UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`TALARI NETWORKS, INC.,
`
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`FATPIPE NETWORKS INDIA LIMITED,
`
`Patent Owner.
`
`__________________
`
`
`Case IPR2016-00976
`Patent 6,775,235 B2
`
`__________________
`
`
`
`DECLARATION OF JOEL WILLIAMS IN SUPPORT OF EXCLUSIVE
`LICENSEE FATPIPE INC.’S PRELIMINARY RESPONSE
`UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.107
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`FatPipe, Ex. 2001
`Talari v. FatPipe
`IPR2016-00976
`
`

`
`
`
`Declaration of Joel Williams in Support of
`Patent Owner Preliminary Response
`Case IPR2016-00976, Patent 6,775,235 B2
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`
`
`LIST OF APPENDICES ........................................................................................... I
`I.
`INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................... 1
`II. QUALIFICATIONS AND EXPERIENCE .................................................... 2
`A.
`EDUCATION AND WORK EXPERIENCE ...................................... 2
`B.
`COMPENSATION ............................................................................... 5
`C. DOCUMENTS AND OTHER MATERIALS RELIED UPON .......... 6
`III. STATEMENT OF LEGAL PRINCIPLES ..................................................... 6
`A. ANTICIPATION .................................................................................. 6
`B. OBVIOUSNESS .................................................................................. 7
`C.
`CLAIM CONSTRUCTION ................................................................. 9
`IV. LEVEL OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART .......................................... 10
`A.
`THE ’235 PATENT / ’048 PATENT ................................................. 11
`B. KAROL .............................................................................................. 16
`C. KAROL DOES NOT DESCRIBE LOAD BALANCING AS
`DESCRIBED IN THE ’235 PATENT, CLAIMS 11-13 AND
`19 AND ’048 PATENT, CLAIMS 3, 9, 15, AND 21 ........................ 27
`D. KAROL DOES NOT DESCRIBE ’235 PATENT, CLAIM 19 -
`“DIFFERENT PACKETS OF A GIVEN MESSAGE [BEING
`SENT] TO DIFFERENT PARALLEL NETWORKS.” .................... 35
`KAROL DOES NOT DESCRIBE ’235 PATENT, CLAIM 5
`“OBTAINING AT LEAST TWO KNOWN LOCATION
`ADDRESS RANGES WHICH HAVE ASSOCIATED
`NETWORKS” AND “DETERMINING WHETHER THE
`DESTINATION ADDRESS LIES WITHIN A KNOWN
`LOCATION ADDRESS RANGE” AND ’048 PATENT,
`CLAIMS 1 AND 13 “[SELECTS/SELECTING] BETWEEN
`AT LEAST TWO NETWORK INTERFACES OF THE
`CONTROLLER WHICH USE AT LEAST TWO KNOWN
`LOCATION ADDRESS RANGES WHICH ARE
`RESPECTIVELY ASSOCIATED WITH DISPARATE
`NETWORKS” .................................................................................... 38
`
`
`
`E.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`FatPipe, Ex. 2001
`Talari v. FatPipe
`IPR2016-00976
`
`

`
`Declaration of Joel Williams in Support of
`Patent Owner Preliminary Response
`Case IPR2016-00976, Patent 6,775,235 B2
`
`F.
`
`KAROL DOES NOT DESCRIBE THE ’235 PATENT,
`CLAIMS 4 “PER-PACKET BASIS” AND 9 “PACKET-BY-
`PACKET BASIS” AND ’048 PATENT, CLAIMS 7 AND 19
`“PER-PACKET BASIS” .................................................................... 41
`G. KAROL DOES NOT DESCRIBE SELECTION FACTORS OF
`’235 PATENT, CLAIM 4 AND ’048 PATENT, CLAIMS 1
`AND 13 .............................................................................................. 46
`CONCLUSION ............................................................................................. 48
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`V.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`FatPipe, Ex. 2001
`Talari v. FatPipe
`IPR2016-00976
`
`

