UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`
`ACTIVISION BLIZZARD, INC.; ELECTRONIC ARTS INC.; TAKE-TWO IN-
`TERACTIVE SOFTWARE, INC.; 2K SPORTS, INC.; AND ROCKSTAR
`GAMES, INC.
`Petitioners
`
`v.
`
`ACCELERATION BAY LLC
`Patent Owner
`
`
`
`Case: IPR2016-00727
`
`
`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW OF
`U.S. PATENT NO. 6,829,634
`
`
`
`
`
`Mail Stop PATENT BOARD
`Patent Trial and Appeal Board
`United States Patent and Trademark Office
`PO Box 1450
`Alexandria, Virginia 22313–1450
`Submitted Electronically via the Patent Review Processing System
`
`
`
`

`
`
`
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`
`
`INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................... 1 
`I. 
`TECHNOLOGY OVERVIEW ........................................................................ 2 
`II. 
`III.  MANDATORY NOTICES UNDER § 42.8 ................................................... 4 
`IV.  PETITIONERS HAVE STANDING .............................................................. 6 
`A.  Grounds for Standing Under § 42.104(a) .............................................. 6 
`B. 
`Claims and Statutory Grounds Under §§42.22 and 42.104(b) .............. 6 
`SUMMARY OF THE ’634 PATENT ............................................................. 6 
`V. 
`VI.  THERE IS A REASONABLE LIKELIHOOD THAT PETITIONERS
`WILL PREVAIL WITH RESPECT TO AT LEAST ONE CLAIM .............. 7 
`A. 
`Claim Construction Under § 42.104(b)(3) ............................................ 8 
`B. 
`Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art and State of the Art ......................... 8 
`C. 
`Supporting Evidence Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(5) ......................... 9 
`VII.  DETAILED EXPLANATION UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(B) .................... 9 
`A.  All References Relied Upon as Grounds for Trial Are Prior Art
`to the ’634 Patent under § 102(b) .......................................................... 9 
`Ground 1: Claims 19-24 Would Have Been Obvious Over
`Obraczka in View Shoubridge, or the Combination of Obraczka
`and the Obraczka Thesis in View of Shoubridge. ............................... 11 
`1. 
`Overview of Obraczka and the Obraczka Thesis...................... 11 
`2. 
`Overview of Shoubridge ........................................................... 16 
`3. 
`Obvious Combinations of Obraczka and Shoubridge, as
`well as Obraczka, the Obraczka Thesis, and Shoubridge ......... 19 
`Ground 1: Detailed Explanation of Obviousness of
`Claims 19-24 by Obraczka in View of Shoubridge, or
`Obraczka Combined with the Obraczka Thesis in View
`of Shoubridge ............................................................................ 22 
`Ground 2: Claims 19-22 and 24 Would Have Been Obvious
`Over DirectPlay in View of Shoubridge ............................................. 36 
`1. 
`Overview of DirectPlay ............................................................ 36 
`2. 
`Obvious Combination of DirectPlay and Shoubridge .............. 39 
`
`4. 
`
`B. 
`
`C. 
`
`
`
`ii
`
`

`
`
`
`
`
`3. 
`
`Ground 2: Detailed Explanation of Obviousness of
`Claims 19-22 and 24 by DirectPlay in View of
`Shoubridge. ............................................................................... 43 
`D.  Ground 3: Claim 23 Would Have Been Obvious Over
`DirectPlay and Shoubridge in further view of Denes ......................... 58 
`1. 
`Claim 23: The computer-readable medium of claim 19
`including: receiving a request to connect to another
`participant; disconnecting from a neighbor participant;
`and connecting to the other participant. .................................... 58 
`Obvious Combination of the Teachings of DirectPlay,
`Shoubridge, and Denes, and Reasons for the Same .................. 59 
`VIII.  CONCLUSION .............................................................................................. 60 
`
`2. 
`
`iii
`
`
`
`
`
`

