IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`Smethurst et al.
`In re Patent of:
`U.S. Patent No.: 7,224,668
`Issue Date:
`May 29, 2007 Atty Docket No.: 40963-0006IP3
`Appl. Serial No.: 10/307,154
`
` PTAB Dkt. No.: TBD
`
`Filing Date:
`Nov. 27, 2002
`Title:
`CONTROL PLANE SECURITY AND TRAFFIC FLOW
`MANAGEMENT
`
`
`
`
`Mail Stop Patent Board
`Patent Trial and Appeal Board
`U.S. Patent and Trademark Office
`P.O. Box 1450
`Alexandria, VA 22313-1450
`
`
`
`
`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW OF UNITED STATES PATENT
`NO. 7,224,668 PURSUANT TO 35 U.S.C. §§ 311–319, 37 C.F.R. § 42
`
`
`
`

`
`Attorney Docket No. 40963-0006IP3
`PTAB Dkt. No.: TBD
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`
`I. MANDATORY NOTICES UNDER 37 C.F.R § 42.8(a)(1) ............................. 1
`A. Real Party-In-Interest Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(1) .................................... 1
`B. Related Matters Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(2) ............................................. 1
`C. Lead And Back-Up Counsel and Service Information ................................. 1
`II. PAYMENT OF FEES — 37 C.F.R. § 42.103 ................................................... 2
`III. REQUIREMENTS FOR IPR UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.104 ............................. 2
`A. Grounds for Standing Under § 42.104(a) ...................................................... 2
`B. Challenge Under § 42.104(b) and Relief Requested ..................................... 2
`IV. SUMMARY OF THE ’668 PATENT .............................................................. 3
`A. Brief Description ........................................................................................... 3
`B. Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art as of the Critical Date ............................. 5
`V. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION ............................................................................... 5
`A-1. “specific, predetermined physical ports” ................................................ 6
`A-2. “means for configuring a plurality of physical network interface ports”
`(cl. 37) ................................................................................................................ 8
`A-3. “means for executing port services on packets entering and exiting the
`physical network interface ports” (cl. 37) .......................................................... 8
`A-4. “means for executing a plurality of control plane processes” (cl. 37) .... 9
`A-5. “means for accessing the collection of control plane processes as a
`control plane port entity” (cl. 37) ....................................................................... 9
`A-6. “means for 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” (cl. 37) ......................................................... 9
`A-7. “means for processing packets originating at a plurality of physical
`ports, said means further comprising: means for passing packets through the
`control plane port, rather than directly from the physical ports to individual
`control plane processes” (cl. 38) ...................................................................... 10
`A-8. “means for applying distributed control plane port services only to the
`packets received from the specific, pre-determined physical ports” (cl. 43) .. 10
`
`i
`
`

`
`Attorney Docket No. 40963-0006IP3
`PTAB Dkt. No.: TBD
`A-9. “means for applying port services to the control plane port additionally
`comprises means for applying services selected from a group consisting of
`Quality of Service functions, packet classification, packet marking, packet
`queuing, packet rate limiting, flow control, and other access policies for
`packets destined to the control plane port” (cl. 53) ......................................... 11
`A-10.
`“means for configuring the control plane port services as an entity
`separate from physical port services” (cl. 54) ................................................. 11
`VI. MANNER OF APPLYING CITED PRIOR ART TO EVERY CLAIM FOR
`WHICH IPR IS REQUESTED, THUS ESTABLISHING A REASONABLE
`LIKELIHOOD THAT AT LEAST ONE CLAIM OF THE ’668 PATENT IS
`UNPATENTABLE .................................................................................................. 12
`A.
`[Ground 1] — Claims 1-6, 8, 9, 15-22, 24-27, 33-40, 42, 51-58, 60-63, and
`69-72 are obvious over Amara in view of CoreBuilder under 35 U.S.C. § 103 . 12
`B.
`[Ground 2] — Claims 7, 23, 41, 59 are obvious over Amara and
`CoreBuilder in view of Moberg under 35 U.S.C. § 103 ...................................... 40
`C.
`[Ground 3] — Claims 10, 12, 13, 28, 30, 31, 43, 48, 49, 64, 66, and 67 are
`obvious over Amara and CoreBuilder in view of Subramanian under 35 U.S.C.
`§ 103 ..................................................................................................................... 42
`D.
`[Ground 4] — Claims 10, 12, 13, 28, 30, 31, 43, 48, 49, 64, 66, and 67 are
`obvious over Amara and CoreBuilder in view of Hendel under 35 U.S.C. § 103
`
`52
`VII. CONCLUSION ........................................................................................... 60
`
`
`ii
`
`

