputed Limitation
`
`Undisputed: Amara discloses “port services providing an ability to control and monitor packet flows”
`
`Ex. 1004 (Amara) at 1:31-38;
`Reply to POR (Paper No. 33) at 11
`
`668 Patent, Claim 1
`1. An internetworking device comprising:
`***
`
`b. port services, for operating on packets
`entering and exiting the physical network
`interface ports, the port services providing
`an ability to control and monitor packet
`flows, as defined by control plane
`configurations;
`
`***
`
`Ex. 1004 (Amara) at 5:16-21;
`Petition (Paper No. 1) at 13
`
`15
`
`

`

`Amara & CoreBuilder Teach The Disputed Limitation
`
`Undisputed: Amara discloses “port services providing an ability to control and monitor packet flows”
`Undisputed: CoreBuilder teaches “defin[ing] control plane configurations”
`
`668 Patent, Claim 1
`1. An internetworking device comprising:
`***
`
`b. port services, for operating on packets
`entering and exiting the physical network
`interface ports, the port services providing
`an ability to control and monitor packet
`flows, as defined by control plane
`configurations;
`
`***
`
`Ex. 1009 (CoreBuilder) at 32 (excerpts);
`Petition (Paper No. 1) at 16
`
`16
`
`

`

`Amara & CoreBuilder Teach The Disputed Limitation
`
`Undisputed: Amara discloses “port services providing an ability to control and monitor packet flows”
`Undisputed: CoreBuilder teaches “defin[ing] control plane configurations”
`Undisputed: CoreBuilder teaches packet filtering, which Amara describes as including packet logging
`
`Ex. 1009 (CoreBuilder) at 210;
`Petition (Paper No. 1) at 17
`
`668 Patent, Claim 1
`1. An internetworking device comprising:
`***
`
`b. port services, for operating on packets
`entering and exiting the physical network
`interface ports, the port services providing
`an ability to control and monitor packet
`flows, as defined by control plane
`configurations;
`
`***
`
`17
`
`

`

`Amara & CoreBuilder Teach The Disputed Limitation
`
`Undisputed: Amara discloses “port services providing an ability to control and monitor packet flows”
`Undisputed: CoreBuilder teaches “defin[ing] control plane configurations”
`Undisputed: CoreBuilder teaches packet filtering, which Amara describes as including packet logging
`
`Ex. 1009 (CoreBuilder) at 210;
`Petition (Paper No. 1) at 17
`
`Ex. 1004 (Amara) at 1:36-38;
`Reply to POR (Paper No. 33) at 11
`
`668 Patent, Claim 1
`1. An internetworking device comprising:
`***
`
`b. port services, for operating on packets
`entering and exiting the physical network
`interface ports, the port services providing
`an ability to control and monitor packet
`flows, as defined by control plane
`configurations;
`
`***
`
`18
`
`

`

`Cisco’s Response
`
`Ex. 2006 (Almeroth Declaration) at ¶ 89
`
`19
`
`

`

`Amara & CoreBuilder Teach The Disputed Limitation
`
`Ex. 1002 (Lin Declaration) at ¶ 57
`
`20
`
`

`

`Amara & CoreBuilder Teach The Disputed Limitation
`
`Ex. 1002 (Lin Declaration) at ¶ 57
`
`21
`
`

`

`Amara & CoreBuilder Teach The Disputed Limitation
`
`Ex. 1002 (Lin Declaration) at ¶ 57
`
`22
`
`

`

`Amara & CoreBuilder: Cisco’s Arguments
`
`1.
`
`Independent claims require that both “port services” and
`“control plane port services” be applied to packets destined
`for the control plane; not disclosed by Amara (POR (Paper
`No. 18) at 15-28)
`2. Because CoreBuilder does not disclose logging packets,
`the combination of Amara & CoreBuilder does not teach the
`limitation “control and monitor packet flows” (POR (Paper
`No. 18) at 29-30)
`3. CoreBuilder is not prior art (POR (Paper No. 18) at 30-31)
`
`23
`
`

