UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`______________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`______________________
`
`Activision Blizzard, Inc., Electronic Arts Inc., Take-Two Interactive Software, Inc.,
`2K Sports, Inc., and Rockstar Games, Inc.,
`Petitioners
`
`v.
`
`Acceleration Bay, LLC,
`Patent Owner
`______________________
`
`Case No. IPR2016-00726
`
`______________________
`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW OF
`UNITED STATES PATENT NO. 6,910,069
`
`
`
`MAIL STOP PATENT BOARD
`Patent Trial and Appeal Board
`United States Patent and Trademark Office
`Post Office Box 1450
`Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450
`Submitted Electronically via the Patent Review Processing System
`
`
`
`

`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`I.
`INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................... 1
`II. MANDATORY NOTICES UNDER § 42.8 ................................................... 2
`III.
`PETITIONERS HAVE STANDING .............................................................. 3
`A. Grounds For Standing Under § 42.104(A) ............................................ 3
`B.
`Claims And Statutory Grounds Under §§ 42.22 And 42.104(B) .......... 3
`IV. SUMMARY OF THE ’069 PATENT AND ITS TECHNICAL FIELD ........ 4
`A. Overview Of The ’069 Patent ............................................................... 4
`B.
`Overview Of The Prosecution History .................................................. 6
`C.
`Overview Of The Technical Field And Brief Discussion Of
`Some Of The Relevant Prior Art ........................................................... 8
`CLAIM CONSTRUCTION UNDER § 42.104(B)(3) .................................. 13
`V.
`VI. LEVEL OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART ........................................... 14
`VII. THERE IS A REASONABLE LIKELIHOOD THAT PETITIONERS
`WILL PREVAIL WITH RESPECT TO AT LEAST ONE CLAIM ............ 14
`A. Overview Of Obraczka ........................................................................ 14
`B.
`Overview Of Denes ............................................................................. 16
`C.
`Overview Of Shoubridge .................................................................... 17
`D.
`Combination Of The Teachings Of Obraczka, Denes, And
`Shoubridge ........................................................................................... 18
`Ground 1: Claims 1-3, 7-9, And 11-17 ............................................... 23
`1.
`Independent Claim 1 ................................................................. 23
`2.
`Dependent Claim 2 ................................................................... 31
`3.
`Dependent Claim 3 ................................................................... 33
`4.
`Dependent Claim 7 ................................................................... 34
`5.
`Dependent Claim 8 ................................................................... 35
`6.
`Dependent Claim 9 ................................................................... 36
`7.
`Dependent Claims 11-12 ........................................................... 38
`8.
`Dependent Claim 13 ................................................................. 39
`9.
`Independent Claim 14 ............................................................... 40
`10. Dependent Claim 15 ................................................................. 49
`
`E.
`
`
`
`ii
`
`

`
`11. Dependent Claim 16 ................................................................. 50
`11. Dependent Claim 16 ............................................................... ..5O
`12. Dependent Claim 17 ................................................................. 52
`12. Dependent Claim 17 ............................................................... ..52
`Ground 2: Claims 4-6 And 9-10 .......................................................... 53
`1.
`Dependent Claims 4-5 ............................................................... 54
`1.
`Dependent Claims 4-5 ............................................................. ..54
`2.
`Dependent Claim 6 ................................................................... 56
`2.
`Dependent Claim 6 ................................................................. ..56
`3.
`Dependent Claim 9 ................................................................... 57
`3.
`Dependent Claim 9 ................................................................. ..57
`4.
`Dependent Claim 10 ................................................................. 58
`4.
`Dependent Claim 10 ............................................................... ..58
`VIII. CONCLUSION .............................................................................................. 59
`
`VIII. CONCLUSION ............................................................................................ ..59
`
`
`
`iii
`
`iii
`
`
`
`
`
`F.
`
`F.
`
`Ground 2: Claims 4-6 And 9-10 ........................................................ ..53
`
`