`
`LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS
`
`
`
`Challenged Claims
`
`Claims 19-24 of U.S. Patent No. 6,829,634
`
`Petitioners
`
`
`
`Activision Blizzard, Inc., Electronic Arts Inc., Take-
`Two Interactive Software, Inc., 2K Sports, Inc., and
`Rockstar Games, Inc.
`
`The ’634 Patent
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,829,634 (Ex. 1201)
`
`Karger
`
`Obraczka
`
`Obraczka Thesis
`
`DirectPlay
`
`Shoubridge
`
`Denes
`
`
`
`
`Shoubridge Thesis
`
`Declaration of David R. Karger, Ph.D., in support of
`the Petition for Inter Partes Review of Claims 19-24 of
`U.S. Patent No. 6,829,634 (Ex. 1219)
`
`Katia Obraczka et al., “A Tool for Massively Replicat-
`ing Internet Archives: Design, Implementation, and
`Experience”, IEEE Proceedings of the 16th Interna-
`tional Conference on Distributed Computing Systems,
`May 1996 (“Obraczka”) (Ex. 1224)
`
`Katia Obraczka, “Massively Replicating Services In
`Wide Area Internetworks” (Ph.D. Thesis, University of
`Southern California, December 1994) (Ex. 1225)
`
`Bradley Bargen and Peter Donnelly, Inside DirectX
`(Ex. 1203)
`
`Peter J. Shoubridge & Arek Dadej, “Hybrid Routing in
`Dynamic Networks,” IEEE International Conference
`on Communications, Montreal, 1997 (Ex. 1205)
`
`Tamás Dénes, “‘Evolution’ by Vertex of Even-order
`Regular Graphs,” MATEMATICKAI LAPOK, 1979
`(Exs. 1228 and 1229)
`
`Peter John Shoubridge, “Adaptive Strategies For Rout-
`ing In Dynamic Networks,” Ph.D. thesis, University of
`South Australia, 1996 (Ex. 1206)
`
`
`
`iv
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`
`
`
`PETITIONER’S EXHIBIT LIST
`
`
`Ex. 1205
`
`Ex. 1206
`
`Ex. 1207
`
`Ex. 1211
`
`Exhibit Description
`Ex. 1201 U.S. Patent No. 6,829,634 (“’634 patent”)
`Ex. 1202 U.S. Patent No. 6,829,634 File History
`Ex. 1203 Bradley Bargen and Peter Donnelly, Inside DirectX, Microsoft Press
`(1998) (“DirectPlay”)
`Ex. 1204 Declaration of Scott Bennet, Ph.D
`Peter J. Shoubridge & Arek Dadej, “Hybrid Routing in Dynamic Net-
`works”, IEEE International Conference on Communications, Montreal,
`1997 (“Shoubridge”)
`Peter J. Shoubridge, “Adaptive Strategies for Routing in Dynamic
`Networks” (Ph.D. Thesis, University of South Australia, December
`1996) (“Shoubridge Thesis”)
`John M. McQuillan, et al., “The New Routing Algorithm for the AR-
`PANET,” IEEE TRANSACTIONS COMMS., Vol. 28, No. 5, 1980
`(“McQuillan”)
`Ex. 1208 Yogen Kantilal Dalal, “Broadcast Protocols in Packet Switched Com-
`puter Networks” (Ph.D. Thesis, Stanford University 1977) (“Dalal”)
`Ex. 1209 Reserved
`Ex. 1210 Declaration of Daniel R. Kegel
`Donald M. Topkis, “Concurrent Broadcast for Information Dissemina-
`tion,” IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON SOFTWARE ENGINEERING, Vol. SE-11,
`No. 10, October 1985 (“Topkis”)
`Ex. 1212 Dimitri Bertsekas & Robert Gallager, Data Networks, Prentice Hall,
`1992 (“Bertsekas”)
`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”)
`William S. Davis and David C. Yen, The Information System Consult-
`ant’s Handbook: Systems Analysis and Design, CRC Press, 1998
`(“Davis”)
`V.G. Cerf, D.D. Cown, and R.C. Mullin, Topological Design Consid-
`erations in Computer Communication Networks, Computer Communi-
`cation Networks (Grimsdale, ed.), Noordhoff International Publishing,
`1975 (“Cerf”)
`Ex. 1216 U.S. Patent No. 6,122,277 (“Garmire”)
`
`Ex. 1213
`
`Ex. 1214
`
`Ex. 1215
`
`v
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`
`
`
`Ex. 1218
`
`Ex. 1219
`
`Ex. 1220
`
`Ex. 1224
`
`Ex. 1225
`
`Ex. 1227
`
`Ex. 1228
`
`Ex. 1229
`
`Ex. 1217 U.S. Patent No. 5,181,017 (“Frey”)
`Flaviu Cristian et al., “Atomic Broadcast: From Simple Message Diffu-
`sion to Byzantine Agreement,” IBM Alamaden Research Center,
`March 29, 1994 (“Cristian”)
`Declaration of David R. Karger. Ph.D., in Support of the Petition for
`Inter Partes Review of Claims 19-24 of United States Patent No.
`6,829,634
`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. 1221 Supporting Microsoft Windows 95 Volume One, Microsoft Press
`(1995)
`Ex. 1222 Reserved
`Ex. 1223 Reserved
`Katia Obraczka et al., “A Tool for Massively Replicating Internet Ar-
`chives: Design, Implementation, and Experience”, IEEE Proceedings of
`the 16th International Conference on Distributed Computing Systems,
`May 1996 (“Obraczka”)
`Katia Obraczka, “Massively Replicating Services In Wide Area Inter-
`networks” (Ph.D. Thesis, University of Southern California, December
`1994) (“Obraczka Thesis”)
`Ex. 1226 Reserved
`Om P. Damani, et al., “ONE-IP: techniques for hosting a service on a
`cluster of machines,” COMPUTER NETWORK AND ISDN SYSTEMS, Vol.
`29, 1997, pp. 1019-1027 (“Damani”)
`Tamás Dénes, “’Evolution’ by Vertex of Even-order Regular Graphs,”
`MATEMATICKAI LAPOK, 1979, pp. 365-377 (“Denes”), translator
`certification, and English Translation
`English Language Translation of: Tamás Dénes, “’Evolution’ by Ver-
`tex of Even-order Regular Graphs,” MATEMATICKAI LAPOK, 1979,
`pp. 365-377 (“Denes”)
`Ex. 1230 U.S. Patent No. 6,603,742 to Steele et al. (“Steele”)
`Ex. 1231 J. Van Leeuwen & R.B. Tan, “Interval Routing,” THE COMPUTER
`JOURNAL, Vol. 30, No. 4 (1987) (“Van Leeuwen”).
`D. Kegel, “NAT and Peer-to-peer Networking” (available at
`http://alumnus.caltech.edu/~dank/peernat.html), July 17, 1999
`(“Kegel”)
`
`Ex. 1232
`
`vi
`
`
`
`
`
`

