`
`IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT & TRADEMARK OFFICE
`______________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`______________________
`
`
`
`TALARI NETWORKS, INC.,
`
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`FATPIPE NETWORKS INDIA LIMITED,
`
`Patent Owner.
`______________________
`
`Case IPR2016-00976
`Patent U.S. 6,775,235
`______________________
`
`
`
`DECLARATION OF JOEL WILLIAMS
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`FatPipe, Ex. 2003, pg. 1
`Talari v. FatPipe
`IPR2016-00976
`
`

`

`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`
`
`III.
`
`I.
`II.
`
`Introduction ...................................................................................................... 1
`Qualifications and Experience ......................................................................... 2
`A.
`Education and work experience ............................................................ 2
`B.
`Compensation ........................................................................................ 5
`C.
`Documents and other materials relied upon .......................................... 5
`Statement of Legal Principles .......................................................................... 5
`A. Anticipation ........................................................................................... 5
`B.
`Obviousness ........................................................................................... 6
`IV. Claim Construction .......................................................................................... 8
`A.
`“selects between network interfaces on a per-packet
`basis”/“make network path selections on a packet-by-packet
`basis.” .................................................................................................... 9
`“dynamic load-balancing” ................................................................... 14
`B.
`Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art ................................................................. 17
`V.
`VI. The ’235 Patent .............................................................................................. 17
`VII. The Karol Reference ...................................................................................... 22
`VIII. Claim 4 is not Anticipated by or Obvious over Karol ................................... 27
`A. Karol does not disclose or render obvious the claimed “packet
`path selector” ....................................................................................... 27
`Karol does not disclose the claimed “site interface” ........................... 31
`B.
`IX. Claims 5 and 7–15 are not Anticipated by Karol or Obvious over
`Karol Alone or in view of Stallings ............................................................... 36
`A.
`Claim 5 is patentable over Karol alone or in view of Stallings .......... 36
`1.
`Karol does not anticipate claim 5.............................................. 37
`2.
`Karol does not render obvious claim 5 ..................................... 40
`3.
`Karol in view of Stallings does not render obvious claim
`5 ................................................................................................. 42
`
`
`
`
`i
`
`FatPipe, Ex. 2003, pg. 2
`Talari v. FatPipe
`IPR2016-00976
`
`

`

`
`
`B.
`
`Claims 7–15 are patentable over Karol alone or in view of
`Stallings ............................................................................................... 44
`Claim 7 is not Anticipated by or Obvious over Karol ................................... 45
`X.
`XI. Claim 8 is not Anticipated by or Obvious over Karol ................................... 47
`XII. Claim 9 is not Anticipated by or Obvious over Karol ................................... 51
`XIII. Claims 11–13 are not Anticipated by Karol or Obvious over Karol
`Alone or in view of Stallings ......................................................................... 52
`XIV. Claim 19 is not Anticipated by Karol or Obvious over Karol Alone or
`in view of Stallings ........................................................................................ 55
`A. Karol does not disclose the claimed “site interface” ........................... 56
`B.
`Karol does not disclose the claimed “a packet path selector
`which selects between the network interfaces on a per-session
`basis to promote load-balancing” ........................................................ 56
`Karol does not disclose the claimed “step of sending a packet to
`the controller site interface is repeated as multiple packets are
`sent, and the controller sends different packets of a given
`message to different parallel networks.” ............................................. 59
`XV. Conclusion ..................................................................................................... 60
`
`C.
`
`
`
`ii
`
`
`
`
`
`
`FatPipe, Ex. 2003, pg. 3
`Talari v. FatPipe
`IPR2016-00976
`
`

`

`
`
`I.
`
`Introduction
` My name is Joel Williams.
`1.
`
`
`2.
`
`I have been engaged by the Exclusive Licensee FatPipe, Inc.
`
`(“FatPipe”) to investigate and opine on certain issues relating to U.S. Patent No.
`
`6,775,235 B2 (“the ’235 patent”) in connection with FatPipe’s Response to Petition
`
`for Inter Partes Review in IPR2016-00976.
`
`
`3.
`
`I understand that FatPipe has asserted the ’235 patent against Talari in
`
`an on-going patent infringement lawsuit, FatPipe, Inc. v. Talari Networks Inc.,
`
`which was originally filed as Case No. 6:15-CV-458 in the United States District
`
`Court for the Eastern District of Texas, and then transferred to United States
`
`District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, Case No. 5:16-CV-54-
`
`BO.
`
`
`4.
`
`In this declaration, I will first discuss the technology background
`
`related to the ’235 patent and then provide my analyses and opinions on claims 4-
`
`5, 7-15, and 19 for the ’235 patent.
`
`
`5.
`
`This declaration is based on the information currently available to me.
`
`To the extent that additional information becomes available, I reserve the right to
`
`continue my investigation and study, which may include a review of documents
`
`and information that may be produced, as well as testimony from depositions that
`
`may not yet be taken.
`
`
`
`1
`
`FatPipe, Ex. 2003, pg. 4
`Talari v. FatPipe
`IPR2016-00976
`
`