`
`Attorney Docket No. 40963-0006IP3
`PTAB Dkt. No.: TBD
`
`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
`
`
`
`ARISTA-1001
`
`ARISTA-1002
`
`ARISTA-1003
`
`ARISTA-1004
`
`ARISTA-1005
`
`ARISTA-1006
`
`ARISTA-1007
`
`ARISTA-1008
`
`ARISTA-1009
`
`ARISTA-1010
`
`ARISTA-1011
`
`
`
`
`iii
`
`

`
`Attorney Docket No. 40963-0006IP3
`PTAB Dkt. No.: TBD
`Arista Networks, Inc. (“Petitioner” or “Arista”) petitions for Inter Partes
`
`Review (“IPR”) under 35 U.S.C. §§ 311–319 and 37 C.F.R. § 42 of claims 1-10,
`
`12, 13, 15-28, 30, 31, 33-43, 48, 49, 51-64, 66, 67, and 69-72 (“the Challenged
`
`Claims”) of U.S. Patent No. 7,224,668 (“the ’668 Patent”). There exists a
`
`reasonable likelihood that Petitioner will prevail in demonstrating unpatentability
`
`of the Challenged Claims.
`
`I. MANDATORY NOTICES UNDER 37 C.F.R § 42.8(a)(1)
`A. Real Party-In-Interest Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(1)
`
`Arista Networks, Inc. is the real party-in-interest.
`
`B. Related Matters Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(2)
`
`The ’668 Patent is the subject of Civil Action No. 4:14-cv-5343-JSW, filed
`
`December 5, 2014 in the Northern District of California, and International Trade
`
`Commission Investigation No. 337-TA-945, instituted on January 20, 2015. On
`
`April 1, 2015, Petitioner filed a petition for IPR of the ’668 Patent, identified by
`
`proceeding number IPR2015-00974, which was subsequently denied institution on
`
`October 6, 2015. On August 11, 2015, the Petitioner filed a petition for IPR of the
`
`’668 Patent, identified by proceeding number IPR2015-01710, which is pending.
`
`C. Lead And Back-Up Counsel and Service Information
`
`Petitioner designates W. Karl Renner, Reg. No. 41,265, as Lead Counsel,
`
`and Kevin E. Greene, Reg. No. 46,031, as Backup Counsel, both available at 3200
`
`1
`
`
`

`
`Attorney Docket No. 40963-0006IP3
`PTAB Dkt. No.: TBD
`RBC Plaza, 60 South Sixth Street, Minneapolis, MN 55402 (T: 202-783-5070; F:
`
`202-783-2331), or electronically by email at IPR40963-0006IP3@fr.com.
`
`II.
`
`PAYMENT OF FEES — 37 C.F.R. § 42.103
`
`The Patent and Trademark Office is authorized to charge Deposit Account
`
`No. 06-1050 for the fee set in 37 C.F.R. § 42.15(a) for this Petition and any
`
`additional fees.
`
`III. REQUIREMENTS FOR IPR UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.104
`A. Grounds for Standing Under § 42.104(a)
`
`Petitioner certifies that the ’668 Patent is available for IPR. Petitioner was
`
`served with a complaint alleging infringement of the ’668 Patent on December 9,
`
`2014. The petition is being filed within one year of service. Petitioner is not
`
`barred or estopped from requesting this review on the below-identified grounds.
`
`B. Challenge Under § 42.104(b) and Relief Requested
`
`Petitioner requests IPR of the Challenged Claims on the grounds set forth in
`
`the table below, and that the Challenged Claims be found unpatentable. An
`
`explanation of unpatentability is provided, indicating where each element is found
`
`in the prior art. Additional explanation and support for each ground is set forth in
`
`Ex. 1002, Declaration of Dr. Bill Lin.
`
`Ground
`1
`
`’668 Patent Claims
`1-6, 8, 9, 15-22, 24-27, 33-40,
`42, 51-58, 60-63, 69-72
`
`Basis for Rejection
`Amara, CoreBuilder - 35 U.S.C.
`§ 103
`
`2
`
`
`