`

`Cisco: Declaration Of 3Com Employee Patricia Crawford
`Fails To Establish That Corebuilder Is Prior Art
`
`POR (Paper No. 18) at 30-31
`
`24
`
`

`

`CoreBuilder Is Prior Art
`
`Cisco:
`“Ms. Crawford’s
`declaration provides
`nothing more than
`mere speculation that
`Ex. 1009 was actually
`published in November
`1999.”
`
`Ex. 1010 (Crawford Declaration) at ¶ 8
`
`POR (Paper No. 18) at 31
`
`Ex. 1023 (Internet Archive Dated 6/21/2000) at 3, 10; Reply to POR (Paper No. 33) at 15
`25
`
`

`

`CoreBuilder Is Prior Art
`
`Cisco:
`“Ms. Crawford’s
`declaration provides
`nothing more than
`mere speculation that
`Ex. 1009 was actually
`published in November
`1999.”
`
`“The Crawford
`declaration never
`establishes that Ex.
`1009 was ever shipped
`with a 3Com product.”
`
`POR (Paper No. 18) at 31
`
`Ex. 1010 (Crawford Declaration) at ¶ 8
`
`Ex. 1023 (Internet Archive Dated 6/21/2000) at 3, 10; Reply to POR (Paper No. 33) at 15
`26
`
`

`

`CoreBuilder Is Prior Art
`
`Crawford Declaration:
`
`Ex. 1010 (Crawford Declaration) at ¶ 5
`
`Cisco:
`The “Crawford
`declaration never
`establishes that a
`single 3Com
`CoreBuilder 3500,
`release 3.0 was
`actually ever
`sold.”
`
`POR (Paper No. 18) at 31
`
`27
`
`

`

`Cisco:
`“At most, Ms.
`Crawford’s
`declaration could
`stand for the
`procedures and
`processes that were
`in place at the time
`she was a technical
`writer—over 1 year
`prior to the date Ex.
`1009 was allegedly
`“shipped.”
`
`POR (Paper No. 18) at 31‐32
`
`CoreBuilder Is Prior Art
`
`Crawford Declaration:
`
`"
`
`Ex. 1010 (Crawford Declaration) at ¶7
`
`"
`
`28
`
`

`

`Cisco:
`“[E]ven if the Ex. 1009
`could have been
`shipped with Release
`3.0 of the CoreBuilder
`3500 Switch, the
`Crawford declaration
`never establishes
`‘persons of ordinary
`skill in the art,
`exercising reasonable
`diligence, could have
`located it.’”
`
`POR (Paper No. 18) at 31
`
`CoreBuilder Is Prior Art
`
`Crawford Declaration:
`
`Ex. 1010 (Crawford Declaration) at ¶ 5
`
`"
`
`"
`
`Ex. 1010 (Crawford Declaration) at ¶ 4
`
`29
`
`

`

`CoreBuilder Is Prior Art
`
`Cisco:
`“[E]ven if the Ex. 1009
`could have been
`shipped with Release
`3.0 of the CoreBuilder
`3500 Switch, the
`Crawford declaration
`never establishes
`‘persons of ordinary
`skill in the art,
`exercising reasonable
`diligence, could have
`located it.’”
`
`POR (Paper No. 18) at 31
`
`Ex. 1023 (Internet Archive Dated 6/21/2000) at 3, 10 (excerpts);
`Reply to POR (Paper No. 33) at 15
`
`30
`
`