`

`
`6.
`
`In forming my opinions, I have relied on information and evidence
`
`identified in this declaration, including the ’235 patent, the prosecution history, and
`
`prior art references listed in the Grounds of Petitioner’s challenges, and the
`
`
`
`declarations submitted by Dr. Negus.
`
`II. Qualifications and Experience
`A. Education and work experience
`
`
`7.
`
`Attached as Exhibit A to this declaration is a copy of my curriculum
`
`vitae, which provides a substantially complete list of my education, experience and
`
`publications that are relevant to the subject matter of this report.
`
`
`8.
`
`I received a B.S. in Computer Science from the Ohio State University
`
`in 1978.
`
`
`9.
`
`I have worked on the design of numerous network routers and other
`
`network devices for a number of major Silicon Valley companies, including HP,
`
`Cisco, Space Systems Loral, and a number of small start-up companies.
`
`
`10.
`
`I worked for Bell Telephone Laboratories from 1970 to 1978. As an
`
`Associate Member of the Technical Staff, I participated in the development of
`
`network management systems and central office interfaces.
`
` While working for Bell Telephone Laboratories, I attended Ohio State
`11.
`
`University, receiving a Bachelor of Science in Computer Science in 1978.
`
`
`
`2
`
`FatPipe, Ex. 2003, pg. 5
`Talari v. FatPipe
`IPR2016-00976
`
`

`

`
`
` From 1978 to 1982, I worked at the Vidar Division of TRW as a
`12.
`
`Supervisor of Software Engineering, where I was responsible for the design and
`
`implementation of telephone central office switching and transmission equipment.
`
`
`13.
`
`In 1982, I began working as an independent consultant, specializing in
`
`the specification, review, design, and implementation of networking,
`
`telecommunications, and computer operating systems.
`
` Over the course of my career, I have developed extensive expertise in
`14.
`
`the specification, design and development of networking equipment and computer
`
`systems. Much of my work involves assessing, designing, and debugging systems
`
`of the type at issue in this case, as well as systems level architecture and design.
`
`
`15.
`
`I have worked on numerous networking and messaging systems. My
`
`networking experience dates to the early days of networking, before the “Internet”
`
`was well known. It includes modem, direct wired, and wireless computer links. I
`
`have advanced my skills with experience with leading edge communications
`
`technology ever since, including TCP/IP, satellite and wireless protocols, and
`
`various network routing protocols.
`
`
`16.
`
`I also hold or have also held a number of positions (including
`
`leadership positions) in a variety of professional associations. I am a Member of
`
`the Association for Computing Machinery (“ACM”), a Life Senior Member of the
`
`Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (“IEEE”), and a Senior Certified
`
`
`
`3
`
`FatPipe, Ex. 2003, pg. 6
`Talari v. FatPipe
`IPR2016-00976
`
`

`

`
`
`Professional Consultant in the Professional and Technical Consultants Association,
`
`the latter of which I previously served as president. I previously served as a Vice
`
`Chair of the IEEE Consultants Network of Silicon Valley (“CNSV”) and currently
`
`serve on the Board of Directors.
`
`
`17.
`
`I was a past contributing member of both the DSL Forum and the Wi-
`
`Fi Alliance.
`
`
`18.
`
`I am a named inventor on six patents issued by the United States
`
`Patent and Trademark Office, four of which are directed to networking:
`
`U.S. Patent No. 9,367,552 – System and Method for Event Registration
`
`U.S. Patent No. 9,205,841 — System and Method for Computing Slope of a
`
`Road in an Electric Vehicle;
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,151,312 — Network Protocol for Wireless Broadband-
`
`ISDN Using ATM;
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,914,956 — Cache for Improving the Connection Capacity
`
`of a Communications Switch;
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,886,989 — System for the Delivery of Wireless
`
`Broadband Integrated Services Digital Network (ISDN) Using
`
`Asynchronous Transfer Mode (ATM); and
`
`U.S. Patent No. 4,942,812 — Device for Compressing Empty Cans.
`
`
`
`4
`
`FatPipe, Ex. 2003, pg. 7
`Talari v. FatPipe
`IPR2016-00976
`
`