`
`
`
`Ex. 1233
`
`Ex. 1234
`
`John M. McQuillan, et al., “A Review of the Development and Perfor-
`mance of the ARPANET Routing Algorithm,” IEEE TRANSACTIONS
`COMMS., Vol. 26, No. 12, 1979 (“McQuillan 2”)
`Charles A. Brackett et al., “A Scalable Multiwavelength Multihop Op-
`tical Network: A Proposal for Research on All-Optical Networks,”
`JOURNAL OF LIGHTWAVE TECH., Vol. 11, No. 5/6, May/June 1993.
`
`
`vii
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`
`
`
`Activision Blizzard, Inc., Electronic Arts Inc., Take-Two Interactive Soft-
`
`ware, Inc., 2K Sports, Inc., and Rockstar Games, Inc. petition for Inter Partes Re-
`
`view under 35 U.S.C. §§ 311-319 and 37 C.F.R., Part 42 of claims 19-24 of U.S.
`
`Patent No. 6,829,634. As shown herein, there is a reasonable likelihood that they
`
`will prevail by proving those claims are invalid.
`
`The ’634 patent was issued to The Boeing Company and was purportedly
`
`assigned to Acceleration Bay LLC (“ABLLC”). Petitioners assert there is a rea-
`
`sonable likelihood that each of the Challenged Claims are unpatentable and re-
`
`spectfully request review and, ultimately, cancellation of claims 19-24 under 35
`
`U.S.C. § 103.
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`The ’634 patent is directed to a broadcast channel within a computer net-
`
`work wherein a new participant intending to join the network uses a portal com-
`
`puter to locate neighbor participants “that are already connected to the broadcast
`
`channel” to whom the new participant can be connected, and then establishes con-
`
`nections between it and its would-be neighbor participants. See, e.g., Ex. 1201,
`
`Abst., 5:47-51. The Challenged Claims further require that each participant be
`
`connected to the same (m) number of neighbors, so that the network is m-regular.
`
`Ex. 1201, cl. 19. This purported invention, however, was disclosed in printed pub-
`
`lications that pre-date its filing date of July 31, 2000.
`
`
`
`1
`
`