`
`
`
`Declaration of Joel Williams in Support of
`Patent Owner Preliminary Response
`Case IPR2016-00976, Patent 6,775,235 B2
`
`LIST OF APPENDICES
`
`Appendix A
`
`Curriculum Vitae of Joel Williams
`
`
`
`
`
`
`-i-
`
`
`
`FatPipe, Ex. 2001
`Talari v. FatPipe
`IPR2016-00976
`
`

`
`Declaration of Joel Williams in Support of
`Patent Owner Preliminary Response
`Case IPR2016-00976, Patent 6,775,235 B2
`
`INTRODUCTION
`1. My name is Joel Williams.
`
`
`
`I.
`
`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.
`
`5
`
`7,406,048 B2 (the “048 Patent”), titled “TOOLS AND TECHNIQUES FOR
`
`DIRECTING PACKETS OVER DISPARATE NETWORKS” in connection with
`
`the Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response for Inter Partes Review of the ’048
`
`Patent for claims 1-24.
`
`3.
`
`I have also been engaged by FatPipe to investigate and opine on
`
`10
`
`certain issues relating to U.S. Patent No. 6,775,235 B2 in connection with Patent
`
`Owner’s Preliminary Response for Inter Partes Review of the ’235 patent for claims
`
`4-5, 7-15, and 19.
`
`4.
`
`I understand that FatPipe has asserted both patents against Talari in an
`
`on-going patent infringement lawsuit, FatPipe, Inc. v. Talari Networks Inc., which
`
`15
`
`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.
`
`5.
`
`In this declaration, I will first discuss the technology background
`
`related to the ’048 and ’235 patents and then provide my analyses and opinions on
`
`1
`
`FatPipe, Ex. 2001
`Talari v. FatPipe
`IPR2016-00976
`
`

`
`Declaration of Joel Williams in Support of
`Patent Owner Preliminary Response
`Case IPR2016-00976, Patent 6,775,235 B2
`
`
`claims 1-24 of the ’048 patent and claims 4-5, 7-15, and 19 for the ’235 patent.
`
`This overview provides some of the bases for my opinions with respect to the ’235
`
`and ’048 patents. Because of their similarities and the same prior art cited in
`
`petitions for the ’048 and ’235 patents, this declaration is with respect to both the
`
`5
`
`’048 and ’235 patents.
`
`6.
`
`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
`
`10
`
`may not yet be taken.
`
`7.
`
`In forming my opinions, I have relied on information and evidence
`
`identified in this declaration, including the ’048 and ’235 patents, their prosecution
`
`histories, and prior art references listed in the Grounds of Petitioner’s challenges,
`
`and the declarations submitted by Dr. Negus.
`
`15
`
`II. QUALIFICATIONS AND EXPERIENCE
`A. EDUCATION AND WORK EXPERIENCE
`8.
`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.
`
`2
`
`FatPipe, Ex. 2001
`Talari v. FatPipe
`IPR2016-00976
`
`

`
`Declaration of Joel Williams in Support of
`Patent Owner Preliminary Response
`Case IPR2016-00976, Patent 6,775,235 B2
`
`9.
`
`I received a B.S. in Computer Science from the Ohio State University
`
`
`
`in 1978.
`
`10.
`
`I have worked on the design of numerous network router and other
`
`network devices for a number of major Silicon Valley companies, including HP,
`
`5
`
`Cisco, Space Systems Loral, and a number of small start-up companies.
`
`11.
`
`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.
`
`12. While working for Bell Telephone Laboratories, I attended Ohio State
`
`10
`
`University, receiving a Bachelor of Science in Computer Science in 1978.
`
`13. From 1978 to 1982, I worked at the Vidar Division of TRW as a
`
`Supervisor of Software Engineering, where I was responsible for the design and
`
`implementation of telephone central office switching and transmission equipment.
`
`14.
`
`In 1982, I began working as an independent consultant, specializing in
`
`15
`
`the specification, review, design, and implementation of networking,
`
`telecommunications, and computer operating systems.
`
`15. Over the course of my career, I have developed extensive expertise in
`
`the specification, design and development of networking equipment and computer
`
`3
`
`FatPipe, Ex. 2001
`Talari v. FatPipe
`IPR2016-00976
`
`