`
`LIST OF EXHIBITS
`
`Exhibit Description
`Ex. 1001 U.S. Patent No. 6,732,147 (“the ’147 patent”)
`Ex. 1002 U.S. Patent No. 6,732,147 File History
`Ex. 1003 Expert Declaration of David R. Karger (“Karger”)
`Ex. 1004 Declaration of Scott Bennett, Ph.D
`Ex. 1005 Peter J. Shoubridge & Arek Dadej, “Hybrid Routing in Dynamic Net-
`works,” IEEE International Conference on Communications, Montreal,
`1997 (“Shoubridge”)
`Ex. 1006 Declaration of Steven Silvio Pietrobon attaching as Exhibit F Peter J.
`Shoubridge, “Adaptive Strategies for Routing in Dynamic Networks”
`(Ph.D. Thesis, University of South Australia, December 1996)
`(“Shoubridge Thesis”)
`Ex. 1007 John M. McQuillan, et al., “The New Routing Algorithm for the AR-
`PANET,” IEEE Transactions Comms., Vol. 28, No. 5, 1980 (“McQuil-
`lan”)
`Ex. 1008 Yogen Kantilal Dalal, “Broadcast Protocols in Packet Switched Com-
`puter Networks,” (Ph.D. Thesis, Stanford University 1977) (“Dalal”)
`Ex. 1009 Katia Obraczka, et al., “A Tool for Massively Replicating Internet Ar-
`chives: Design, Implementation, and Experience,” Proceedings of the
`16th International Conference on Distributed Computing Systems, 27-
`30 May 1996, Hong Kong (New York, NY: 1996), 657-664 (“Obraczka
`Paper”)
`Ex. 1010 Katia Obraczka, “Massively Replicating Services In Wide-Area Inter-
`networks,” (Ph.D. Thesis, University of Southern California December
`1994) (“Obraczka”)
`Ex. 1011 Jose Rufino, et al., “A Study On The Inaccessibility Characteristics Of
`ISO 8802/4 Token-Bus LANs,” IEEE INFOCOM ’92: The Conference
`on Computer Communications. One World through Communications.
`Eleventh Annual Joint Conference of the IEEE Computer and Commu-
`nication Societies, Florence, Italy, Vol. 2 (Picataway, NJ: IEEE Service
`Center, 1992), 0958-0967 (“Rufino”)
`Ex. 1012 U.S. Patent No. 6,829,634 (“the ’634 patent”)
`Ex. 1013 Kuo-Jui Raymond Lin, “Routing and Broadcasting in Two-dimensional
`Linear Congruential Graphs of Degree Four,” (Master’s Thesis, Con-
`cordia University, June 1994) (“Kuo-Jui Lin”)
`Ex. 1014 William S. Davis and David C. Yen, The Information System Consult-
`ant’s Handbook: Systems Analysis and Design, CRC Press, 1998 (“Da-
`vis”)
`
`
`
`iv
`
`

`
`Exhibit Description
`Ex. 1015 Topological Design Considerations in Computer Communication
`Networks, Computer Communication Networks (V.G. Cerf, D.D.
`Cown, R.C. Mullin), 1975 (“Cerf”)
`Ex. 1016 Stephen M. Grimes certification of English translation attaching Eng-
`lish translation and original text of Tamás Dénes, “The ‘Evolution’ of
`Regular Graphs of Even Order by their Verticies,” Matematikai Lapok,
`27, 3-4 (1976/1979): 365-377 (“Denes”)
`Ex. 1017 English language translation from Exhibit 1016: Tamás Dénes, “’The
`‘Evolution’ of Regular Graphs of Even Order by their Verticies,” Ma-
`tematikai Lapok, 27, 3-4 (1976/1979): 365-377 (“Denes”)
`Ex. 1018 S. Toida, “Construction of Quartic Graphs,” Journal of Combinatorial
`Theory, Series B, 16.2 (April 1974): 124-133 (“Toida”)
`Ex. 1019 T. Todd, “The Token Grid Network,” IEEE/ACM Transactions On
`Networking, 2.3 (June 1994): 279-287 (“Todd”)
`Ex. 1020 Declaration of Peter John Shoubridge and, as Exhibit A, Peter J.
`Shoubridge, Adaptive Strategies for Routing in Dynamic Networks,
`Ph.D. Thesis (Univ. S. Austl., 1996) (“Shoubridge Thesis”), and as Ex-
`hibit B, Peter J. Shoubridge & Arek Dadej, Hybrid Routing in Dynamic
`Networks, in 3 IEEE INT’L CONF. ON COMMC’NS CONF. REC.
`1381-86 (Montreal, 1997) (“Shoubridge”).
`Ex. 1021 U.S. Patent No. 5,802,285 to Hirviniemi (“Hirviniemi”)
`Ex. 1022 U.S. Patent No. 4,700,185 to Balph (“Balph”)
`Ex. 1023 U.S. Patent No. 6,603,742 to Steele et al. (“Steele”)
`Ex. 1024 U.S. Patent No. 6,732,147 File History Excerpt: November 5, 2003 Of-
`fice Action
`Ex. 1025 U.S. Patent No. 6,732,147 File History Excerpt: December 17, 2003
`Amendment and Response
`Ex. 1026 U.S. Patent No. 6,732,147 File History Excerpt: January 23, 2004 No-
`tice of Allowance
`Ex. 1027 L.G. Valiant, “Optimality of a Two-Phase Strategy for Routing in In-
`terconnection Networks,” IEEE Transactions on Computers, C-32.9
`(September 1983): 861-863 (“Valiant”)
`Ex. 1028 U.S. Patent No. 6,490,247 to Gilbert et al. (“Gilbert”)
`Ex. 1029 U.S. Patent No. 6,122,277 to Garmire et al. (“Garmire”)
`Ex. 1030 U.S. Patent No. 5,181,017 to Frey et al. (“Frey”)
`Ex. 1031 J. Van Leeuwen, et al., “Interval Routing,” The Computer Journal, 30.4
`(August 1987): 298-307 (“Van Leeuwen”).
`Ex. 1032-1100: Not Used
`
`
`
`v
`
`