`

`
`
`B. Compensation
`
`
`19.
`
`I am compensated at a rate of $450 per hour for the services I provide
`
`to FatPipe in connection with FatPipe’s Response to Petition for Inter Partes
`
`Review in IPR2016-00976. The compensation is not contingent upon my
`
`performance, the outcome of this inter partes review or any other proceedings, or
`
`any issues involved in or related to this inter partes review or any other
`
`proceedings.
`
`C. Documents and other materials relied upon
`
` The documents on which I rely for the opinions expressed in this
`20.
`
`declaration are documents and materials identified in this declaration, including the
`
`’235 patent, the prosecution history, the prior art references, the petition against the
`
`’235 patent, and information discussed in this declaration, including the references
`
`provided in Petitioner’s grounds and any other references specifically identified in
`
`this declaration.
`
`III. Statement of Legal Principles
`A. Anticipation
`
`
`21.
`
`It is my understanding that in order for a patent claim to be valid, the
`
`claimed invention must be novel. If each and every element of a claim is disclosed
`
`in a single prior art reference, then the claimed invention is anticipated. In order for
`
`an invention in a claim to be anticipated, all of the elements and limitations of the
`
`
`
`5
`
`FatPipe, Ex. 2003, pg. 8
`Talari v. FatPipe
`IPR2016-00976
`
`

`

`
`
`claim must be disclosed in a single prior reference, arranged as in the claim. A
`
`claim is anticipated only if each and every element as set forth in the claim is
`
`found, either expressly or inherently described, in a single prior art reference. In
`
`order for a reference to inherently disclose a claim limitation, that claim limitation
`
`must necessarily be present in the reference.
`
`B. Obviousness
`
`
`22.
`
`It is my understanding that obviousness is a basis for invalidity. I
`
`understand that where a prior art reference does not disclose all of the limitations
`
`of a given patent claim, that patent claim is invalid if the differences between the
`
`claimed subject matter and the prior art reference are such that the claimed subject
`
`matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a
`
`person having ordinary skill in the relevant art (“POSA”). I understand that
`
`obviousness can be based on a single prior art reference or a combination of
`
`references that either expressly or inherently disclose all limitations of the claimed
`
`invention. In an obviousness analysis, it is not necessary to find precise teachings
`
`in the prior art directed to the specific subject matter claimed because inferences
`
`and creative steps that a POSA would employ can be taken into account.
`
`
`23.
`
`I understand that obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103 must be analyzed
`
`from the perspective of a POSA, at the time the invention was made. In analyzing
`
`obviousness, I understand that it is important to understand the scope of the claims,
`
`
`
`6
`
`FatPipe, Ex. 2003, pg. 9
`Talari v. FatPipe
`IPR2016-00976
`
`

`

`
`
`the level of skill in the relevant art, the scope and content of the prior art, the
`
`differences between the prior art and the claims, and any secondary considerations.
`
`
`24.
`
`I understand that assessing which prior art references to combine and
`
`how they may be combined to match the asserted claim may not be based on
`
`hindsight reconstruction or ex-post reasoning. Hindsight reconstruction is using the
`
`patent itself as a road map for recreating the invention. In assessing obviousness,
`
`only what was known before the invention was made can be considered.
`
`
`25.
`
`I also understand that one important guard against such hindsight
`
`reconstruction is a determination whether a POSA would have been motivated,
`
`taught, or suggested to combine the relevant teachings of the prior art to duplicate
`
`the patent claims at the time of the patented invention.
`
`
`26.
`
`I understand that determining the scope and content of the prior art
`
`requires consideration of whether the prior art was reasonably relevant to the
`
`particular problem the inventors faced in making the invention covered by the
`
`patent claims.
`
`
`27.
`
`I understand that determining whether there are any material
`
`differences between the scope and content of the prior art and each challenged
`
`claim of the patent under review requires consideration of the claimed invention as
`
`a whole to determine whether or not it would have been obvious in light of the
`
`prior art. If the prior art discloses all the steps or elements in separate references,
`
`
`
`7
`
`FatPipe, Ex. 2003, pg. 10
`Talari v. FatPipe
`IPR2016-00976
`
`

