UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`____________
`
`Emerson Electric Co.,
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`SIPCO, LLC,
`Patent Owner
`____________
`
`Case IPR2017-00216
`Patent 8,013,732
`
`
`____________
`
`
`
`
`DECLARATION OF DR. KEVIN C ALMEROTH
`Exhibit 2014
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00216
`SIPCO, LLC
`Exhibit 2014
`
`

`

`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`I. 
`
`II. 
`
`INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND .................................................... 1 
`A.  Qualifications ....................................................................................... 2 
`B. 
`Compensation ..................................................................................... 12 
`TECHNOLOGY BACKGROUND .............................................................. 12 
`A. 
`Fundamentals of Network Communication ....................................... 12 
`B. 
`Routing Fundamentals ........................................................................ 18 
`C. 
`Conventional Control and Monitoring Systems ................................. 26 
`D. 
`The ‘732 Patent .................................................................................. 28 
`III.  LEGAL STANDARDS AND BACKGROUND .......................................... 33 
`A. 
`Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art .................................................... 34 
`B. 
`Claim Construction ............................................................................ 36 
`C. 
`Validity ............................................................................................... 36 
`IV.  SUMMARY OF GROUNDS ........................................................................ 39 
`V. 
`CLAIM CONSTRUCTION .......................................................................... 40 
`A. 
`“sensor” (Claims 1 and 2) .................................................................. 40 
`B. 
`“actuator” (Claims 1, 2, and 4-5) ....................................................... 41 
`VI.  THE SCOPE AND CONTENT OF THE PRIOR ART ................................ 43 
`A.  Kahn (Ex. 1002) ................................................................................. 44 
`B. 
`Cunningham (Ex. 1014) ..................................................................... 45 
`VII.  NO CLAIMS ARE OBVIOUS OVER THE ASSERTED REFERENCES . 46 
`A. 
`Petitioner Failed to Analyze the Factual Inquiries Required to Arrive
`at an Obviousness Conclusion ............................................................ 46 
`The Claim Limitations of a System Comprising a Gateway that is
`Configured to Receive and Translate Select Information,
`Identification Information of a Nearby Transceiver, and Identification
`Information of Retransmitting Transceivers and to Transmit the
`Translated Information to a Computer over a WAN of Independent
`Claim 1 Would not have been Taught or Suggested by the Prior Art 47 
`
`B. 
`
`i
`
`IPR2017-00216
`SIPCO, LLC
`Exhibit 2014
`
`

`

`3. 
`
`4. 
`
`Kahn’s Pickup Packets are not Transmitted from the PRNET to
`the ARPANET via the Gateway ............................................... 50 
`Kahn’s Measurement File does not Contain the Identifiers of
`the Retransmitting Transceiver or the Nearby Transceiver for
`the Packets that are Received at the Station ............................. 51 
`Even if Kahn’s Measurement file were Modified to Include the
`Select Information and the Identifiers of the Retransmitting
`Transceiver and the Nearby Transceiver, it Would Still not
`Satisfy Claim 1 Because These Three Data Items Would not be
`Translated as Required by Claim 1 ........................................... 54 
`The Secondary References do not Compensate for Kahn’s
`Deficiencies ............................................................................... 56 
`The Claim Limitations of a System Comprising a Transceiver that is
`Configured to Wirelessly Retransmit Select Information,
`Identification Information of a Nearby Transceiver, and its own
`Identification Information of Independent Claim 1 Would not have
`been Taught or Suggested by the Prior Art ........................................ 60 
`The Claim Limitation of “a plurality of transceivers dispersed
`geographically at defined locations, each transceiver electrically
`interfaced with a sensor,” as Recited in Independent Claim 1 Would
`not have been Taught or Suggested by the Prior Art ......................... 64 
`The Claim Limitation of “at least one of said plurality of transceivers
`is also electrically interfaced with an actuator to control an actuated
`device,” as Recited in Claim 1 Would not have been Taught or
`Suggested by the Prior Art ................................................................. 70 
`The Claim Limitation of “the control of the actuation device by the
`actuator corresponds to a sensed condition detected by the sensor
`electrically interfaced to the at least one of said plurality of
`transceivers also electrically interfaced with the actuator,” as Recited
`in Claim 2 Would not have been Taught or Suggested by the Prior Art
` ............................................................................................................ 71 
`The Petitioner Failed to show that it Would have been Obvious to
`Modify Kahn with the Secondary References to Achieve a System
`Having a Plurality of Transceivers and a Gateway that are both
`Configured to Receive Select Information, Identification Information
`of a Nearby Transceiver, and Identification Information of
`Retransmitting Transceivers and a Gateway that is Further Configured
`
`1. 
`
`2. 
`
`C. 
`
`D. 
`
`E. 
`
`F. 
`
`G. 
`
`ii
`
`IPR2017-00216
`SIPCO, LLC
`Exhibit 2014
`
`

`

`to Translate this Information and Transmit the Translated Information
`to a Computer over a WAN as Required by all of the Challenged
`Claims ................................................................................................. 72 
`1.  Motivation to Combine Kahn and APA ................................... 73 
`2.  Motivation to Combine Kahn and APA and Cerf .................... 79 
`i. 
`Motivation to Combine Kahn and APA and Cerf and Ehlers .. 82 
`VIII.  CONCLUSION ............................................................................................. 88 
`
`iii
`
`IPR2017-00216
`SIPCO, LLC
`Exhibit 2014
`
`