`
`Declaration of Joel Williams in Support of
`Patent Owner Preliminary Response
`Case IPR2016-00976, Patent 6,775,235 B2
`
`
`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.
`
`16.
`
`I have worked on numerous networking and messaging systems. My
`
`networking experience dates to the early days of networking, before the “Internet”
`
`5
`
`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.
`
`17.
`
`I also hold or have also held a number of positions (including
`
`10
`
`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
`
`Professional Consultant in the Professional and Technical Consultants Association,
`
`the latter of which I previously served as president. I previously served as a Vice
`
`15
`
`Chair of the IEEE Consultants Network of Silicon Valley (“CNSV”) and currently
`
`serve on the Board of Directors.
`
`18.
`
`I was a past contributing member of both the DSL Forum and the Wi-
`
`Fi Alliance.
`
`4
`
`FatPipe, Ex. 2001
`Talari v. FatPipe
`IPR2016-00976
`
`

`
`Declaration of Joel Williams in Support of
`Patent Owner Preliminary Response
`Case IPR2016-00976, Patent 6,775,235 B2
`
`19.
`
`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
`
`5
`
`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;
`
`10
`
`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.
`
`B. COMPENSATION
`20.
`I am compensated at a rate of $450 per hour for the services I provide
`
`15
`
`to FatPipe in connection with the Patent Owner Preliminary Response in the IPR of
`
`the ’235 patent and the ’048 patent. The compensation is not contingent upon my
`
`performance, the outcome of this inter partes review or any other proceedings, or
`
`5
`
`FatPipe, Ex. 2001
`Talari v. FatPipe
`IPR2016-00976
`
`

`
`Declaration of Joel Williams in Support of
`Patent Owner Preliminary Response
`Case IPR2016-00976, Patent 6,775,235 B2
`
`
`any issues involved in or related to this inter partes review or any other
`
`proceedings.
`
`C. DOCUMENTS AND OTHER MATERIALS RELIED UPON
`21. The documents on which I rely for the opinions expressed in this
`
`5
`
`declaration are documents and materials identified in this declaration, including the
`
`’048 and ’235 patents, their prosecution histories, the prior art references, the
`
`petitions against the ’048 and ’235 patents, and information discussed in this
`
`declaration, including the references provided in Petitioner’s grounds and any other
`
`references specifically identified in this declaration.
`
`10
`
`III. STATEMENT OF LEGAL PRINCIPLES
`A. ANTICIPATION
`22.
`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
`
`15
`
`for an invention in a claim to be anticipated, all of the elements and limitations of
`
`the 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
`
`20
`
`must necessarily be present in the reference.
`
`6
`
`FatPipe, Ex. 2001
`Talari v. FatPipe
`IPR2016-00976
`
`

`
`
`
`Declaration of Joel Williams in Support of
`Patent Owner Preliminary Response
`Case IPR2016-00976, Patent 6,775,235 B2
`
`B. OBVIOUSNESS
`23.
`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
`
`5
`
`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. 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
`
`10
`
`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 person of ordinary skill in the art would employ can be taken into
`
`account.
`
`24.
`
`I understand that obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103 must be analyzed
`
`15
`
`from the perspective of a person of ordinary skill in the relevant art, at the time the
`
`invention was made. In analyzing obviousness, I understand that it is important to
`
`understand the scope of the claims, 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.
`
`7
`
`FatPipe, Ex. 2001
`Talari v. FatPipe
`IPR2016-00976
`
`