`

`Cisco’s Case Law is Distinguishable
`
`Cisco:
`“Alleged publication
`dates in and of
`themselves are
`insufficient evidence of
`public availability. See
`Open Text S.A. v. Box,
`"
`Inc., No. 13-CV-04910-
`"
`JD, 2015 WL 4940798 at
`*7 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 19,
`2015) (finding that
`printing dates may
`indicate when the
`document was created,
`but they do not prove the
`necessary predicate to
`establishing “public
`accessibility”)”
`POR (Paper No. 18) at 32
`
`When defendants previously moved for summary
`judgment of invalidity, they attached a declaration
`from Melissa Mack, an operations manager at
`Ipswitch, the company that made WS_FTP, to try
`and establish that the WS_FTP Pro 5.0 User's Guide
`was publicly accessible, see Declaration of Melissa
`Mack ¶ 5, Dkt. No. 315-19, but no testimony from
`Ms. Mack was introduced at trial.
`
`Open Text S.A. v. Box, Inc., No. 13-CV-04910-JD, 2015
`WL 4940798 at *7 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 19, 2015)(denying
`judgment as a matter of law of invalidity following trial);
`Reply to POR (Paper No. 33) at 16
`
`31
`
`

`

`Disputed Issues For Second Instituted Ground
`
`2
`
`References
`Amara, CoreBuilder,
`& Moberg
`
`Basis
`35 U.S.C. § 103
`
`Instituted Claims
`7, 23, and 59
`
`32
`
`

`

`Amara, CoreBuilder & Moberg: Cisco’s Arguments
`
`1. Moberg cannot be relied upon as prior art (POR (Paper No.
`18) at 34-42)
`a) Under §102(a)
`b) Under §102(e)
`2. Moberg does not disclose distributing “control plane
`processes” to a secondary processor (POR (Paper No. 18)
`at 43-46)
`
`33
`
`

`

`Cisco: Moberg Is Not Prior Art
`
`POR (Paper No. 18) at 34-35
`
`34
`
`

`

`Cisco: Moberg Is Not Prior Art
`
`Cisco must prevail on both 102(a) and 102(e)
`grounds to establish that Moberg is not prior
`art
`
`POR (Paper No. 18) at 34-35;
`Reply to POR (Paper No. 33) at 17-22
`
`35
`
`

`

`Amara, CoreBuilder & Moberg: Cisco’s Arguments
`
`1. Moberg cannot be relied upon as prior art (POR (Paper No.
`18) at 34-42)
`a) Under §102(a)
`b) Under §102(e)
`2. Moberg does not disclose distributing “control plane
`processes” to a secondary processor (POR (Paper No. 18)
`at 43-46)
`
`36
`
`

`

`Moberg Is Prior Art Under 102(a)
`
`Timeline
`• 12/4/1998: Moberg Filing Date (Ex. 1005)
`• 7/19/2002: Cisco: Purported 668 Date of Invention
`•
`(would prevent reliance on Moberg under 102(a))
`• 7/19/2002: Cisco: Purported Obligation of 668 Inventors to Assign to Cisco
`•
`(would prevent reliance on Moberg under 102(e))
`• 10/1/2002: Moberg Publication Date (Prior art under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a))
`• 10/1/2002: Moberg Publication Date (Prior art under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)) (Ex. 1005)
`• 11/27/2002: 668 Patent Priority Date (Ex. 1001)
`
`A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
`
`(a) the invention was known or used by others in this country, or patented or described in a printed
`publication in this or a foreign country, before the invention thereof by the applicant for a patent.
`
`35 U.S.C. § 102
`
`37
`
`

`

`Moberg Is Prior Art Under 102(a)
`
`Timeline
`• 12/4/1998: Moberg Filing Date (Ex. 1005)
`
`• 10/1/2002: Moberg Publication Date (Prior art under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)) (Ex. 1005)
`• 11/27/2002: 668 Patent Priority Date (Ex. 1001)
`
`A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
`
`(a) the invention was known or used by others in this country, or patented or described in a printed
`publication in this or a foreign country, before the invention thereof by the applicant for a patent.
`
`35 U.S.C. § 102
`
`38
`
`