`
`Exhibit Description
`Ex. 1101 U.S. Patent No. 6,910,069 (“the ’069 patent”)
`Ex. 1102 U.S. Patent No. 6,910,069 File History
`Ex. 1103 U.S. Patent No. 6,910,069 File History Excerpt: May 17, 2004
`Amendment
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`vi
`
`

`
`Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. §§ 311-319 and 37 C.F.R. § 42, the undersigned, on
`
`behalf of and representing Activision Blizzard, Inc., Electronic Arts Inc., Take-
`
`Two Interactive Software, Inc., 2K Sports, Inc., and Rockstar Games, Inc. (collec-
`
`tively, “Petitioners”), hereby petition for inter partes review of claims 1-17 of U.S.
`
`Patent No. 6,910,069 (“the ’069 patent”). The ’069 patent was issued to The Boe-
`
`ing Company and is purportedly assigned to Acceleration Bay LLC (“ABLLC”).
`
`Petitioners assert there is a reasonable likelihood that at least one claim is un-
`
`patentable and respectfully request review of, and judgment against, claims 1-17
`
`(“the Challenged ’069 Claims”) as unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`The ’069 patent relates to “[a] technique for adding a participant to a net-
`
`work . . . .” Ex. 1101 at Abstract. “The technique for adding a participant to a
`
`network includes identifying a pair of participants that are connected to the net-
`
`work, disconnecting the participants of the identified pair from each other, and
`
`connecting each participant of the identified pair of participants to the added par-
`
`ticipant.” Id. This exact technique is disclosed in the prior art, as explained below.
`
`The features that were emphasized by applicant to obtain allowance relate to
`
`straightforward networking concepts as shown by the references discussed below,
`
`which were not before the examiner during prosecution. Thus, as shown in this
`
`Petition, claims 1-17 of the ’069 patent were not patentable because the technology
`
`
`
`1
`
`

`
`claimed was obvious over the prior art.
`
`II. MANDATORY NOTICES UNDER § 42.8
`The Real Parties in Interest Under § 42.8(b)(1) are Activision Blizzard,
`
`Inc.; Blizzard Entertainment, Inc.; Activision Publishing, Inc.; Activision Enter-
`
`tainment Holdings, Inc.; Electronic Arts Inc.; Take-Two Interactive Software, Inc.;
`
`2K Games, Inc.; 2K Sports, Inc.; and Rockstar Games, Inc. (The preceding listing
`
`of non-Petitioner RPI entities should not be deemed as an acknowledgement or
`
`admission that any such entity actually controls this matter.)
`
`Related Matters Under Rule § 42.8(b)(2). ABLLC has asserted claims 1,
`
`11, 12, and 13 of the ’069 patent in the United States District Court for the District
`
`of Delaware in the following cases: 1:15-cv-228, 1:15-cv-282, and 1:15-cv-
`
`311. Petitioners are each defendants in one of those actions.
`
`Petitioners have challenged other patents that applicants called “related” in
`
`the first paragraph of the specification. Specifically, petitioners filed petitions for
`
`IPR of Patent Nos. 6,701,344 (IPR2015-01970, -01972), 6,714,966 (IPR2015-
`
`01951, -01953), and 6,829,634 (IPR2015-01964, -01996). In addition to the pre-
`
`sent petition, Petitioners are also filing petitions IPR2016-00725 (challenging U.S.
`
`Pat. No. 6,732,147), IPR2016-00724 (challenging claims of U.S. Pat. No.
`
`6,920,497), and IPR2016-00727 (challenging claims of the ’634 patent).
`
`Lead/Back-Up Counsel Under § 42.8(b)(3) & (4). Lead: Michael M. Mur-
`
`
`
`2
`
`