`
`Ground
`2
`
`’668 Patent Claims
`7, 23, 41, 59
`
`3
`
`4
`
`10, 12, 13, 28, 30, 31, 43, 48,
`49, 64, 66, 67
`10, 12, 13, 28, 30, 31, 43, 48,
`49, 64, 66, 67
`
`Attorney Docket No. 40963-0006IP3
`PTAB Dkt. No.: TBD
`
`Basis for Rejection
`Amara, CoreBuilder, Moberg -
`35 U.S.C. § 103
`Amara, CoreBuilder,
`Subramanian - 35 U.S.C. § 103
`Amara, CoreBuilder, Hendel -
`35 U.S.C. § 103
`
`The ’668 Patent issued from an application filed on November 27, 2002.
`
`Because the ’668 Patent does not include a priority claim, the filing date of
`
`November 27, 2002 (hereinafter the “Critical Date”) is the earliest possible priority
`
`date.
`
`Amara (ARISTA-1004) and Subramanian (ARISTA-1006) were filed before
`
`but issued/published after the Critical Date and thus are prior art under 35 U.S.C. §
`
`102(e). Moberg (ARISTA-1005) published prior to the Critical Date and thus is
`
`prior art under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102(e) & 102(a). Hendel (ARISTA-1007) issued
`
`more than a year before the Critical Date and thus is prior art under 35 U.S.C. §
`
`102(b). As established by the Declaration of Patricia Crawford (ARISTA-1010),
`
`CoreBuilder (ARISTA-1009) was shipped with the CoreBuilder 3500 Switch to
`
`3Com customers at least as early as November 1999 and thus is prior art under 35
`
`U.S.C. § 102(b).
`
`IV. SUMMARY OF THE ’668 PATENT
`A. Brief Description
`
`The ’668 Patent describes an internetworking device, such as a router. Ex.
`3
`
`
`

`
`Attorney Docket No. 40963-0006IP3
`PTAB Dkt. No.: TBD
`1001, 4:47-48. Device 100 includes two logical components: a data plane 135 and
`
`a control plane 150. Id., 3:22-34, 5:5-21. The data plane 135 forwards packets
`
`received at the port interfaces 120 toward their ultimate destination. Id., 1:54-56,
`
`3:23-26, 5:8-9. The control plane 150 is “a collection of processes” 155 and is
`
`responsible for higher layer functions, such as control and configuration of device
`
`100. Id., 1:56-59, 3:26-31, 4:58-61, 5:10-23.
`
`Device 100 applies port services to packets passing through device 100. Id.,
`
`6:1-44, 6:67-7:14. Port services are a set of policies or rules that are applied to the
`
`packets. Id., 4:3-8, 6:4-7, 6:24-27, 9:1-4. Device 100 applies different port
`
`services to different packet types. Id., 3:56-58, 6:16-18, 6:41-43. Device 100
`
`includes “normal input and output port services” that are applied to normal transit
`
`packets, which are packets destined for other devices. Id., 6:41-43, 7:3-8. Device
`
`100 also includes control plane port services applied to packets destined for the
`
`control plane. Id., 6:57-63, 5:56-58, 7:5-14, 9:1-6.
`
`To this end, device 100 includes a control plane port 140. The control plane
`
`port 140 “may or may not be a single physical port.” Id., 5:1-2. “For example, it
`
`may be a virtual address through which packets travel or are routed from the data
`
`plane 135 to the control plane 150.” Id., 5:2-4. The packets bound for the control
`
`plane 150 are routed through the control plane port 140 and control plane port
`
`services 145 are applied to those packets. Id., 6:16-18, 7:5-12, 9:1-6.
`
`4
`
`
`