`

`
`
`consideration should be given to whether it would have been obvious to combine
`
`those references. I understand that a claim is not obvious merely because all of the
`
`steps or elements of that claim already existed.
`
`
`28.
`
`I also understand that when prior art teaches away from combining
`
`prior art references, the discovery of a successful way to combine them is less
`
`likely to be obvious. Prior art teaches away from an invention when a POSA would
`
`be discouraged or diverted from following the path leading to the invention
`
`because of the prior art.
`
`
`29.
`
` I understand that in order to rely on inherency in an obviousness
`
`analysis for establishing the existence of a claim limitation in the prior art, the
`
`missing descriptive material must necessarily be present in the prior art and not
`
`merely probably or possibly present.
`
`IV. Claim Construction
`
`I understand that in an inter partes review, claims are given the
`30.
`
`broadest reasonable interpretation (“BRI”) in light of the specification of the patent
`
`in which it appears. Both the specification and the prosecution history can inform
`
`the claim interpretation but do not necessarily limit it.
`
`
`31.
`
`I understand that extrinsic evidence such as textbooks, articles,
`
`dictionaries, etc. can be used to help interpret the claims.
`
`
`
`8
`
`FatPipe, Ex. 2003, pg. 11
`Talari v. FatPipe
`IPR2016-00976
`
`

`

`
`
`
`32.
`
`I understand that the BRI cannot be construed so broadly as to
`
`encompass prior art technologies excluded by the use of those terms in the patent
`
`specification.
`
`
`33.
`
`I understand that the claims should be interpreted from the perspective
`
`of a POSA at the time the invention was made. I understand that the ’235 patent
`
`claims priority to a provisional application filed on December 29, 2000 and a
`
`continuation-in-part filed on December 28, 2001. My opinion is the same for either
`
`date.
`
`A. “selects between network interfaces on a per-packet basis”/“make
`network path selections on a packet-by-packet basis.”
`
` Claim 4 recites “selects between network interfaces on a per-packet
`34.
`
`basis” and claim 9 recites “make network path selections on a packet-by-packet
`
`basis.” A POSA would have understood these terms to mean “for each packet,
`
`makes a discrete choice between network paths/interfaces.”
`
` The first part of these claim terms requires a selection process. The
`35.
`
`’235 patent’s specification and file history use the term “select” (and all alternative
`
`forms of the word) to mean that a choice is made between two or more
`
`possibilities. (EX1001, 4:16–21, 6:62–7:5, 11:2–10, 12:60–61, 14:40–43, 14:59–
`
`67, 15:65–16:4, 16:15–27). For example, the specification states that “[d]uring a
`
`path selecting step 908, the path selector 704 selects the path over which the packet
`
`will be sent; selection is made between at least two paths, each of which goes over
`
`
`
`9
`
`FatPipe, Ex. 2003, pg. 12
`Talari v. FatPipe
`IPR2016-00976
`
`

`

`
`
`a different network 106 than the other.” (EX1001, 14:40–43, emphasis added). A
`
`POSA would understand the plain and ordinary meaning of the term “select” to be
`
`“to choose from a number or group.” (EX2004, p. 1059). Accordingly, a POSA
`
`would understand that the terms “selects between network interfaces” and “make
`
`network path selections” require that a choice is being made between at least two
`
`available network paths/interfaces.
`
` The ’235 patent’s specification and file history use the term “per-
`36.
`
`packet” and “packet-by-packet” in accordance with its plain and ordinary meaning.
`
`(EX1001, 6:67–7:5, 9:12–17, 14:44–46, 16:15–21). A POSA would understand the
`
`plain and ordinary meaning of the term “per” to be “for each.” (EX2004, p. 861).
`
`Accordingly, a POSA would have understood that a process occurring on a per-
`
`packet or packet-by-packet basis requires the process to occur for each packet.
`
` Consistent with its use of the term “select” and “per-packet,” the ’235
`37.
`
`patent expressly distinguishes path selection applied on a per-packet basis from
`
`path selection applied to multiple packets:
`
`This path selecting step 908 may be performed once per packet, or a given
`selection may pertain to multiple packets. (EX1001, 14:44–46).
`
`This passage is important because it distinguishes per-packet path selection from
`
`conventional routing tables which associate a single, preferred path for each
`
`destination. The selection of the preferred path occurs, for example, when the
`
`
`
`10
`
`FatPipe, Ex. 2003, pg. 13
`Talari v. FatPipe
`IPR2016-00976
`
`