`
`ray (Reg. No. 32,537, WINSTON & STRAWN LLP, 200 Park Avenue, New York,
`
`NY 10166-4193, P: 212-294-3510 / F: 212- 294-4700, mmurray@winston.com).
`
`Backup: Andrew R. Sommer (Reg. No. 53,932, WINSTON & STRAWN LLP,
`
`1700 K Street, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20006-3817, P: 202-282-5896 / F: 202-
`
`282-5100, asommer@winston.com), and Michael A. Tomasulo (Reg. No. 43,957,
`
`WINSTON & STRAWN LLP, 333 S. Grand Avenue, 38th Floor, Los Angeles, CA
`
`90071-1543, P: 213-615-1848 / F: 213-615-1750, mtomasulo@winston.com).
`
`Service via hand-delivery may be made at the postal mailing address of lead and
`
`back-up counsel. Petitioner consents to service by e-mail.
`
`III. PETITIONERS HAVE STANDING
`A. Grounds For Standing Under § 42.104(A)
`Petitioners certify that the ’069 patent is eligible for (and that Petitioners are
`
`not barred or estopped from requesting) inter partes review.
`
`B. Claims And Statutory Grounds Under §§ 42.22 And 42.104(B)
`Petitioners request inter partes review of the Challenged ’069 Claims of
`
`the ’069 patent and assert that these claims are unpatentable as follows: Ground 1,
`
`claims 1-3, 7-9, and 11-17 are obvious under § 103 in view of the combination of
`
`the teachings of Obraczka, Denes, and Shoubridge; and Ground 2, claims 4-6, 9,
`
`and 10 are obvious under § 103 in view of the combination of the teachings of
`
`Obraczka, Denes, Shoubridge, and Valiant. These grounds for unpatentability are
`
`discussed in detail below in Section VII. Each ground for trial is supported by the
`3
`
`
`
`

`
`expert testimony of Dr. David Karger (Ex. 1003) and other exhibits identified
`
`throughout this Petition and Dr. Karger’s declaration.
`
`IV. SUMMARY OF THE ’069 PATENT AND ITS TECHNICAL FIELD
`A. Overview Of The ’069 Patent
`The ’069 patent describes a computer network organized into an “m-regular”
`
`configuration that is “non-complete.” Karger ¶¶ 28-29. In an m-regular network,
`
`each “node” (typically a computer) in the network is connected to exactly “m” oth-
`
`er nodes. Karger ¶¶ 61-63. For example, a 4-regular network is one where each
`
`node is connected to 4 other nodes. Id. A “non-complete” network is one where at
`
`least one of the nodes is not connected to at least one other node. Id. The claims
`
`are directed to methods for adding a node to the network, while maintaining the m-
`
`regular characteristic of the network. See, e.g., Ex. 1101, Abstract; Karger ¶¶ 43-
`
`46.
`
`By requiring a disconnection procedure as part of the process for adding a
`
`node, the Challenged ’069 Claims make it clear that the network at issue is a non-
`
`complete graph, which, as noted above, means that at least two nodes in the net-
`
`work are not connected to each other. Ex. 1101 at cls. 1, 14; Karger ¶¶ 43-46. A
`
`complete graph, in contrast, is one that is fully connected, meaning that each node
`
`is connected to every other node. Karger ¶ 62. The ’069 patent is directed to a
`
`non-complete graph because a complete graph would continue to be regular and
`
`
`
`4
`
`