`
`Declaration of Joel Williams in Support of
`Patent Owner Preliminary Response
`Case IPR2016-00976, Patent 6,775,235 B2
`
`25.
`
`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
`
`5
`
`obviousness, only what was known before the invention was made can be
`
`considered.
`
`26.
`
`I also understand that one important guard against such hindsight
`
`reconstruction is a determination whether a person having ordinary skill in the art
`
`would have been motivated, taught, or suggested to combine the relevant teachings
`
`10
`
`of the prior art to duplicate the patent claims at the time of the patented invention.
`
`27.
`
`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.
`
`15
`
`28.
`
`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,
`
`8
`
`FatPipe, Ex. 2001
`Talari v. FatPipe
`IPR2016-00976
`
`

`
`Declaration of Joel Williams in Support of
`Patent Owner Preliminary Response
`Case IPR2016-00976, Patent 6,775,235 B2
`
`
`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.
`
`29.
`
`I also understand that when prior art teaches away from combining
`
`5
`
`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 person or
`
`ordinary skill would be discouraged or diverted from following the path leading to
`
`the invention because of the prior art.
`
`30.
`
`I understand that in order to rely on inherency in an obviousness
`
`10
`
`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.
`
`C. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
`31.
`I understand that in an inter partes review, claims are given the
`
`15
`
`broadest reasonable interpretation 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.
`
`32.
`
`I understand that extrinsic evidence such as textbooks, articles,
`
`dictionaries, etc. can be used to help interpret the claims.
`
`9
`
`FatPipe, Ex. 2001
`Talari v. FatPipe
`IPR2016-00976
`
`

`
`Declaration of Joel Williams in Support of
`Patent Owner Preliminary Response
`Case IPR2016-00976, Patent 6,775,235 B2
`
`33.
`
`I understand that the claims should be interpreted from the perspective
`
`
`
`of a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made. I
`
`understand that the ’235 and ’048 patents claim priority to a provisional
`
`application filed on December 29, 2000 and a continuation-in-part filed on
`
`5
`
`December 28, 2001. My opinion is the same for either date.
`
`34.
`
`I understand that FatPipe’s response is preliminary, and should the
`
`Board institute an inter partes review on any claims of the ’235 and ’048 patents, I
`
`reserve the right to provide further analysis and claim constructions.
`
`IV. LEVEL OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART
`35.
`I understand that the claims and specification of a patent must be read
`
`10
`
`and construed through the eyes of a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of
`
`the priority date of the claims. To determine the appropriate level of a person
`
`having ordinary skill in the art, the following factors may be considered: (a) the
`
`types of problems encountered by those working in the field and prior art solutions
`
`15
`
`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.
`
`36.
`
`In light of the disclosed technology in the ’048 and ’235 patents, it is
`
`my opinion that a person having ordinary skill in the art should have a Bachelor of
`
`10
`
`FatPipe, Ex. 2001
`Talari v. FatPipe
`IPR2016-00976
`
`

`
`Declaration of Joel Williams in Support of
`Patent Owner Preliminary Response
`Case IPR2016-00976, Patent 6,775,235 B2
`
`
`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
`
`5
`
`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.
`
`A. THE ’235 PATENT / ’048 PATENT
`37. The ’235 and ’048 patents are directed to providing load balancing,
`
`10
`
`greater reliability, and increased security across two or more disparate networks,
`
`with a controller that balances the load between them. See ’235 and ’048 patents,
`
`Abstract. This was a stated improvement over the prior art which did not provide
`
`dynamic load balancing. ’235 patent at 4:39-45; ’048 patent at 4:35-40. This is
`
`illustrated in Fig. 2 (below) where a primary network (the frame relay network
`
`15
`
`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; ’048 patent at 3:16-2; see
`
`also ’235 patent at 9:55-65; ’048 patent at 9:46-55. The prior art did not consider
`
`load balancing on a packet-by-packet basis, or provide security by splitting pieces
`
`11
`
`FatPipe, Ex. 2001
`Talari v. FatPipe
`IPR2016-00976
`
`