`

`102(a): Evidence Of Diligence In Reduction To
`Practice Must Be Continuous
`
`During the period in which reasonable diligence must be
`shown, there must be continuous exercise of reasonable
`diligence. In re McIntosh, 230 F.2d 615, 619 (CCPA 1956);
`see also Burns v. Curtis, 172 F.2d 588, 591 (CCPA 1949)
`(referring to “reasonably continuous activity”). A party
`alleging diligence must account for the entire critical period.
`Griffith v. Kanamuru, 816 F.2d 624, 626 (Fed. Cir. 1987);
`Gould v. Schawlow, 363 F.2d 908, 919 (CCPA 1966).
`
`Microsoft Corp. v. Surfcast Inc., Case IPR2013‐00292 (Paper No. 93) at 
`17‐18 (PTAB Oct. 14, 2014);
`Reply to POR (Paper No. 33) at 20
`
`39
`
`

`

`102(a): Even Short Periods Of Inactivity Are Sufficient
`To Show Lack Of Diligence
`
`Even a short period of unexplained inactivity is sufficient to
`defeat a claim of diligence. Morway v. Bondi, 203 F.2d 742,
`749 (CCPA 1953); Ireland v. Smith, 97 F.2d 95, 99–100
`(CCPA 1938). In In re Mulder, 716 F.2d 1542, 1542–46 (Fed.
`Cir. 1983), the Federal Circuit affirmed a determination of
`lack of reasonable diligence, where the evidence of record
`was lacking for a two-day critical period. Likewise, in Rieser
`v. Williams, 255 F.2d 419, 424 (CCPA 1958), there was no
`diligence where no activity was shown during the first 13
`days of the critical period.
`
`Microsoft Corp. v. Surfcast Inc., Case IPR2013‐00292 (Paper No. 93) at 
`18 (PTAB Oct. 14, 2014);
`Reply to POR (Paper No. 33) at 20
`
`40
`
`

`

`102(a): 668 Prosecutor’s Inactivity Establishes Lack Of
`Diligence In Reduction To Practice
`
`41
`
`

`

`102(a): 668 Prosecutor’s Inactivity Establishes Lack Of
`Diligence In Reduction to Practice
`
`“[I]t is not necessary that an inventor or his attorney should drop all other
`work and concentrate on the particular invention involved; and if the attorney
`has a reasonable backlog of work which he takes up in chronological order
`and carries out expeditiously, that is sufficient.” Rines v. Morgan, 116 U.S.P.Q.
`145 (C.C.P.A. 1957). However, that has not been shown in this case. Here, the
`evidence reflects an entire week of inactivity in addition to numerous gaps,
`and Dr. Bone acknowledges that he worked on later-assigned matters, and
`worked on them out-of-order. Reply 9 (citing Ex. 1102).
`
`On this record, and under a rule-of-reason analysis, we cannot conclude that
`there was reasonably continuous activity toward reducing the invention to
`practice sufficient to support a determination of reasonable diligence.
`
`Microsoft Corp. v. Surfcast Inc., Case IPR2013‐00292 (Paper No. 93) at 
`20‐21 (PTAB Oct. 14, 2014); 
`Reply to POR (Paper No. 33) at 19
`
`42
`
`

`

`Amara, CoreBuilder & Moberg: Cisco’s Arguments
`
`1. Moberg cannot be relied upon as prior art (POR (Paper No.
`18) at 34-42)
`a) Under §102(a)
`b) Under §102(e)
`2. Moberg does not disclose distributing “control plane
`processes” to a secondary processor (POR (Paper No. 18)
`at 43-46)
`
`43
`
`

`

`102(e): Cisco Has Not Established Common Ownership/Obligation
`Of Assignment By The 668 Inventors At Time Of Invention
`Timeline
`• 12/4/1998: Moberg Filing Date (Prior art under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e)) (Ex. 1005)
`
`• 7/19/2002: Cisco: Purported Obligation of 668 Inventors to Assign to Cisco (POR (Paper
`No. 18) at 43)
`• 11/26/2002: 668 Inventors Assign Invention to Cisco (Ex. 1011 at 66)
`• 11/27/2002: 668 Patent Priority Date (Ex. 1001)
`A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
`
`(e) the invention was described in — (1) an application for patent, published under section 122(b), by
`another filed in the United States before the invention by the applicant for patent or (2) a patent granted
`on an application for patent by another filed in the United States before the invention by the applicant for
`patent,
`35 U.S.C. § 102
`
`35 U.S.C. § 103(c):
`(1) Subject matter developed by another person, which qualifies as prior art only
`under one or more of subsections (e), (f), and (g) of section 102, shall not preclude
`patentability under this section where the subject matter and the claimed invention
`were, at the time the claimed invention was made, owned by the same person or
`subject to an obligation of assignment to the same person.
`
`44
`
`