`
`complete when a computer is added and would not need to perform any additional
`
`steps, such as recited in claim 1, to maintain regularity. Ex. 1101 at cls. 1, 14;
`
`Karger ¶¶ 43-46. Figure 1 (below) of the ’069 patent, for example, illustrates a
`
`graph that is 4-regular and non-complete.
`
`
`
`Figures 3A-B (above) of the ’069 patent illustrate one process of connecting
`
`a new computer Z to the broadcast channel pursuant to the method disclosed in
`
`the ’069 patent. Ex. 1101 at Figs. 3A-B, 2:51-52. In these figures, computer Z is
`
`added by breaking the connections between existing computer pairs (E, B) and (D,
`
`C) and then connecting computer Z to each of E, B, D and C. Ex. 1101 at 5:64-6:9;
`
`Karger ¶ 44. The ’069 patent does not provide any generalized algorithm for main-
`
`taining a non-complete m-regular graph when adding a node, providing instead on-
`
`ly the above example. See generally Ex. 1101; Karger ¶¶ 44-45. Algorithms for
`
`maintaining certain non-complete m-regular graphs when adding a node were well-
`
`known in the art by July 2000, discussed below in Section IV.C. Karger ¶¶ 44-45.
`
`
`
`5
`
`

`
`B. Overview Of The Prosecution History
`The application that led to the ’069 patent was filed July 31, 2000, and ap-
`
`plicants did not claim priority to any earlier-filed application. Ex. 1101. The Ex-
`
`aminer rejected claims 1-17 and 32-40: (a) under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as being an-
`
`ticipated by U.S. Pat. No. 6,603,742 to Steele, et al. (“Steele”); (b) under 35 U.S.C.
`
`§ 103(a) as obvious over Steele in view of Cho, et al., “A Flood Routing Method
`
`for Data Networks,” ICICS ’97 (“Cho”); under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over
`
`U.S. Pat. No. 6,490,247 to Gilbert et al. (“Gilbert”) in view of U.S. Pat. No.
`
`6,533,020 to Hughes et al. (“Hughes”); and under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious
`
`over Gilbert in view of Hughes and Cho. Ex. 1102 at 1201-1217. Claims 18-31
`
`and 41-49 were withdrawn due to a restriction requirement. Id. at 1195.
`
`In its response, applicants amended the preamble of independent claims 1
`
`and 14 to require that the claimed method was “non-routing table based, non-
`
`switch based.” Ex. 1103 at 4-6. Claim 14 was amended to require that the claimed
`
`method be “non-switch based.” Id. While independent claim 32 was also amend-
`
`ed, this claim was later cancelled and is not addressed herein. Ex. 1102 at 1384.
`
`According to applicants, their invention did not use a switch based method.
`
`Ex. 1103 at 12. Applicants argued that Gilbert disclosed a method of adding a
`
`node to a network using a switching mechanism. Id. at 16-17. The only definition
`
`of “switch” that Gilbert appears to provide is that all the nodes are connected at a
`
`
`
`6
`
`

`
`common switch to make or break connections to other nodes, as illustrated in Fig-
`
`ure 1 of Gilbert. See also Ex. 1028 at Figs. 5, 6, 8, and 10 (other figures that illus-
`
`trate all nodes are connected at a common switch).
`
`Applicants also argued that their invention did not use routing tables. Ex.
`
`1103 at 10-12. In contrast, applicants argued that Steele used a routing table to
`
`route traffic around the part of the network affected by the adding of a node. Id.
`
`Applicants further added a limitation to claim 1 to require that “a seeking
`
`participant contacts a fully connected portal computer, which in turn sends an edge
`
`connection request to a number of randomly selected neighboring participants to
`
`which the seeking participant is to connect.” Id. at 10-12, 17-18. Claim 14 was
`
`similarly amended, albeit using “node” instead of “participant.” Id. According to
`
`applicants, Steele “fails to disclose a portal computer that directs the identification
`
`of viable neighboring participants to which the seeking participant is to connect.”
`
`Id. at 11. A similar argument was made to distinguish Gilbert. Id. at 17.
`
`Applicants also emphasized that “the selection of the neighboring nodes is
`
`not random” in Gilbert since the selected nodes in Gilbert “are purposely adjacent
`
`to one another.” Id. Specifically, applicants explained that in Gilbert “[t]he portal
`
`node that is contacted provides information regarding a neighboring node that is
`
`adjacent to the seeking node; the selection of the neighboring node is not random.”
`
`Id. at 16. The application was allowed after the cancellation of claims 32-40. Ex.
`
`
`
`7
`
`