`
`
`
`
`II. TECHNOLOGY OVERVIEW
`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). Since long before the ’634 patent application was filed, graph
`
`theory has been actively applied in a variety of industries and fields, including in-
`
`tegrated circuit design, operations research (scheduling), and computer networks.
`
`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. 1201 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. 1208 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. 1215 at 7 (“This paper presents a study of networks which
`
`are represented as linear graphs…”); Ex. 1210 at 36 ¶ 2 (“We start this chapter by
`
`stating our topology computation problem as a graph theory problem.”).
`
`The use of m-regular, non-complete networks as described in the ’634 patent
`
`was well-known in the art. (An m-regular graph is one in which each node (partic-
`
`ipant) has exactly m connections to other nodes, i.e., its neighbors; a non-complete
`
`
`
`2
`
`

`
`
`
`
`graph is one in which at least two nodes in the network are not directly connected
`
`to each other. Karger ¶¶ 50-51). Shoubridge discloses the use of “flooding” over
`
`m-regular, non-complete “torus” graphs, such as the graph in Figure 4.2 in the
`
`Shoubridge Thesis. Karger ¶ 51; see Ex. 1205 at 1383 ¶2; Ex. 1206 at 94, 189.
`
`“Flooding” refers to a simple, reliable technique for broadcasting infor-
`
`mation, in which the sender of a message transmits it to each of its neighbors, who
`
`in turn forward the message to each of their neighbors, and so on, until every par-
`
`ticipant has received the message. Karger ¶ 47. This technique was well-known to
`
`POSITA for over two decades (i.e., as early as 1979) before the filing date of
`
`the ’634 patent. See, e.g., Ex. 1207 at 5 (describing “flooding” as a process in
`
`which each node sends each new update it receives on all its lines except the line
`
`on which the update was received”); Ex. 1211 at 2; 1212 at 24-25; Ex. 1218 at 12;
`
`Karger ¶ 48.
`
`Long before July 2000, it was understood that the topology of a network
`
`could have a significant impact on the network’s characteristics, such as its per-
`
`formance, scalability, and reliability. Karger ¶ 49; Ex. 1215 at 6-7; Ex. 1214 at 6-
`
`12. Certainly, topologies based on non-complete, m-regular graphs were known.
`
`Karger ¶ 49; Ex. 1213 at 20. These topologies were routinely described using
`
`graph theory (with computers as nodes, and connections as edges), with mathemat-
`
`ical proofs or simulations developed to model the performance and reliability of
`
`
`
`3
`
`

`
`
`
`
`the network. Karger ¶ 37-38; see, e.g., Ex. 1215 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. 1208 at 114.
`
`Those in the field knew the importance 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. 1230 at Abst. (“[A] network administra-
`
`tor can reconfigure their network while it remains operational. As a result, users
`
`can continue to utilize the network during reconfiguration.”). Mathematical for-
`
`mulas existed to maintain an m-regular non-complete topology when adding or
`
`subtracting a node as reflected by a paper to Denes. See Exs. 1228 & 1229. Denes
`
`teaches a simple algorithm for maintaining an m-regular non-complete topology
`
`while adding a node. These algorithms were applied to computer networks. Ex.
`
`1230 at 12:26-32.
`
`III. 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.)
`
`
`
`4
`
`