`

`
`
`routing table is updated, and all incoming packets for a given destination will be
`
`routed on the same preferred path until the routing table is updated again with a
`
`new preferred path.
`
` The ’235 patent makes a similar distinction between granular and
`38.
`
`coarse network selection. Selecting may divide network traffic at the packet-by-
`
`packet, TCP/UDP session, per-department, or per-router levels:
`
`In particular, prior approaches for selecting which network to use for
`which packet(s) are coarse. For instance, all packets from department X
`might be sent over the frame relay connection 106 while all packets from
`department Y are sent over the Internet 500. (EX1001, 4:17–21).
`
`Load-balancing is preferably done on a per-packet basis for site-to-site
`data traffic over the Internet or frame relay net, or done on a TCP or UDP
`session basis for Internet traffic, as opposed to prior approaches that use a
`per-department and/or per-router basis for dividing traffic. (EX1001,
`7:38–42).
`
`[T]he invention allows load-balancing, redundancy, or other criteria to be
`used dynamically, on a granularity as fine as packet-by-packet, to direct
`packets to an Internet router and/or a frame relay/point-to-point router
`according to the criteria.” (EX1001, 9:12–17).
`
`A POSA would understand from these examples of coarse network selection that
`
`an initial selection is made between networks, and subsequent packets are checked
`
`against that initial selection to determine which network to route the packets
`
`toward. This initial selection is enforced by the routing table until a routing table
`
`
`
`11
`
`FatPipe, Ex. 2003, pg. 14
`Talari v. FatPipe
`IPR2016-00976
`
`

`

`
`
`change occurs. Thus, coarse selection does not entail making a discrete choice
`
`between network paths for each incoming packet. It is my opinion that a POSA
`
`would construe per-packet path selection to exclude the routing of packets based
`
`on a single selection that applies to multiple subsequent packets, as in the case of
`
`per-department network selection and per-router network selection.
`
`
`39.
`
`I also note that the Petitioner’s own marketing literature is consistent
`
`with the ’235 patent’s description of per-packet path selection:
`
`
`
`(Ex. 1010, Appendix I, p. 7).
`
` Further, with reference to Fig. 9, the ’235 patent further elaborates on
`40.
`
`the distinction between selecting on a per-packet basis and selecting on a multiple-
`
`packet basis. The packet selection process in Fig. 9 can (1) be repeated for each
`
`packet (EX1001, 16:15–21) or (2) occur just once for each receive-send pair of
`
`addresses such that each following packet with the same receive-send pair of
`
`addresses is routed according to the previously selected network path (EX1001,
`
`
`
`12
`
`FatPipe, Ex. 2003, pg. 15
`Talari v. FatPipe
`IPR2016-00976
`
`

`

`16:21–32). The difference between per-packet selection and standard routing based
`
`on pre-selected network path is shown in the annotations to Fig. 9 below.
`
`
`
`
`
`Per-packet Network Selection
`Repeats The Selection Loop
`For Each Packet
`
`Alternatively, The Selection
`Loop Occurs Once And Then
`Each Packet Is Simply Routed
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`13
`
`FatPipe, Ex. 2003, pg. 16
`Talari v. FatPipe
`IPR2016-00976
`
`

`

`
`
`(EX1001, Fig. 9). A POSA would have understood that selections on a per-packet
`
`or packet-by-packet basis require the selection process to occur for each packet
`
`that enters the controller and cannot be applied to multiple packets.
`
` Accordingly, a POSA would have understood the terms “selects
`41.
`
`between network interfaces on a per-packet basis” and “make network path
`
`selections on a packet-by-packet basis” to mean “for each packet, makes a discrete
`
`choice between network paths/interfaces.”
`
`B. “dynamic load-balancing”
`
` Challenged claims 11–13 recite the term “dynamic load-balancing.”
`42.
`
`In the context of the ’235 patent’s specification, a POSA would have understood
`
`the term “dynamic load-balancing” to mean “distributing packets based on actual
`
`traffic assessed after the packet arrives.”
`
` The ’235 patent’s specification explicitly and repeatedly describes
`43.
`
`dynamic load balancing as balancing loads in response to actual traffic. For
`
`example, the ’235 specification distinguishes load-balancing between routers that
`
`are associated with different departments within the enterprise from load-balancing
`
`dynamically to account for actual traffic:
`
`For instance, a local area network (LAN) at site 1 may be set up to send
`all traffic from the accounting and sales departments to router A1 and
`send all traffic from the engineering department to router B1. This may
`provide a very rough balance of the traffic load between the routers, but it
`
`
`
`14
`
`FatPipe, Ex. 2003, pg. 17
`Talari v. FatPipe
`IPR2016-00976
`
`