`
`Declaration of Joel Williams in Support of
`Patent Owner Preliminary Response
`Case IPR2016-00976, Patent 6,775,235 B2
`
`
`of given messages between disparate networks. ’235 patent at 9:65-10:3; ’048
`
`patent at 9:55-60.
`
`
`
`38. Other approaches such as those in Fig. 1 did not provide load
`
`5
`
`balancing – they required that networks agree upon factors relating to
`
`communications prior to traffic being sent. ’235 patent at 2:52-55; ’048 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 or router B), but this does not balance router loads
`
`10
`
`dynamically in response to actual traffic (’235 patent at 2:56-65; ’048 patent at
`
`2:56-67. 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; ’048 patent at 8:65-
`
`12
`
`FatPipe, Ex. 2001
`Talari v. FatPipe
`IPR2016-00976
`
`

`
`Declaration of Joel Williams in Support of
`Patent Owner Preliminary Response
`Case IPR2016-00976, Patent 6,775,235 B2
`
`
`9:3. Other network architectures (e.g., Figs 3-4) did not provide networks in
`
`parallel (’235 patent at 3:29-4:4; ’048 patent at 3:26-67) and could not provide
`
`load-balancing or improve reliability. ’235 patent at 3:63-4:4; ’048 patent at 3:59-
`
`67.
`
`5
`
`
`
`39. The ’235 and ’048 patents state that other parallel networks, such as
`
`those in Fig. 5, did not have the “fine grained packet routing of the present
`
`invention.” ’235 patent at 5:24-28; ’048 patent at 5:20-24. These networks only
`
`had coarse routing of traffic or flows where “all packets from department X might
`
`10
`
`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; ’048
`
`patent at 4:14-28. These architectures did not provide dynamic packet-by-packet
`
`routing between disparate networks.
`
`13
`
`FatPipe, Ex. 2001
`Talari v. FatPipe
`IPR2016-00976
`
`

`
`
`
`Declaration of Joel Williams in Support of
`Patent Owner Preliminary Response
`Case IPR2016-00976, Patent 6,775,235 B2
`
`
`
`40. The ’235 and ’048 patents describe numerous parallel networks that
`
`can be of many different types (’235 patent at 7:6-20; ’048 patent at 7:3-15) where
`
`the networks are divided and routed by known address ranges. ’235 patent at 8:23-
`
`5
`
`28; ’048 patent at 8:16-21. 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; ’048 patent at 9:4-21; see also ’048 patent at 13:26-
`
`44; ’235 patent at 8:50-53; ’048 patent at 8:42-45. For example, a packet bearing a
`
`10
`
`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; ’048 patent at 9:4-21. The ’235 and
`
`’048 patents state 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
`
`14
`
`FatPipe, Ex. 2001
`Talari v. FatPipe
`IPR2016-00976
`
`

`
`Declaration of Joel Williams in Support of
`Patent Owner Preliminary Response
`Case IPR2016-00976, Patent 6,775,235 B2
`
`
`addressed network], even though there is [second network] connectivity between
`
`the two locations.” ’235 patent at 8:55-63; ’048 patent at 8:51-56.
`
`41. The ’235 and ’048 patents also describe routing packets to improve
`
`reliability, security, and to balance loads in parallel networks. ’235 patent at 4:39-
`
`5
`
`45; see also ’235 patent at Fig. 9; 13:33-38; ’048 patent at 4:35-40; see also ’048
`
`patent at Fig. 9; ’048 patent at 13:19-25. Loads can be balanced across the parallel
`
`disparate networks, on a per-packet basis, to load-balance after packets leave a
`
`network interface. ’235 patent at 11:24-27; ’048 patent at 11:11-14. Packet-by-
`
`packet load balancing provides a finer granularity than what was found in the prior
`
`10
`
`art. ’235 patent at 9:12-19; ’048 patent at 9:4-11. Additionally, to improve
`
`security, messages can be divided up between networks. ’235 patent at 11:46-49;
`
`’048 patent at 11:33-36. These criteria are applied on parallel networks, not those
`
`which use one network as a fail-over or as an alternative for another network. ’235
`
`patent at 9:55-65; ’048 patent at 9:46-60. As illustrated in the flowchart of Fig. 9
`
`15
`
`(below), the path selection may use load balancing, connectivity, or security
`
`criterion. ’235 patent at 14:59-15:3; see also ’235 patent at 11:11-11:63; ’048
`
`patent at 14:45-55; see also ’048 patent at 10:65-11:50.
`
`15
`
`FatPipe, Ex. 2001
`Talari v. FatPipe
`IPR2016-00976
`
`