`

`102(e): Cisco Has Not Established Common Ownership/Obligation
`of Assignment By The 668 Inventors At Time of Invention
`Timeline
`• 12/4/1998: Moberg Filing Date (Prior art under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e)) (Ex. 1005)
`
`
`
`• 11/26/2002: 668 Inventors Assign Invention to Cisco (Ex. 1011 at 66)
`• 11/27/2002: 668 Patent Priority Date (Ex. 1001)
`A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
`
`(e) the invention was described in — (1) an application for patent, published under section 122(b), by
`another filed in the United States before the invention by the applicant for patent or (2) a patent granted
`on an application for patent by another filed in the United States before the invention by the applicant for
`patent,
`35 U.S.C. § 102
`
`35 U.S.C. § 103(c):
`(1) Subject matter developed by another person, which qualifies as prior art only
`under one or more of subsections (e), (f), and (g) of section 102, shall not preclude
`patentability under this section where the subject matter and the claimed invention
`were, at the time the claimed invention was made, owned by the same person or
`subject to an obligation of assignment to the same person.
`
`45
`
`

`

`102(e): Cisco Has Not Established Common Ownership/Obligation
`Of Assignment By The 668 Inventors At Time Of Invention
`Timeline
`• 12/4/1998: Moberg Filing Date (Prior art under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e)) (Ex. 1005)
`
`
`
`• 11/26/2002: 668 Inventors Assign Invention to Cisco (Ex. 1011 at 66-67)
`• 11/27/2002: 668 Patent Priority Date (Ex. 1001)
`A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
`
`(e) the invention was described in — (1) an application for patent, published under section 122(b), by
`another filed in the United States before the invention by the applicant for patent or (2) a patent granted
`on an application for patent by another filed in the United States before the invention by the applicant for
`patent,
`35 U.S.C. § 102
`
`35 U.S.C. § 103(c):
`(1) Subject matter developed by another person, which qualifies as prior art only
`under one or more of subsections (e), (f), and (g) of section 102, shall not preclude
`patentability under this section where the subject matter and the claimed invention
`were, at the time the claimed invention was made, owned by the same person or
`subject to an obligation of assignment to the same person.
`
`46
`
`

`

`102(e): Cisco Has Not Established Common Ownership/Obligation
`Of Assignment By The 668 Inventors At Time Of Invention
`Timeline
`• 12/4/1998: Moberg Filing Date (Prior art under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e)) (Ex. 1005)
`
`• 11/26/2002: 668 Inventors Assign Invention to Cisco (Ex. 1011 at 66-67)
`• 11/27/2002: 668 Patent Priority Date (Ex. 1001)
`
`
`
`35 U.S.C. § 103(c): “owned by the same person”
`• 668 Patent and Moberg were not under common ownership
`
`
`
`• Although 668 and Moberg were commonly owned by 11/27/2002,
`that date is too late to swear behind Moberg under 102(a)
`• So Moberg qualifies as 102(a) prior art if Cisco relies on
`common ownership date
`
`Reply to POR (Paper No. 33) at 21
`
`47
`
`