`
`1102 at 1384.
`
`C. Overview Of The Technical Field And Brief Discussion Of Some
`Of The Relevant Prior Art
`
`Graph theory is a branch of mathematics that involves the study of graphs,
`
`which are sets of vertices (often represented by points) connected by edges (repre-
`
`sented by lines). Karger ¶ 57. Since long before the filing date of the ’069 patent,
`
`graph theory has been actively applied in a variety of industries and fields, includ-
`
`ing integrated circuit design, operations research, and computer networks. Id.
`
`Computer networks and their topologies are routinely represented using
`
`graph theory, and mathematical proofs or simulations are often developed to model
`
`the performance and reliability of a network. See, e.g., Ex. 1101 at 4:25-30 (“The
`
`broadcast technique overlays the underlying network system with a graph of point-
`
`to-point connections (i.e., edges) between host computers (i.e., nodes) through
`
`which the broadcast channel is implemented.”); Ex. 1008 at 114 (“The various
`
`classes of networks are distinguished by certain topological properties of the
`
`graphs that represent them, like the degree of the nodes, or whether the graph is
`
`regular or not . . .”); Ex. 1015 at 7 (“This paper presents a study of networks . . . it
`
`is assumed the reader is familiar with elementary notions of graph theory.”); Ex.
`
`1010 at 36 ¶ 2 (“We start this chapter by stating our topology computation problem
`
`as a graph theory problem.”); Karger ¶ 58.
`
`The use of m-regular non-complete networks was also well known in the art.
`
`
`
`8
`
`

`
`Karger ¶ 68. For example, Shoubridge discloses the use of a broadcast methodolo-
`
`gy known as “flooding” (discussed below) over m-regular, non-complete “torus”
`
`graphs, such as the graph in Figure 4.2 (shown below (left)). Id.; see Ex. 1005 at
`
`1383. (Figure 4.2 is from Ex. 1006, a 175-page Ph.D. thesis also by Peter J.
`
`Shoubridge, hereinafter “Shoubridge Thesis,” which discloses the same body of
`
`work that is described in more concise form in the six-page IEEE publication of Ex.
`
`1005. See Ex. 1006 at 94; id. at 189.)1
`
`Ex. 1006 : Fig. 4.2
`
`
`
`Ex. 1030: Fig. 1
`
`
`
`Similarly, a paper by Yogen Dalal (1977) discloses the use of flooding over non-
`
`complete, 4-regular networks. Karger ¶ 68; see Ex. 1008 at 88-89, 157, 161.
`
`Flooding over a 4-regular “torus” network (shown above (right)) is also disclosed
`
`in U.S. Patent No. 6,122,277 (Ex. 1029) (which incorporates by reference the dis-
`
`
`1 Peter John Shoubridge, “Adaptive Strategies For Routing In Dynamic Networks,”
`
`Ph.D. thesis, University of South Australia, 1996), is also prior art under § 102(b).
`
`Ex. 1006; Ex. 1020.
`
`
`
`9
`
`

`
`closure of U.S. Patent No. 5,181,017 (Ex. 1030)) and thus is prior art under
`
`§ 102(e), as the filing date is August 19, 1997. See Ex. 1029 at 1:59-66, 5:29-43,
`
`6:62; Ex. 1030 at 366 Fig. 1; Karger ¶ 68.
`
`Long before July 2000, a POSITA would have understood that the topology
`
`of a network could have a significant impact on the network’s characteristics, such
`
`as its performance, scalability, and reliability. Karger ¶ 67; Ex. 1015 at 6-7; Ex.
`
`1014 at 6-12. As a result, many types of network topologies—including those
`
`based on non-complete, m-regular graphs—were well known in the art. Karger ¶¶
`
`67-69; Ex. 1013 at 20. These topologies were routinely represented using graph
`
`theory (with computers as nodes, and connections as edges), with mathematical
`
`proofs or simulations developed to model the performance and reliability of the
`
`network. Karger ¶¶ 57-81; see, e.g., Ex. 1015 at 7 (“This paper presents a study of
`
`networks which are represented as linear graphs, and it is assumed the reader is
`
`familiar with elementary notions of graph theory.”); Ex. 1008 at 114 (“The various
`
`classes of networks are distinguished by certain topological properties of the
`
`graphs that represent them, like the degree of the nodes, or whether the graph is
`
`regular or not.”) (citation omitted).
`
`Long before July 2000, a POSITA would have understood the advantages of
`
`maintaining an m-regular non-complete topology when adding or subtracting a
`
`computer (i.e., a participant or node) from the topology. See, e.g., Ex. 1013 at 22
`
`
`
`10
`
`