`
`Attorney Docket No. 40963-0006IP3
`PTAB Dkt. No.: TBD
`Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art as of the Critical Date
`
`B.
`
`A person of ordinary skill in the art as of the Critical Date of the ’668 Patent
`
`(hereinafter a “POSITA”) would have had a Masters of Science Degree (or a
`
`similar technical Masters Degree, or higher degree) in an academic area
`
`emphasizing computer networking or, alternatively, a Bachelor Degree (or higher
`
`degree) in an academic area emphasizing the design of electrical, computer, or
`
`software engineering and having several years of experience in computer network
`
`engineering and the design of computer networks. Additional education in a
`
`relevant field, such as computer science, computer engineering, or electrical
`
`engineering, or industry experience may compensate for a deficit in one of the
`
`other aspects of the requirements stated above. Unless noted otherwise in this
`
`Petition, references to what would have been known or understood by a POSITA
`
`refers to the knowledge of a POSITA as of the Critical Date, or before.
`
`V. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
`A claim subject to IPR is given its “broadest reasonable construction in light
`
`of the specification of the patent in which it appears.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b). For
`
`this proceeding only, Petitioner submits constructions for the following terms. All
`
`5
`
`
`

`
`Attorney Docket No. 40963-0006IP3
`PTAB Dkt. No.: TBD
`remaining terms should be given their broadest reasonable meaning.1
`
`A-1. “specific, predetermined physical ports”
`
`Under the broadest reasonable interpretation standard, this term should be
`
`construed broadly enough to encompass all of the ports of the internetworking
`
`device, rather than being limited to a subset of the ports. The ’668 Patent does not
`
`
`
` 1
`
` Petitioner’s claim construction proposals are for the sole purpose of determining
`
`whether the prior art anticipates or renders obvious the Challenged Claims. Neither
`
`by making these proposals, nor by analyzing the cited art, does Petitioner concede
`
`that any Challenged Claim meets statutory standards for patent claiming. Petitioner
`
`recognizes that IPR is not an appropriate forum to address certain issues, such as
`
`failure to comply with 35 U.S.C. § 112, and, therefore reserves all rights to contend
`
`that one or more Challenged Claims are invalid for reasons out of scope for IPR,
`
`including but not limited to lack of definiteness under § 112, ¶ 2 and lack of writ-
`
`ten description under § 112, ¶ 1. The presence of definiteness and description
`
`problems in the Challenged Claims is no bar to IPR in appropriate circumstances;
`
`the Board may set aside such issues when reviewing claims under §§ 102 and 103.
`
`E.g., Vibrant Media, Inc. v. Gen’l Elec. Co., IPR2013-00172, 2014 WL 3749773,
`
`at *6–7 (Patent Tr. & App. Bd. July 28, 2014).
`
`6
`
`
`

`
`Attorney Docket No. 40963-0006IP3
`PTAB Dkt. No.: TBD
`provide an explicit definition for the term “specific, predetermined physical ports.”
`
`Under a broadest reasonable interpretation, the terms “specific” and
`
`“predetermined” are themselves not necessarily limited to a subset of items. As a
`
`result, applying the broadest reasonable interpretation standard, the terms
`
`“specific” and “predetermined” do not limit the “physical ports” to a subset of less
`
`than all physical ports.
`
`The dependent claims are instructive on this point. Claim 8 (dependent on
`
`claim 1) specifies that the “control plane port services” are implemented as “an
`
`aggregate control plane function,” which is apparently related to a case in which
`
`control plane port services are applied to all of the ports of the device. Ex. 1001,
`
`4:24-25; 6:48-61 (“The central, aggregate control plane services 145 provide a
`
`level of service (or control) for all packets received from any port on the device
`
`100”). Since claim 8 is dependent on claim 1 and therefore should be
`
`encompassed by claim 1, the term “specific, predetermined physical ports” under
`
`the broadest reasonable interpretation should have a construction that can
`
`encompass all of the ports so as to include the scenario of claim 8. Accordingly,
`
`under the broadest reasonable interpretation standard, the term “specific,
`
`predetermined physical ports” should be construed broadly enough to encompass
`
`all of the ports of the internetworking device.
`
`The following limitations are subject to 35 U.S.C. § 112, ¶ 6:
`
`7
`
`
`