`
`
`
`
`
`Related Matters Under Rule § 42.8(b)(2). ABLLC has asserted the ’634
`
`patent against Petitioners in the following cases: 1:15-cv-00228 (D. Del.); 1:15-cv-
`
`00282 (D. Del.); and 1:15-cv-00311 (D. Del.). Petitioners have filed the following
`
`IPRs of the ’634 patent: IPR2015-01964 and IPR2015-01996. Petitioners have
`
`challenged other patents that applicants called “related” in the first paragraph of
`
`the specification. Specifically, Petitioners filed petitions for IPR of U.S. Patents
`
`Nos. 6,701,344 (IPR2015-01970, -01972) and 6,714,966 (IPR2015-01951, -01953).
`
`In addition to the present petition, Petitioners are also filing petitions of U.S. Pa-
`
`tents Nos. 6,920,497 (IPR2016-00724), 6,732,147 (IPR2016-00725), and
`
`6,910,069 (IPR2016-00726).
`
`Lead/Back-Up Counsel Under § 42.8(b)(3) & (4). Lead: 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, asom-
`
`mer@winston.com). Backup: Michael M. Murray (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), 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, mto-
`
`masulo@winston.com).
`
`
`
`5
`
`

`
`
`IV. PETITIONERS HAVE STANDING
`A. Grounds for Standing Under § 42.104(a)
`Petitioners certify that the ’634 patent is eligible inter partes review, and that
`
`
`
`Petitioners are not estopped or barred from requesting this review.
`
`B. Claims and Statutory Grounds Under §§42.22 and 42.104(b)
`Petitioners request inter partes review of the Challenged Claims of the ’634
`
`patent and assert that these claims are unpatentable as follows: Ground 1:
`
`Claims 19-24 would have been obvious under §103 over Obraczka in view of
`
`Shoubridge, or Obraczka combined with the Obraczka Thesis in view of
`
`Shoubridge; Ground 2: Claims 19-22 and 24 would have been obvious under
`
`§103 over DirectPlay in view of Shoubridge; Ground 3: Claim 23 would have
`
`been obvious under §103 over DirectPlay in view of Shoubridge and Denes.
`
`V.
`
`SUMMARY OF THE ’634 PATENT
`
`The ’634 patent describes a broadcast channel within a computer network
`
`wherein a new participant seeking to join the network uses a portal computer to lo-
`
`cate multiple neighbor participants “that are already connected to the broadcast
`
`channel” to whom the new participant can be connected, and then establishes con-
`
`nections between it and its would-be neighbor participants. See, e.g., Ex. 1201,
`
`Abst., 5:47-51; Karger Decl. ¶ 24. Challenged independent claim 19 is presented
`
`below:
`
`19. [preamble] A non-routing table based computer-readable medium containing
`
`
`
`6
`
`

`
`
`
`
`
`instructions for controlling communications of a participant of a broadcast channel
`
`within a network, by a method comprising:
`
`[19a] locating a portal computer;
`
`[19b] requesting the located portal computer to provide an indication of neighbor
`
`participants to which the participant can be connected;
`
`[19c] receiving the indications of the neighbor participants; and
`
`[19d] establishing a connection between the participant and each of the indicated
`
`neighbor participants,
`
`[19e] wherein a connection between the portal computer and the participant is not
`
`established, wherein a connection between the portal computer and the neighbor
`
`participants is not established,
`
`[19f] further wherein the network is m-regular and m-connected, where m is the
`
`number of neighbor participants of each participant, and further wherein the num-
`
`ber of participants is at least two greater than m thus resulting in a non-complete
`
`graph.
`
`Ex. 1201 at 30:20-39..
`
`VI. THERE IS A REASONABLE LIKELIHOOD THAT PETITIONERS
`WILL PREVAIL WITH RESPECT TO AT LEAST ONE CLAIM
`
`Petitioners submit there is “a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner[s]
`
`
`
`7
`
`

`
`
`would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.”
`
`
`
`35 U.S.C. § 314(a).
`
`A. Claim Construction Under § 42.104(b)(3)
`A claim of an unexpired patent is given its broadest reasonable interpretation
`
`in light of the specification. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b); In re Cuozzo Speed Techs.,
`
`793 F.3d 1268 (Fed. Cir. 2015), cert granted – S.Ct. – (Jan. 15, 2016). For the
`
`purposes of resolving the specific validity challenges presented herein, four terms
`
`need construction to clarify their broadest reasonable meaning:
`
`“m-regular” (cl. 19) means “each node is connected to exactly m other
`
`nodes.” See Ex. 1201 at 4:64-65, 15:32-41.
`
`“non-complete graph” (cl. 19) means “graph in which at least two nodes
`
`are not connected to each other.” See Ex. 1201 at 29:23-25, 29:58-60.
`
`“m-connected” (cl. 19) means “dividing the network into two or more sepa-
`
`rate parts would require the removal of at least m nodes.” See Ex. 1201 id. at 5:1-5.
`
`“non-routing table based” instructions (cl. 19) means “a set of instructions
`
`that are implemented without the use of routing tables.” See Ex. 1201 at 2:46-47.
`
`Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art and State of the Art
`
`B.
`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-
`
`
`
`8
`
`