`
`(“Regular graph: If some of the nodes in the network have less links than the others,
`
`it is likely for the network to have bottlenecks at these nodes. A regular graph has
`
`all of its edges uniformly distributed; therefore, reducing the probability of the oc-
`
`currence of bottlenecks.”); Karger ¶ 69. Also, before July 2000, a POSITA would
`
`have known the generalized formulas for maintaining an m-regular non-complete
`
`topology when adding or subtracting a node. Karger ¶ 69. For instance, Denes
`
`(Exs. 1016 and 1017) and Toida (Ex. 1018), published in the 1970s, disclose the
`
`same (or substantially similar) simple algorithms for maintaining an m-regular
`
`non-complete topology while adding or removing a node. Id. Computer networks
`
`have added and dropped nodes in the way described by these formulas prior to July
`
`2000. See, e.g., Ex. 1023 at 12:26-32 (“When upgrading from 6 nodes to 7 nodes,
`
`the network administrator utilizes the interim routing table provided below, re-
`
`moves links 2-0 and 4-3, and then adds links 6-0, 6-2, 6-3, and 6-4.”); Karger ¶ 69.
`
`Denes discloses an operation that is used to maintain a non-complete k-
`
`regular2 graph when adding a node. Karger ¶¶ 71-75. The operation is called ET
`
`(ET: Γn,k → Γn; where E’ = E \ {(p1p2), (p3p4), . . . , (pk-1pk)} ∪ {(pp1), (pp2), . . .,
`({(p1p2), (p3p4), . . . , (pk-1pk)}) which are then connected (noted by operation ∪) to
`
`(ppk)}). Ex. 1017 at 365 ¶ 10; Karger ¶¶ 71-75. Denes discloses that the new
`
`graph (E’) is the result of the disconnection of k/2 connected neighbor pairs
`
`
`2 Denes uses the consonant “k” instead of “m” but the meaning is the same.
`
`
`
`11
`
`

`
`a new node p ({(pp1), (pp2), . . ., (ppk)}). Id. The result is a non-complete k-
`
`regular graph. Id. Thus, e.g., for a 4-regular graph, where k = 4, Denes teaches to
`
`disconnect k/2 neighbor pairs, or 2 neighbor pairs. Id. Each of these 4 nodes that
`
`comprised the two neighbor pairs are then connected to the new node to maintain
`
`the 4-regular graph. Id.
`
`The following paragraphs illustrate the above described operation of adding
`
`a node as disclosed by Denes to Fig. 3A of the ’069 patent. Id. Fig. P6 illustrates a
`
`fully connected 4-regular network where Node Z is to be added. Id. Then, two
`
`connected neighbor pairs are selected. Id. In a 4-regular network, k = 4, and the
`
`Denes ET operation divides k by two, and selects two neighbor pairs. Id. As
`
`shown below in Fig. P7, the two edges of the two neighbor pairs, highlighted in red,
`
`are selected pursuant to the formula disclosed in Denes. Id.
`
`Fig. P6
`
`
`
`Fig. P7
`
`
`
`Then, Denes discloses disconnecting the selected edges (highlighted in red
`
`in Fig. P7) as shown in Fig. P8 below. Id. Finally, Denes discloses connecting
`
`
`
`12
`
`

`
`Node Z to the now-disconnected neighbors (E, B, D, and C). Id. The new edges
`
`are indicated in blue in Fig. P9 below. Id. The result, like the original network, is
`
`a 4-regular, non-complete graph. Id.
`
`
`
`
`
`Fig. P9
`Fig. P8
`V. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION UNDER § 42.104(B)(3)
`Pursuant to § 42.100(b), for the purposes of this review, Petitioners construe
`
`the claim language such that it is “given its broadest reasonable construction in
`
`light of the specification of the patent in which it appears.” For terms not specifi-
`
`cally listed and construed below, and in the absence (to date) of arguments from
`
`ABLLC concerning claim construction, Petitioners interpret them in accordance
`
`with their plain and ordinary meaning.
`
`As used in the Challenged ’069 Claims, for purposes of this review:
`
`“m-regular” (cl. 14) means “each node is connected to exactly m other
`
`nodes.” See, e.g., Ex. 1101 at 4:40-50, 14:51-15:6.
`
` “m-connected” (cl. 14) means “dividing the network into two or more sep-
`
`arate parts would require the removal of at least m nodes.” See, e.g., Ex. 1101 at
`
`
`
`13
`
`