`
`Attorney Docket No. 40963-0006IP3
`PTAB Dkt. No.: TBD
`A-2. “means for configuring a plurality of physical network interface
`ports” (cl. 37)
`
`The recited function is “configuring a plurality of physical network interface
`
`ports.” The ’668 Patent does not clearly link sufficient structure to this function.
`
`Claim 37 states that “the ports [are] configurable by control plane processes.”
`
`According to the ’668 Patent, these “control plane 150 processes could be
`
`implemented as software at any level of a system.” Ex. 1001, 4:62-64. A
`
`software-implemented means-plus-function element is indefinite unless the
`
`specification discloses the specific algorithm used to perform the recited function.
`
`Function Media, LLC v. Google, Inc., 708 F.3d 1310, 1318 (Fed. Cir. 2013). The
`
`’668 Patent does not disclose a specific algorithm for “configuring a plurality of
`
`physical network interface ports.”
`
`Although means-plus-function claims lacking corresponding structure are
`
`invalid under 35 U.S.C. § 112, ¶ 2, special circumstances may permit the Board to
`
`nevertheless review claims for patentability under sections 102 and 103, while
`
`setting aside definiteness contentions. E.g., Vibrant Media, Inc. v. Gen’l Elec. Co.,
`
`IPR2013-00172, 2014 WL 3749773, at *6–7 (Patent Tr. & App. Bd. July 28,
`
`2014). Under Vibrant Media, for the purposes of assessing anticipation and
`
`obviousness in this proceeding, control plane processes should be considered the
`
`closest potentially corresponding structure. Ex. 1001, 5:18-23.
`
`A-3. “means for executing port services on packets entering and exiting the
`
`8
`
`
`

`
`Attorney Docket No. 40963-0006IP3
`PTAB Dkt. No.: TBD
`
`physical network interface ports” (cl. 37)
`
`The recited function is “executing port services on packets entering and
`
`exiting the physical network interface ports.” To the extent the ’668 Patent
`
`discloses corresponding structure, that structure is a switch engine. Ex. 1001, Figs.
`
`4 & 6, 6:67-7:2, 8:7-9.
`
`A-4. “means for executing a plurality of control plane processes” (cl. 37)
`
`The recited function is “executing a plurality of control plane processes.”
`
`To the extent the ’668 Patent discloses corresponding structure, that structure is a
`
`processor. Ex. 1001, 4:58-60, 4:62-64, 5:21-23.
`
`A-5. “means for accessing the collection of control plane processes as a
`control plane port entity” (cl. 37)
`
`The recited function is “accessing the collection of control plane processes
`
`as a control plane port entity.” To the extent the ’668 Patent discloses
`
`corresponding structure, that structure is a control plane port. Ex. 1001, 3:48-50,
`
`4:65-5:4, 8:52-54.
`
`A-6. “means for 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” (cl. 37)
`
`The recited function is “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.” To the extent the ’668 Patent
`9
`
`
`

`
`Attorney Docket No. 40963-0006IP3
`PTAB Dkt. No.: TBD
`discloses corresponding structure, that structure is a switch engine. Ex. 1001, Figs.
`
`4 & 6, 8:12-15.
`
`A-7. “means for processing packets originating at a plurality of physical
`ports, said means further comprising: means for passing packets
`through the control plane port, rather than directly from the physical
`ports to individual control plane processes” (cl. 38)
`
`This limitation recites two functions: (1) “processing packets originating at a
`
`plurality of physical ports” and (2) “passing packets through the control plane port,
`
`rather than directly from the physical ports to individual control plane processes.”
`
`The claim further specifies that “the control plane port additionally comprises” the
`
`means for processing packets. The ’668 Patent fails to disclose structure for these
`
`functions. The ’668 Patent does not disclose any structure for the control plane
`
`port, much less any structure that is part of the control plane port that processes
`
`packets or that passes packets through the control plane port. Although means-
`
`plus-function claims lacking corresponding structure are invalid under 35 U.S.C.
`
`§ 112, ¶ 2, if the apparent indefiniteness of claim 38 is set aside under Vibrant
`
`Media for the purposes of assessing anticipation and obviousness in this
`
`proceeding, a switch engine should be considered the closest potentially
`
`corresponding structure. See infra A-2; Ex. 1001, 6:65-7:12, 8:20-24.
`
`A-8. “means for applying distributed control plane port services only to the
`packets received from the specific, pre-determined physical ports” (cl.
`43)
`
`The recited function is “applying distributed control plane port services only
`
`10
`
`
`