`
`Declaration of Joel Williams in Support of
`Patent Owner Preliminary Response
`Case IPR2016-00976, Patent 6,775,235 B2
`
`B. KAROL
`
`
`
`42. Karol is directed to routing traffic flows to a connection oriented (CO)
`
`
`
`
`
`5
`
`network from a connectionless (CL) network where the CL network has traffic that
`
`can be routed onto a connection for a CO network. Karol at Abstract. The CO
`
`network can be an ATM (Asynchronous Transfer Mode) or WDM (Wavelength
`
`Division Multiplexed) network, for example, and the CL network can be an IP
`
`protocol network where CO connections need to be set-up before use. Id. at 1:24-
`
`10
`
`39; 1:8-17; 2:53-63. CO connections that are set up are used for flows whose
`
`service contracts authorize CO service. See id. at Fig. 5, 503; 5:35-46.
`
`43. Traffic flows between the CO and CL networks are controlled by
`
`nodes called CL-CO gateways that handle (1) packets when the CO network
`
`16
`
`FatPipe, Ex. 2001
`Talari v. FatPipe
`IPR2016-00976
`
`

`
`Declaration of Joel Williams in Support of
`Patent Owner Preliminary Response
`Case IPR2016-00976, Patent 6,775,235 B2
`
`
`connections are being set up; (2) routing flows from the CL network to the CO
`
`network; and (3) flows whose service contracts do not indicate CO network
`
`service. See id. at 7:64-8:2; 1:8-17; 2:53-63. The CL-CO gateways also set-up CO
`
`network connections for the CO paths, and determine if packets of those flows
`
`5
`
`should be halted or buffered (id. at 12:23-37) while the connections are being set
`
`up. Id. at 1:24-28; 9:46-48; 10:8-15; 10:45-47; 10:61-63.
`
`44. Fig. 1, for example, illustrates a “parallel architecture” that illustrates
`
`“how to handle traffic . . . arriving at the CL-CO gateway until the desired
`
`connection is established in the CO network.” Id. at 4:12-16. Traffic from source
`
`10
`
`101 arrives from a CL network 110 to a CL-CO gateway 140 (id. at 4:36-67; Fig.
`
`1) where whether the CO network is used by the CL-CO gateway depends on user-
`
`specified service requirements that have been pre-defined and set up before-hand.
`
`Id. at 5:35-38. The determination to use either the CL or the CO network for
`
`particular flows is based on user-specified service requirements. Id. at 5:34-57;
`
`15
`
`15:20-31; 16:3-8.
`
`17
`
`FatPipe, Ex. 2001
`Talari v. FatPipe
`IPR2016-00976
`
`

`
`
`
`Declaration of Joel Williams in Support of
`Patent Owner Preliminary Response
`Case IPR2016-00976, Patent 6,775,235 B2
`
`
`
`45.
`
`If the CO network is set to be used by service requirements, but a
`
`connection is yet to be set-up, packets are turned around onto the CL network (id.
`
`at 2:41-45; claims 11, 15), halted, slowed-down until the CO network is setup (id.
`
`5
`
`at 4:16-29) or buffered (id. at 7:1-13). Packets that are turned around are source
`
`routed until the CO connection is set up. Id. at 4:16-18. The CL-CO gateway
`
`“turn[s] back IP datagrams to the CL network using IP source routing to override
`
`routing tables at the routers.” Id. at 8:51-57. Karol states that “source routing is
`
`used to force intermediate routers to use the source route carried in the datagram
`
`10
`
`header instead of the path indicated by their precomputed routing tables.” Id. at
`
`11:27-31.
`
`46. Source routing involves changing the packet to add routing
`
`instructions to prevent loops. See id. A POSITA understands that this is typically
`
`18
`
`FatPipe, Ex. 2001
`Talari v. FatPipe
`IPR2016-00976
`
`