`

`102(e): Cisco Has Not Established Common Ownership/Obligation
`Of Assignment By The 668 Inventors At Time Of Invention
`Timeline
`• 12/4/1998: Moberg Filing Date (Prior art under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e)) (Ex. 1005)
`
`• 11/26/2002: 668 Inventors Assign Invention to Cisco (Ex. 1011 at 66-67)
`• 11/27/2002: 668 Patent Priority Date (Ex. 1001)
`
`35 U.S.C. § 103(c): “subject to an obligation of assignment to
`the same person”
`• Cisco asserts that
`
`
`
`
`
`• But provided no evidence
`
`
`
`R (Paper No. 33) at 21-22
`
`48
`
`

`

`102(e): Absent Evidence Establishing An Exception, Inventors
`(And Not Their Employees) Own Their Inventions
`
`The general rule is that an individual owns the patent rights to the
`subject matter of which he is an inventor, even though he
`conceived it or reduced it to practice in the course of his
`employment. There are two exceptions to this rule: first, an
`employer owns an employee's invention if the employee is a
`party to an express contract to that effect; second, where an
`employee is hired to invent something or solve a particular
`problem, the property of the invention related to this effort may
`belong to the employer.
`
`Banks v. Unisys Corp., 228 F.3d 1357, 1359 (Fed. Cir. 2000);
`Reply to POR (Paper No. 33) at  21
`
`49
`
`

`

`Amara, CoreBuilder & Moberg: Cisco’s Arguments
`
`1. Moberg cannot be relied upon as prior art (POR (Paper No.
`18) at 34-42)
`a) Under §102(a)
`b) Under §102(e)
`2. Moberg does not disclose distributing “control plane
`processes” to a secondary processor (POR (Paper No. 18)
`at 44-46)
`
`50
`
`

`

`Claims 7, 23, And 59 Recite “Control Plane Processes” Executed
`“As Distributed Processing Across Multiple Processors”
`
`Ex. 1001 (668 Patent)
`
`51
`
`

`

`Moberg Discloses “Control Plane Processes”
`Executed By a Processor
`
`Ex. 1005 (Moberg) at 4:40-46;
`Petition (Paper No. 1) at 40
`
`Ex. 1005 (Moberg) at Fig. 3;
`Ex. 1002 (Lin Declaration) at ¶ 71
`
`52
`
`

`

`Moberg Discloses “Control Plane Processes”
`Executed By a Processor
`
`Ex. 1005 (Moberg) at 4:40-46;
`Petition (Paper No. 1) at 40
`
`Tasks such as routing table computations
`and network management would be
`typically reserved for the “slow path”
`processing by the control plane.
`
`Ex. 2006 (Almeroth Decl.) at ¶ 92
`
`53
`
`Ex. 1005 (Moberg) at Fig. 3;
`Ex. 1002 (Lin Declaration) at ¶ 71
`
`

`

`Moberg Discloses That Primary CPU Processes May
`Be Distributed To A Secondary Processor
`
`Ex. 1005 (Moberg) at 4:40-46;
`Petition (Paper No. 1) at 40
`
`Ex. 1005 (Moberg) at 2:25-30;
`Petition (Paper No. 1) at 40
`
`54
`
`Ex. 1005 (Moberg) at Fig. 3;
`Ex. 1002 (Lin Declaration) at ¶ 71
`
`

`

`Amara, CoreBuilder & Moberg: Cisco’s Arguments
`
`POR (Paper No. 18) at 44‐45
`
`55
`
`

`

`Nothing in Moberg Limits What Processes May Be Offloaded To
`The Secondary Processor
`
`Ex. 1005 (Moberg) at 2:25-30;
`Petition (Paper No. 1) at 40
`
`Ex. 1005 (Moberg) at 8:9-14;
`Reply to POR (Paper No. 33) at 16;
`see also Institution Decision (Paper No. 8) at 19
`
`Ex. 1005 (Moberg) at Fig. 3;
`Ex. 1002 (Lin Declaration) at ¶ 71
`
`Ex. 1005 (Moberg) at 6:10-14;
`Ex. 1002 (Lin Declaration) at ¶ 72
`
`56
`
`