`
`Attorney Docket No. 40963-0006IP3
`PTAB Dkt. No.: TBD
`to the packets received from the specific, pre-determined physical ports.” To the
`
`extent the ’668 Patent discloses corresponding structure, that structure is a switch
`
`engine. Ex. 1001, Fig. 6, 8:12-15.
`
`A-9. “means for applying port services to the control plane port
`additionally comprises means for applying services selected from a
`group consisting of Quality of Service functions, packet classification,
`packet marking, packet queuing, packet rate limiting, flow control,
`and other access policies for packets destined to the control plane
`port” (cl. 53)
`
`This limitation recites two functions: (1) “applying port services to the
`
`control plane port” and (2) “applying services selected from a group consisting of
`
`Quality of Service functions, packet classification, packet marking, packet
`
`queuing, packet rate limiting, flow control, and other access policies for packets
`
`destined to the control plane port.” To the extent the ’668 Patent discloses
`
`corresponding structure, that structure is a switch engine. Ex. 1001, Figures 4 & 6,
`
`8:12-15.
`
`A-10. “means for configuring the control plane port services as an entity
`separate from physical port services” (cl. 54)
`
`The recited function is “configuring the control plane port services as an
`
`entity separate from physical port services.” To the extent the ’668 Patent
`
`discloses corresponding structure, that structure is a control plane. Ex. 1001, 5:10-
`
`17. However, the control plane is a collection of processes and, according to the
`
`’668 Patent, these “control plane 150 processes could be implemented as software
`
`11
`
`
`

`
`Attorney Docket No. 40963-0006IP3
`PTAB Dkt. No.: TBD
`at any level of a system.” Infra, A-2; Ex. 1001, 4:58-64. The ’668 Patent does not
`
`disclose a specific algorithm for “configuring the control plane port services as an
`
`entity separate from physical port services,” as required for a software
`
`implemented means-plus-function element. Infra, A-2. Although means-plus-
`
`function claims lacking corresponding structure are invalid under 35 U.S.C. § 112,
`
`¶ 2, if the apparent indefiniteness of claim 54 is put aside under Vibrant Media for
`
`the purposes of assessing anticipation and obviousness in this proceeding, control
`
`plane processes should be considered the closest potentially corresponding
`
`structure. See infra A-2; Ex. 1001, 5:10-17.
`
`VI. MANNER OF APPLYING CITED PRIOR ART TO EVERY CLAIM
`FOR WHICH IPR IS REQUESTED, THUS ESTABLISHING A
`REASONABLE LIKELIHOOD THAT AT LEAST ONE CLAIM OF
`THE ’668 PATENT IS UNPATENTABLE
`
`As detailed below, this request shows a reasonable likelihood that the
`
`Requester will prevail with respect to the Challenged Claims of the ’668 Patent.
`
`A.
`
`[Ground 1] — Claims 1-6, 8, 9, 15-22, 24-27, 33-40, 42, 51-58, 60-
`63, and 69-72 are obvious over Amara in view of CoreBuilder
`under 35 U.S.C. § 103
`
`Overview of Amara
`
`Amara describes a packet-forwarding device 200, such as a router. Ex.
`
`1004, 1:9-21, 4:15-21; Ex. 1002, ¶¶ 32-36. Device 200 includes physical interface
`
`ports 202-06, packet classifiers 214-18, and a packet forwarder 222. Id. at Fig. 3;
`
`5:53-62. The physical interface ports 202-06 “are able to transmit packets to and
`
`12
`
`
`