`

`
`
`does not attempt to balance router loads dynamically in response to
`actual traffic and thus is not “load-balancing” as that term is used herein.
`(EX1001, 2:61–65, emphasis added).
`
`The phrase “as that term is used herein” in this passage informs a POSA that the
`
`’235 specification imposes constraints on the meaning of the term “load-
`
`balancing,” relative to the way that term was used conventionally to describe
`
`balancing traffic loads between routers. In particular, dynamic load-balancing in
`
`the context of the patented invention requires that load-balancing is performed on
`
`the basis of the actual traffic observed at the time of balancing on the available
`
`lines.
`
`44.
`
` Thus, a POSA would understand from the above-quoted passage that
`
`dynamic load-balancing is limited to “balance[ing] router loads dynamically in
`
`response to actual traffic.” A POSA would also understand that “actual traffic” is
`
`the traffic existing at or shortly after the time of the packet’s arrival, as opposed to
`
`traffic conditions that existed sometime in the past. (EX2004, p. 12).
`
` The ’235 patent further describes dynamic load-balancing as being
`45.
`
`based on the actual traffic after the packet arrives at the controller:
`
`[I]n some cases the path for the next packet may be determined by the
`packet path selector before the packet arrives, e.g., in a round-robin
`manner, while in other cases the path is determined after the packet
`arrives, e.g., using per-packet dynamic load balancing. (EX1001, 14:53–
`58).
`
`
`
`15
`
`FatPipe, Ex. 2003, pg. 18
`Talari v. FatPipe
`IPR2016-00976
`
`

`

`
`
`This passage distinguishes (A) pre-selection of packet paths prior to the arrival of
`
`packets at the controller from (B) dynamic selection of packet paths, after the
`
`arrival of each packet, based on actual traffic conditions.
`
` The round-robin approach, for example, pre-selects the packet paths
`46.
`
`because each incoming packet is already destined for a particular line, for example,
`
`a packet to line 1, next packet to line 2, next packet to line 3, next packet to line 1
`
`and so-on. This pre-selection approach is similar to a conventional routing table
`
`that maps each destination address to a particular path, such that all incoming
`
`packets for a particular destination address are forwarded on the pre-selected best
`
`path until the routing table is updated.
`
`47.
`
` On the other hand, dynamic load balancing selects a path for each
`
`packet after arrival of the packet based on the actual traffic conditions on each
`
`available line. This advantageously distributes packets over multiple lines
`
`intelligently, based on the actual traffic, instead of a predetermined best path stored
`
`in a routing table or a round-robin distribution algorithm.
`
`48.
`
` Accordingly, the ’235 patent distinguishes dynamic load balancing
`
`from other methods of load balancing where the controller pre-selects the packet’s
`
`path before it arrives at the controller, such as in a round-robin manner. Therefore,
`
`a POSA would have understood the term “dynamic load-balancing” to mean
`
`“distributing packets based on actual traffic assessed after the packet arrives.”
`
`
`
`16
`
`FatPipe, Ex. 2003, pg. 19
`Talari v. FatPipe
`IPR2016-00976
`
`

`

`
`
`V. Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art
`
`49.
`I understand that the claims and specification of a patent must be read
`
`and construed through the eyes of a POSA at the time of the priority date of the
`
`claims. To determine the appropriate level of a POSA, the following factors may
`
`be considered: (a) the types of problems encountered by those working in the field
`
`and prior art solutions thereto; (b) the sophistication of the technology in question,
`
`and the rapidity with which innovations occur in the field; (c) the educational level
`
`of active workers in the field; and (d) the educational level of the inventor.
`
`
`50.
`
`In light of the disclosed technology in the ’235 patent, it is my opinion
`
`that a POSA should have a Bachelor of Science or equivalent degree in Computer
`
`Science or Electrical Engineering or related technical field with at least 2 years of
`
`experience in a technical field related to network design, administration,
`
`configuration, and/or diagnosis. This description is approximate and additional
`
`educational experience could make up for less work experience and vice versa.
`
`Appropriate recognized industry professional certifications, such as Cisco Certified
`
`Network Administration (CCNA), may be substituted for or supplement other
`
`education.
`
`VI. The ’235 Patent
` The ’235 patent is directed to providing load balancing, greater
`51.
`
`reliability, and increased security across two or more disparate networks, with a
`
`
`
`17
`
`FatPipe, Ex. 2003, pg. 20
`Talari v. FatPipe
`IPR2016-00976
`
`