`

`Disputed Issues For Third Instituted Ground
`
`References
`
`Basis
`
`3
`
`Amara, CoreBuilder,
`& Hendel
`
`35 U.S.C. § 103
`
`Claims Challenged
`by Cisco
`10, 12, 13, 28, 30, 31,
`64, 66, and 67
`
`Claims Not Separately Contested
`12, 13, 30, 31, 66, and 67
`
`57
`
`

`

`As To Third Ground, Cisco Contests Only Claims 10, 28, And 64
`On Grounds Separate From The Independent Claims
`
`Ex. 1001 (668 Patent)
`
`58
`
`

`

`Amara/CoreBuilder & Hendel: Overview
`
`Amara teaches a packet forwarding device with a system for applying policy services to packets
`under the control of a central configuration (see, e.g., Reply to POR (Paper No. 33) at 22-24)
`
`Ex. 1004 (Amara) at Fig. 3;
`Petition (Paper No. 1) at 12; see also
`Reply to POR (Paper No. 33) at 22-23
`
`Ex. 1004 (Amara) at 6:2-18;
`Petition (Paper No. 1) at 13-15
`
`Ex. 1004 (Amara) at 4:33-34;
`Petition (Paper No. 1) at 13
`
`59
`
`

`

`Amara/CoreBuilder & Hendel: Overview
`
`Hendel teaches a packet forwarding device with a scalable architecture that distributes policy
`service systems like Amara’s as subsystems, under control of a central configuration (see, e.g.,
`Reply to POR (Paper No. 33) at 22-24)
`
`Ex. 1007 (Hendel) at Fig. 2
`Petition (Paper No. 1) at 52; see also
`Reply to POR (Paper No. 33) at 22-23
`
`Ex. 1007 (Hendel) at 7:14-18;
`Reply to POR (Paper No. 33) at 23
`
`Ex. 1007 (Hendel) at 7:60-65;
`Petition (Paper No. 1) at 52
`
`60
`
`

`

`Amara/CoreBuilder & Hendel: Overview
`
`A POSITA would be motivated to implement the advantages of Hendel’s distributed architecture
`with Amara/CoreBuilder
`
`99. Further, a POSITA would have been motivated
`to implement Hendel’s distributed architecture in the
`combination of Amara and CoreBuilder. Amara and
`Hendel both describe internetworking devices that
`apply policies to packets that enter the device
`through physical interface ports. See Amara at 6:9-
`14; Hendel at 6:22-24; 12:65-67. Amara and Hendel
`both describe the forwarding operations and policies
`being controlled and configured centrally. See
`Amara at 4:34-35; Hendel at 7:64-8:2. Further,
`Amara and Hendel both involve servicing packets to
`achieve Quality of Service. See Amara at 5:16-21;
`Hendel at 13:39-43. Therefore, a POSITA would
`have considered Amara’s device and Hendel’s
`device as being similar and would have considered
`implementing advantageous features of Hendel into
`the Amara/CoreBuilder combination.
`
`Ex. 1002 (Lin Declaration) at ¶ 99
`
`61
`
`Reply to POR (Paper No. 33) at 23
`
`

`

`Amara, CoreBuilder & Hendel: Cisco’s Arguments
`
`1. Arista has provided no evidence of a motivation to combine
`Hendel with Amara & CoreBuilder (POR (Paper No. 18) at
`50-54)
`a) There is no “actual evidence” of processing bottlenecks
`which would motivate a POSITA to use Hendel to
`distribute Amara’s control plane services (POR (Paper
`No. 18) at 51)
`b) Control plane traffic is a small amount of overall traffic,
`and does not necessarily grow at same pace as data
`plane traffic (POR (Paper No. 18) at 52)
`c) Hendel provides no reason to distribute control plane
`port services, because it is unconcerned with the speed
`of control plane packets (POR (Paper No. 18) at 54)
`
`62
`
`

`

`Cisco: No “Actual Evidence” That Would Motivate A
`POSITA To Combine (POR at 50-52)
`
`POR (Paper No. 18) at 51
`
`63
`
`

`

`Arista’s Expert P