`
`Attorney Docket No. 40963-0006IP3
`PTAB Dkt. No.: TBD
`to receive packets from nodes [208-12],” which may be “either hosts or packet-
`
`forwarding devices, such as routers, that are connected to device [200] via digital
`
`networks.” Id. at 4:17-22. The packet classifiers 214-18 and packet forwarder 222
`
`operate together to pass along, or “forward,” packets received at the interface ports
`
`202-06 toward their ultimate destination. Id. at 5:58-62.
`
`Device 200 also includes internal applications 230 that run on device 200.
`
`The internal applications “serve to control or configure [the] device [200].” Id. at
`
`4:34-35. They “communicate with other devices remote to device 100, through the
`
`use of protocols such as PPTP, L2TP, SNMP or Telnet.” Id. at 4:36-43.
`
`Device 200 further includes policy engines 224-28 and 232. Id. at Fig. 3.
`
`The policy engines 224-28 and 232 apply policies to packets passing through
`
`device 200. Id. at 6:9-14. The policies “encompass any disposition of packets that
`
`involves more than simply routing them based on their destination addresses.” Id.
`
`at 1:34-36. For example, the policies may include “dropping [selected] packet[s],
`
`logging [selected] packet[s], encrypting or decrypting [selecting] packet[s],
`
`performing network address translation and/or port address translation on
`
`[selected] packet[s], and prioritizing [selected] packet[s] for QoS.” Id. at 1:36-38;
`
`5:16-21.
`
`Device 200 applies different policies to different packet types. Ex. 1002, ¶
`
`37. Some of the packets received by device 200 are “external packets.” Ex. 1004,
`
`13
`
`
`

`
`Attorney Docket No. 40963-0006IP3
`PTAB Dkt. No.: TBD
`4:44-48, 4:61-63; Ex. 1002, ¶ 37. The “external packets” are those that are
`
`destined for devices other than device 200. Ex. 1004, 4:44-48, 4:61-63. In
`
`contrast, some of the received packets are “internally-destined packets,” destined
`
`for the device itself. Ex. 1004, 4:59-61, 5:5-6; Ex. 1002, ¶ 37. More specifically,
`
`the “internally-destined packets” are those packets that are destined for internal
`
`applications 230. Ex. 1004, 4:59-61, 5:5-6.
`
`The policy engines 224-28 execute and “apply policies to external packets.”
`
`Id. at 6:12-13. On the other hand, policy engine 232 executes and applies policies
`
`to the internally-destined packets. Id. at 6:9-12. Notably, policy engine 232 “does
`
`not apply [its] policies to the external packets” and, instead, “[applies its policies]
`
`only to internal packets.” Id. at 5:34-35; 5:43-44; 5:51-53.
`
`To this end, device 200 also includes an internal interface 220. Id. at 5:59-
`
`60. The internal interface 220 may be “a pseudo interface implemented by
`
`software, rather than a physical interface.” Id. at 4:67 to 5:2. The internally-
`
`destined packets (but not the external packets) received on interface ports 202-06
`
`are routed through the internal interface 220, which then forwards the internally-
`
`destined packets to policy engine 232. Id. at 5:63-67; Ex. 1002, ¶ 39. Because
`
`only internally-destined packets are routed through the internal interface 220 to
`
`policy engine 232, policy engine 232 applies its policies to only the internally-
`
`destined packets and not to the external packets. Ex. 1004, 5:33-35; 6:9-16; Ex.
`
`14
`
`
`