`

`
`
`controller that balances the load between them. See ’235 at Abstract. This was a
`
`stated improvement over the prior art which did not provide dynamic load
`
`balancing. ’235 patent at 4:40-45. This is illustrated in Fig. 2 (below) where a
`
`primary network (the frame relay network 106) is used and the secondary network
`
`(the ISDN network 204) is only used when the primary network failed. See ’235
`
`patent at 3:18-28; see also 9:55-65. The prior art did not consider load balancing
`
`on a packet-by-packet basis, or provide security by splitting pieces of given
`
`messages between disparate networks. ’235 patent at 9:65-10:3.
`
`
`
` Other approaches such as those in Fig. 1 did not provide load
`52.
`
`balancing – they required that networks agree upon factors relating to
`
`communications prior to traffic being sent. ’235 patent at 2:52-55. Providing
`
`service agreements or agreeing on other factors can provide a rough balance by
`
`sending different types of traffic or flows through particular routers (e.g., router A
`
`
`
`18
`
`FatPipe, Ex. 2003, pg. 21
`Talari v. FatPipe
`IPR2016-00976
`
`

`

`
`
`or router B), but this does not balance router loads dynamically in response to
`
`actual traffic. ’235 patent at 2:56-65. This approach is one of broad granularity as it
`
`did not load balance dynamically in response to actual traffic. ’235 patent at 9:4-9.
`
`Other network architectures (e.g., Figs 3-4) did not provide networks in parallel
`
`(’235 patent at 3:29-4:4) and could not provide load-balancing or improve
`
`reliability. ’235 patent at 3:63-4:4.
`
`
`
` The ’235 patent states that other parallel networks, such as those in
`53.
`
`Fig. 5, did not have the “fine grained packet routing of the present invention.” ’235
`
`patent at 5:24-28. These networks only had coarse routing of traffic or flows where
`
`“all packets from department X might be sent over the frame relay connection 106
`
`while all packets from department Y are sent over the Internet 500. Or the
`
`architecture might send all traffic over the frame relay network unless that network
`
`fails. . .” ’235 patent at 4:18-22. These architectures did not provide dynamic
`
`packet-by-packet routing between disparate networks.
`
`
`
`19
`
`FatPipe, Ex. 2003, pg. 22
`Talari v. FatPipe
`IPR2016-00976
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
` The ’235 patent describes numerous parallel networks that can be of
`54.
`
`many different types (’235 patent at 7:6-20) where the networks are divided and
`
`routed by known address ranges. ’235 patent at 8:23-28. Packets can be re-routed
`
`to different networks by changing their destination address ranges for certain
`
`networks such as 192.168.x.x for a LAN, 200.x.x.x for the Internet, or 196.x.x.x
`
`for a Frame Relay. ’235 patent at 9:12-29; see also 13:39-57, 8:50-53. For
`
`example, a packet bearing a destination address 10.0.x.x can be changed to 198.x.x
`
`x to route it through the frame relay network. ’235 patent at 9:12-29. The ’235
`
`patent states that this provided for easy routing of packets between disparate
`
`networks: “Without the invention, . . . network devices are pre-configured . . . such
`
`that all such packets with [a given] destination address must be sent to [the
`
`addressed network], even though there is [second network] connectivity between
`
`the two locations.” ’235 patent at 8:55-63.
`
`
`
`20
`
`FatPipe, Ex. 2003, pg. 23
`Talari v. FatPipe
`IPR2016-00976
`
`

`

`
`
` The ’235 patent also describes routing packets to improve reliability,
`55.
`
`security, and to balance loads in parallel networks. ’235 patent at 4:40-45; see also
`
`Fig. 9; 13:32-38. Loads can be balanced across the parallel disparate networks, on
`
`a per-packet ba