`
`Declaration of Joel Williams in Support of
`Patent Owner Preliminary Response
`Case IPR2016-00976, Patent 6,775,235 B2
`
`
`accomplished by replacing the original packet with a “Source Demand Route
`
`Packet” which contains a new IP Header and the original data payload as described
`
`in RFC specification 1940.
`
`47. The CL-CO gateway handles flow to the CL and CO networks and is
`
`5
`
`operated by “a processor 430 and associated database 431 for controlling the
`
`gateway packet handling operations and for storing forwarding, flow control,
`
`header translation and other information.” Id. at 6:40-44. The database 431
`
`includes “a series of individual databases arranged to store information used in
`
`various of the functions performed by processor 430, and may include, as an
`
`10
`
`example, a datagram forwarding database 432, a flow database 433, and a header
`
`translation database 434.” Id. at 7:36-40. The datagram forwarding database 432
`
`“stores the next hop router address and outgoing port number corresponding to
`
`each destination.” Id. at 7:36-41. The flow database 433 “stores information used
`
`to determine how to handle packets from flows requiring a connection oriented
`
`15
`
`service.” Id. at 7:42-44. The header translation database 434 “indicates the
`
`incoming CL packet header field values and the corresponding CO packet header
`
`field values.” Id. at 7:55-59. The database 431 (which contains the forwarding
`
`database 432, flow database 433, and translation database 434) is not dynamic; it
`
`handles particular flows and how to route them to the CO network, if the CO
`
`19
`
`FatPipe, Ex. 2001
`Talari v. FatPipe
`IPR2016-00976
`
`

`
`Declaration of Joel Williams in Support of
`Patent Owner Preliminary Response
`Case IPR2016-00976, Patent 6,775,235 B2
`
`
`network is dictated by service contract. Id. at 5:34-57; 15:20-31; 16:3-8. Further,
`
`protocol converter 450 “generates CO packets” derived from the CL packets. Id. at
`
`2:19
`
`
`
`5
`
`48. As shown in the Fig. 5 excerpt (below), when an IP datagram arrives
`
`at the CL-CO gateway of Fig. 4, step 503 first determines “whether the flow
`
`should be handled via the CO network or not” based on whether the “packet [is]
`
`from a flow that needs CO service.” 8:61-62; Fig. 5, 503. User-specified service
`
`requirements are set-up well in advance to determine if flows should use the CO
`
`10
`
`network or not. Id. at 5:34-57; 15:20-31; 16:3-8. If a user does not specify that a
`
`CO network is to be used, packets are turned back to the CL node using source-
`
`routing or dropped. 9:26-36. If a CO network is specified to be used, the packet is
`
`sent to the packet buffer 440 for usage in the CO network. Id. 8:63-9:1.
`
`20
`
`FatPipe, Ex. 2001
`Talari v. FatPipe
`IPR2016-00976
`
`

`
`
`
`Declaration of Joel Williams in Support of
`Patent Owner Preliminary Response
`Case IPR2016-00976, Patent 6,775,235 B2
`
`
`
`49.
`
`If a CO flow is specified by a user’s service contract, it is used; if it is
`
`not specified by user contract, it does not use the CO network. Id. at 3:6-16; 5:35-
`
`38; 15:20-31; 16:3-8; Figs. 5-7. Fig. 6 also illustrates steps for determining if
`
`5
`
`packets are TCP or UDP. 9:37-43. If the UDP flow is specified to use the CO
`
`network by contract the CO network is used. 12:1-5; 5:35-37. The other steps are
`
`related to opening a session on the CO network: (step 631) the system determines
`
`whether the application has an end-to-end handshake (i.e., a CO connection) prior
`
`to data transfer; (step 635) if the UDP p