`
`Attorney Docket No. 40963-0006IP3
`PTAB Dkt. No.: TBD
`
`1002, ¶ 39.
`
`During operation, packets enter device 200 through one of interface ports
`
`202-208, and are passed to a corresponding packet classifier 214-18. Ex. 1004,
`
`4:55-59; 5:53-58. Packet classifiers 214-18 classify the packets “as either
`
`internally-destined packets or external packets.” Id. at 4:56-59. If the packet
`
`classifiers determine the packet is an external packet, the packet classifiers 214-18
`
`“forward the external packets to packet forwarder 222,” which “provides a routing
`
`functionality by determining to which of interfaces [202-06] to forward each
`
`packet.” Id. at 5:28-31; 5:60-62. Once the packet forwarder determines the
`
`appropriate interface port 202-06, packet forwarder 222 forwards the packet to the
`
`corresponding interface port 202-06. Id. at 6:3-8. On the other hand, if the packet
`
`is an internally-destined packet, the “[p]acket classifiers 214-18 forward the
`
`internally-destined packets to [the] internal interface 220.” Id. at 5:58-60; 4:63-64.
`
`The internal interface 220 then forwards the internally-destined packets to internal
`
`applications 230 via policy engine 232. Id. at 5:63-67; 4:2-7. Policy engine 232
`
`applies policies to the internally-destined packets and, if appropriate, forwards the
`
`packet to internal applications 230. Id. at 5:63-67; 6:9-12.
`
`Amara accordingly discloses the salient features of the ’668 Patent, as
`
`illustrated in the following annotated Fig. 3:
`
`15
`
`
`

`
`Attorney Docket No. 40963-0006IP3
`PTAB Dkt. No.: TBD
`
`
`
`Overview of CoreBuilder
`
`CoreBuilder describes features of the 3Com CoreBuilder 3500 Layer 3
`
`High-Function Switch. Ex. 1009 at 21, 27; Ex. 1002, ¶ 44. The CoreBuilder
`
`switch, “as a Layer 3 device, can act as a router.” Ex. 1009 at 258, 282-85.
`
`CoreBuilder describes how an administrator can use an Administration
`
`Console to configure the CoreBuilder router. Ex. 1002, ¶¶ 47-54. The
`
`Administration Console “is a menu-driven command line interface that is
`
`embedded in the system software,” which corresponds to a control plane. Ex. 1009
`
`at 28, 31; Ex. 1002, ¶ 45. The Administration Console is used to perform “system
`
`administration such as displaying statistics or changing option settings.” Ex. 1009
`
`at 32.
`
`The administrator can use the Administration Console to configure Ethernet
`
`ports on the CoreBuilder router. Id. at 29, 71; Ex. 1002, ¶¶ 48-49. For instance,
`
`16
`
`
`

`
`Attorney Docket No. 40963-0006IP3
`PTAB Dkt. No.: TBD
`the administrator can use the Administration Console to confure port state, the port
`
`mode, and autonegotiation. Id. at 29, 71; Ex. 1002, ¶¶ 48-49. The administrator
`
`can also use the Administration Console to configure an IP address for a port. Ex.
`
`1009 at 28, 283-84; Ex. 1002, ¶ 50. This IP address is used for “[s]ending IP
`
`packets to or from the router” and “[d]efining the network and subnet numbers of
`
`the segment that is connected to that interface.” Ex. 1009 at 271; Ex. 1002, ¶ 50.
`
`The administrator can also use the Administration Console to configure and
`
`manage advanced traffic control features, such as packet filters. Ex. 1009 at 30,
`
`209; Ex. 1002, ¶¶ 51-54. Packet filters allow a router “to make a permit-or-deny
`
`decision for each packet based on the packet contents.” Ex. 1009 at 210. Packet
`
`filters can be used to control traffic to improve network performance and
`
`implement network security controls. Id.
`
`The administrator “can control and manage packet filters from the bridge
`
`packetFilter menu of the Administration Console.” Id. at 215. Using this menu,
`
`the administrator can, for example, create standard or custom packet filters, edit
`
`and save custom filters, and load custom filters onto the CoreBuilder router. Id. at
`
`216-17. After a packet filter is created or loaded, the administrator can assign the
`
`packet filter to one or more ports and processing paths. Id. at 211-12, 215-16.
`
`“When assigned to a port, the packet filter is converted from the stored format to a
`
`run-time format to optimize the performance of the filter” and “the corresponding
`
`17
`
`
`

`
`Attorney Docket No. 40963-0006IP3
`PTAB Dkt. No.: TBD
`port assignments are preserved in the nonvolatile memory (NVRAM) of the
`
`system, thus ensuring that the packet filter configuration for each system is saved
`
`across system reboots and power failures.” Id. at 214, 224, 241.
`
`Combination of Amara and CoreBuilder
`
`A POSITA would have modified Amara’s device 200 in vi