`
`
`
`
`ence relating to networking protocols or network topologies. Karger ¶ 17. Addi-
`
`tional graduate education could substitute for professional experience, or signifi-
`
`cant experience in the field could substitute for formal education. Id.
`
`Supporting Evidence Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(5)
`
`C.
`Supporting evidence is identified in Petitioner’s Exhibit List, in the Declara-
`
`tion of David Karger (“Karger” or Ex. 1219), and that that cited throughout this
`
`Petition.
`
`VII. DETAILED EXPLANATION UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(B)
`A. All References Relied Upon as Grounds for Trial Are Prior Art to
`the ’634 Patent under § 102(b)
`“‘[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 Techs., LLC v. AOL Inc., 752 F.3d 1358, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2014)
`
`“A given reference 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 rea-
`
`sonable diligence, can locate it.” Bruckelmyer v. Ground Heaters, Inc., 445 F.3d
`
`1374, 1378 (Fed. Cir. 2006).
`
`Obraczka (Ex. 1224) is a printed publication and constitutes prior art under §
`
`102(b) because it was publicly accessible by 1996. Obraczka was first publicly
`
`disseminated through a conference presentation in 1996. Ex. 1204 at ¶ 34. The
`
`
`
`9
`
`

`
`
`printed copies of the conference proceedings were available in at least 60 libraries
`
`
`
`including the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign Library; printed copies
`
`were cataloged by July 29, 1996, and the proceedings were disseminated only by
`
`1996. See id. ¶¶ 35-37 and att. 3, 3a, 3c, 3d, 3f.
`
`The Obraczka Thesis (Ex. 1225) is also a printed publication and constitutes
`
`prior art under § 102(b) because it was publicly accessible by no later than 1998
`
`and as early as 1995. Obraczka Thesis was publicly disseminated through its
`
`availability in print and online. The print copy was available at the University of
`
`Southern California and cataloged in June 1998; the online copy was available
`
`through ProQuest. See Ex. 1204 at ¶ 42-45, att. 4a-c.
`
`Shoubridge (Ex. 1205) is a printed publication and constitutes prior art under
`
`§ 102(b) because it was publicly accessible by early October 1997. It was first dis-
`
`seminated through a conference presentation in 1997. See Ex. 1204 at ¶¶ 22-27.
`
`The printed conference proceedings were available in at least 70 libraries and dis-
`
`seminated only starting in 1997. See id. at ¶¶ 25-27, 1b-d, 1f.
`
`DirectPlay (Ex. 1203) is a printed publication and constitutes prior art under
`
`§ 102(b) because it was publicly accessible no later than 1998. DirectPlay is a
`
`book and was available in more than 80 libraries. See Ex. 1204 at ¶¶ 68-71 and At-
`
`tachments 9a, 9b, and 9c. DirectPlay was also cited in two publications before
`
`1998. See Ex. 1204 at ¶ 70. Thus, DirectPlay is § 102(b) prior art.
`
`
`
`10
`
`