`
`4:40-50.
`
`“non-routing table based” (cl. 1) means “does not use routing tables to car-
`
`ry out the steps of the claim.”
`
`“non-switch based method for adding a participant” (cls. 1, 14) means “a
`
`method that does not use a common switch to connect all nodes in the network.”
`
`VI. LEVEL OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART
`Petitioners submit that the applicable POSITA would have a minimum of:
`
`(1) a bachelor’s degree in computer science, computer engineering, applied math-
`
`ematics, or a related field of study; and (2) four or more years of industry experi-
`
`ence relating to networking protocols and network topologies. Karger ¶¶ 16-22.
`
`Additional graduate education could substitute for professional experience, or sig-
`
`nificant experience in the field could substitute for formal education. Id.
`
`VII. THERE IS A REASONABLE LIKELIHOOD THAT PETITIONERS
`WILL PREVAIL WITH RESPECT TO AT LEAST ONE CLAIM
`
`Petitioners submit there is at least “a reasonable likelihood that the petition-
`
`er[s] would prevail with respect to at least one of the claims challenged in the peti-
`
`tion.” § 314(a). Indeed, all claims are obvious under the stated Grounds.
`
`A. Overview Of Obraczka
`Obraczka is a printed publication and constitutes prior art under § 102(b)3
`
`3 “‘[P]ublic accessibility’ has been called the touchstone in determining whether a
`
`reference constitutes a ‘printed publication’ bar under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b).” Suffolk
`
`
`
`14
`
`

`
`because it was publicly accessible by no later than 1998 and as early as 1995.
`
`Obraczka was publicly disseminated through its availability in print and online.
`
`The print copy was available at the University of Southern California and cata-
`
`loged in June 1998. See Ex. 1004 at ¶ 43 and Attachment 4a. The online copy was
`
`available through ProQuest. See Ex. 1004 at ¶ 42 and Attachments 4b and 4c.
`
`Additionally, Obraczka was cited in 20 publications between 1995 and 1999. See
`
`Ex. 1004 at ¶ 45. Thus, Obraczka was prior art under § 102(b).
`
`Obraczka discloses an automated, scalable, and efficient tool for replicating
`
`data and building a logical network topology when a node joins a group. Ex. 1010
`
`at 8 ¶ 5 – 10 ¶ 1; Karger ¶ 241. Obraczka discloses that “a replica in a group is
`
`designated as the group master and is responsible for computing logical update to-
`
`pologies for the group.” E.g., Ex. 1010 at 20; see also id. at 91 (“The master is al-
`
`so responsible for supervising group membership.”); Karger ¶ 246. Obraczka dis-
`
`closes that “[a] process that wants to join the group sends a request to the master,
`
`Techs., LLC v. AOL Inc., 752 F.3d 1358, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2014). “A given refer-
`
`ence is ‘publicly accessible’ upon a satisfactory showing that such document has
`
`been disseminated or otherwise made available to the extent that persons interested
`
`and ordinarily skilled in the subject matter or art exercising reasonable diligence,
`
`can locate it.” Bruckelmyer v. Ground Heaters, Inc., 445 F.3d 1374, 1378 (Fed.
`
`Cir. 2006).
`
`
`
`15
`
`

`
`who may accept or reject it.” Ex. 1010 at 91; Karger ¶ 246. Obraczka characteriz-
`
`es the “topology computation problem as a graph theory problem.” Ex. 1010 at 36
`
`¶ 2; Karger ¶ 248. Obraczka utilizes graph theory operations and principles to
`
`achieve its goal of building a logical update topology that is k-connected for resili-
`
`ence, uses the physical network efficiently, and restricts update propagation delays.
`
`Ex. 1010 at 36 ¶ 3; Karger ¶ 248.
`
`B. Overview Of Denes
`Denes is a printed publication and constitutes prior art under § 102(b) be-
`
`cause it was publicly accessible no later than 1980. Denes is a research paper dis-
`
`seminated through a Hungarian mathematics journal. Printed copies of the journal
`
`were available in more than 90 libraries. See Ex. 1004 at ¶ 56 and Attachments 7,
`
`7a, 7b, and 7d. Thus, Denes was prior art under § 102(b).
`
`As discussed above in Section IV.C, Denes discloses a method of maintain-
`
`ing a non-complete m-regular topology when adding a node. Karger ¶ 253. Spe-
`
`cifically, De