`
`
`
`
`
`Denes (Ex. 1228) is also a printed publication and constitutes prior art under
`
`§ 102(b) because it was publicly accessible no later than 1980. Denes is a research
`
`paper disseminated through a Hungarian mathematics journal. Printed copies of
`
`the journal were available in more than 90 libraries. See Ex. 1204 at ¶ 60-65 and
`
`att. 7, 7a, 7b, and 7d.
`
`B. Ground 1: Claims 19-24 Would Have Been Obvious Over
`Obraczka in View Shoubridge, or the Combination of Obraczka
`and the Obraczka Thesis in View of Shoubridge.
`1. Overview of Obraczka and the Obraczka Thesis
`Obraczka discloses an automated, scalable, and efficient replication tool for
`
`Internet information services. Ex. 1224 at 657 ¶ 3; Karger ¶ 71. The tool allows
`
`reconfiguring the logical network topology of its participants. Ex. 1224 at 664 ¶ 2;
`
`Karger ¶ 71. The protocol uses software-implemented techniques for distributing
`
`data and information (e.g., updates, topology update messages, and join requests)
`
`to participants in communications networks (Ex. 1224 at 657 ¶ 4 and 660 ¶ 4), in-
`
`cluding wide-area networks and the Internet, and draws on work directed towards
`
`more general computer networking. Karger ¶ 71.
`
`Obraczka models communication networks as graphs in which the nodes
`
`(“sites” or “replicas”) “flood data to their logical neighbor or peer replicas.” Ex.
`
`1224 at 657 ¶ 6; Karger ¶ 72. Nodes directly connected to each other within the
`
`broadcast channel are called “neighbors.” Ex. 1224 at 661 ¶¶ 9-10 (“Since a mir-
`
`
`
`11
`
`

`
`
`ror-d will have several neighbors, it is often the case that it will receive update no-
`
`
`
`tifications from several of them.”); Karger ¶ 73.
`
`Obraczka uses “flooding” to send a message, update, or request, to all of a
`
`node’s neighbors, and each neighbor, upon receiving that information for the first
`
`time, broadcasts it to all of its neighbors except the one from which it received the
`
`message. Ex. 1224 at 657 ¶ 6 (“We argue that efficient replication algorithms
`
`flood data between replicas . . .”); Karger ¶ 74.
`
`The flood-d process described in Obraczka performs two major functions: (i)
`
`estimating the network topology by gathering and reporting information regarding
`
`bandwidth and propagation delays and (ii) calculating a new, optimized, k-
`
`connected logical topology. Ex. 1224 at 657 ¶ 7; Karger ¶ 75. Although any node
`
`running the flood-d daemon (a background program) can manage both group
`
`membership and the logical network topology of the member, one node is arbitrari-
`
`ly designated as the group master and is tasked with management of the group and
`
`topology. Ex. 1224 at 660 ¶¶ 2-3; and 657 ¶ 7; Karger ¶ 75.
`
`The group master node periodically receives estimates from each group
`
`member. Karger ¶ 76. These estimates include end-to-end bandwidth and round-
`
`trip-time (“RTT”) delay between that respective member and each additional
`
`member. Ex. 1224 at 660 ¶¶ 2, 8; Karger ¶ 76. Any existing group member who
`
`receives a join request from a new node seeking to join the group will in turn flood
`
`
`
`12
`
`

`
`
`the request through the network, and therefore every existing member begins col-
`
`lecting available bandwidth and propagation delay estimates between itself and the
`
`seeking node, to pass on to the group master. Ex. 1224 at 660 ¶ 5; Karger ¶ 76.
`
`Based on the reported estimates (Ex. 1224 at 661 ¶ 2) and factoring in the
`
`
`
`join request from the new node, the group master sends out a topology update mes-
`
`sage which is flooded through the network. Id. at 659 ¶ 7 and 660 ¶ 5; Karger ¶ 77.
`
`These topology update messages contain the new group membership and topology.
`
`Ex. 1224 at 659 ¶ 7. When a group member receives a topology update message, it
`
`forwards it on to its neighbors according to the current topology before committing
`
`to the proposed, updated topology. Id.; Karger ¶¶ 77.
`
`The Obraczka Thesis discloses that when new nodes seek to join a network,
`
`topologies are generated according to certain transformations, that “consist of some
`
`combination of the basic add and delete edge operations.” Ex. 1225 at 43 ¶ 2;
`
`Karger ¶ 78. For example, “Delete randomly chooses a pair of connected nodes
`
`with degree greater than the required connectivity and deletes the edge connecting
`
`them. Add selects a pair of nodes that are not connected and adds an edge connect-
`
`ing them.” Ex. 1225 at 43 ¶ 3. The Obraczka Thesis discloses also that “one of the
`
`transformations we use is Steiglitz’s x-change operation.” Id. at 43 ¶ 2；Karger ¶
`
`78. X-change randomly selects a pair of connected nodes a and b; it then selects
`
`another pair of connected nodes c and d, such that c is not connected to a, and d is
`
`
`
`13
`
`

`
`
`
`
`not connected to b, or vice versa; x-change then “deletes edges a-b and c-d, and
`
`adds edges a-c and b-d (see Figure 4.3).” Ex. 1225 at 43 ¶ 2; Karger ¶¶ 78. Then,
`
`“the resulting topology is checked for feasibility.” Ex. 1225 at 43 ¶ 5; Karger 78.
`
`At any time, any node may query its local flood-d program and extract a list
`
`of one’s neighbors and “corresponding logical link cost metrics.” Ex. 1224 at 661
`
`¶ 9; Karger ¶ 79. In addition, update notifications regarding file additions or dele-
`
`tions are also flooded through the network, originating from the group master, so
`
`that members with outdated versions of the replicated file archives know to update
`
`themselves. Ex. 1224 at 658 ¶ 11 – 659 ¶ 1; Karger ¶ 79. Since a member has
`
`several neighbors, it will receive update notifications from several of them. Ex.
`
`1224 at 661¶ 8 and 661 ¶ 10; Karger ¶ 79. Once a member completes its update, it
`
`sends an update notification to its neighbors with the new version number, thus
`
`propagating the information update throughout the network. Ex. 1224 at 659 ¶ 2;
`
`Karger ¶ 79. Obraczka reports on the performance of its flooding and autonomous,
`
`dynamic topology updating protocols when deployed in various networks, wherein
`
`each node has connections to 2 adjacent nodes—i.e., a k-regular network, where
`
`k=2. Ex. 1224 at 661 ¶ 3, 662 ¶ 2, and 662 ¶ 5; compare id. at 659, Fig. 1 (show-
`
`ing 2-regular, 2-connected, 4-node, logical ring networks); Karger ¶ 80.
`
`Accordingly, Obraczka’s exemplary ring network is 2-connected. See
`
`Karger ¶ 80. It would take the failure of least two nodes to divide the network into
`
`
`
`14
`
`

`
`
`two or more separate parts. See Ex. 1224 at 661 ¶ 3 (“The current topology gener-
`
`
`
`ator uses as input the estimated cost matrix and the connectivity requirement k . . . .
`
`We are currently using k =2.”); Ex. 1224 at 659, Figure 1; Karger ¶ 81; see also, §
`
`Section II, supra. And since all nodes are not connected to all other nodes, the re-
`
`sulting network represents a non-complete graph.
`
`In addition to 2-connected topologies, the Obraczka Thesis studied 3-
`
`connected topologies (Ex. 1225 at 48 ¶¶ 5-6) as well as a fully-connected topology
`
`(id. at 60 ¶ 4 - 61 ¶ 2), observing that while it had a minimum diameter, it had a
`
`maximum total edge cost. See id.; Karger ¶ 82.
`
`A POSITA would have looked to both Obraczka and the Obraczka Thesis
`
`for teachings that are relevant to the reconfigurable replication network and soft-
`
`ware disclosed in Obraczka. Karger ¶ 83. Referring to the Obraczka Thesis,
`
`Obraczka notes that in the experiments discussed in the paper, the “original topol-
`
`ogy generator [9] produced low-cost low-diameter k-connected topologies for a
`
`group using simulated annealing as its optimization technique.” Ex. 1224 at 661¶
`
`3. Obraczka further explains that for the purposes of the system described in the
`
`paper “we use a simpler, faster, less optimal algorithm,” specifically “the minimum
`
`spanning tree algorithm.” Id. at 5 ¶¶ 3-4; Karger ¶ 83. Despite this difference,
`
`Obraczka and the Obraczka Thesis describe similar systems, designed for the same
`
`purpose, around the same time, by an overlapping group of researchers. Karger ¶
`
`
`
`15
`
`

`
`
`83. Thus, a POSITA would studied the teachings of both references together for
`
`an understanding of the implementation of a reconfigurable network topology for
`
`use in replicating data across various replication groups. Karger ¶ 83. And, a
`
`
`
`POSIT