`

`I.
`
`Introduction and Background
`
`
`
`I have been retained as an independent expert in this inter partes
`
`review (IPR) by the Gonsalves Law Firm on behalf of SIPCO, LLC (“SIPCO”) to
`
`provide opinions and conclusions regarding the unpatentability grounds asserted by
`
`the Emerson Electric Co. (“Emerson”). Among other things, I have been asked to
`
`offer a rebuttal to the declarations of Mr. Stephen Heppe with respect to U.S.
`
`Patent No. 8,013,732 (“the ‘732 Patent”) and included as Exhibit 1004 to
`
`Emerson’s IPR2017-00216 Petition.
`
`
`
`As discussed in further detail in this declaration, it is my opinion that
`
`Emerson has failed to prove that the challenged claims of the ‘732 Patent are
`
`unpatentable. It is further my opinion that the challenged claims are in fact valid
`
`over the cited art.
`
`
`
`This declaration, including the accompanying exhibits, sets forth my
`
`opinions, conclusions, and other matters regarding Emerson’s Petition for IPR and
`
`Patent Owner’s Response (“Response”).
`
` My opinions are based on information including (i) documents and
`
`other evidence that I have reviewed, including Emerson’s Petition for IPR and all
`
`associated exhibits, (ii) Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response and Response and
`
`all associated exhibits, (iii) other materials noted in this declaration and the Heppe
`
`declaration, and (iii) my own education, training, experience, and knowledge. I
`
`1
`
`IPR2017-00216
`SIPCO, LLC
`Exhibit 2014
`
`

`

`may rely on any of these materials, experiences and knowledge, in addition to the
`
`evidence specifically cited as supportive examples in particular sections of this
`
`declaration, as additional support for my opinions.
`
`
`
`I may also provide testimony (i) in rebuttal to Emerson’s positions,
`
`including opinions of any Emerson experts and materials they discuss or rely upon,
`
`(ii) based on any Orders from the Board, (iii) based on documents or other
`
`discovery that Emerson has not yet produced or that were produced too late to be
`
`considered before my declaration was due, or (iv) based on witness testimony
`
`which has not been given or was given too late to be considered before my
`
`declaration was due. I reserve the right to supplement or amend my opinions as
`
`further documentation and information is received.
`
`
`
`I reserve the right to supplement or amend this declaration if
`
`additional facts and information that affect my opinions become available.
`
`A. Qualifications
`
`
`
`I am currently a Professor in the Department of Computer Science at
`
`the University of California, Santa Barbara. I also hold an appointment and am a
`
`founding member of the Computer Engineering (CE) Program. I am a founding
`
`member of the Media Arts and Technology (MAT) Program, and the Technology
`
`Management Program (TMP). I also served as the Associate Director of the
`
`2
`
`IPR2017-00216
`SIPCO, LLC
`Exhibit 2014
`
`

`

`Center for Information Technology and Society (CITS) from 1999 to 2012. I have
`
`been a faculty member at UCSB since July 1997.
`
`
`
`I hold three degrees from the Georgia Institute of Technology: (1) a
`
`Bachelor of Science degree in Information and Computer Science (with minors in
`
`Economics, Technical Communication, and American Literature) earned in June,
`
`1992; (2) a Master of Science degree in Computer Science (with specialization in
`
`Networking and Systems) earned in June, 1994; and (3) a Doctor of Philosophy
`
`(Ph.D.) degree in Computer Science (Dissertation Title: Networking and System
`
`Support for the Efficient, Scalable Delivery of Services in Interactive Multimedia
`
`System, minor in Telecommunications Public Policy) earned in June, 1997.
`
`
`
`One of the major themes of my research has been the delivery of
`
`multimedia content and data between computing devices and users. In my research
`
`I have looked at large-scale content delivery systems and the use of servers located
`
`in a variety of geographic locations to provide scalable delivery to hundreds, even
`
`thousands, of users simultaneously. I have also looked at smaller-scale content
`
`delivery systems in which content, including interactive communication like voice
`
`and video data, is exchanged between computers and portable computing devices.
`
`As a broad theme, my work has examined how to exchange content more
`
`efficiently across computer networks, including the devices that switch and route
`
`data traffic. More specific topics include the scalable delivery of content to many
`
`3
`
`IPR2017-00216
`SIPCO, LLC
`Exhibit 2014
`
`

`

`users, mobile computing, satellite networking, delivering content to mobile
`
`devices, and network support for data delivery in wireless and sensor networks.
`
` Beginning in 1992, at the time I started graduate school, the initial
`
`focus of my research was on the provision of interactive functions (e.g., VCR-style
`
`functions like pause, rewind, and fast-forward) for near video-on-demand systems
`
`in cable systems, in particular, how to aggregate requests for movies at a cable
`
`head-end and then how to satisfy a multitude of requests using one audio/video
`
`stream broadcast to multiple receivers simultaneously. Continued evolution of this
`
`research has resulted in the development of new techniques to scalably deliver on-
`
`demand content, including audio, video, web documents, and other types of data,
`
`through the Internet and over other types of networks, including over cable
`
`systems, broadband telephone lines, and satellite links. An important component
`
`of my research from the very beginning has been investigating the challenges of
`
`communicating multimedia content between computers and across networks.
`
`Although the early Internet was used mostly for text-based non-real time
`
`applications, the interest in sharing multimedia content quickly developed.
`
`Multimedia-based applications ranged from downloading content to a device to
`
`streaming multimedia content to be instantly used. One of the challenges was that
`
`multimedia content is typically larger than text-only content, but there are also
`
`opportunities to use different delivery techniques since multimedia content is more
`
`4
`
`IPR2017-00216
`SIPCO, LLC
`Exhibit 2014
`
`

`

`resilient to errors. I have worked on a variety of research problems and used a
`
`number of systems that were developed to deliver multimedia content to users.
`
` An important component of my research from the very beginning has
`
`been investigating the challenges of communicating multimedia content between
`
`computers and across networks. Although the early Internet was designed mostly
`
`for text-based non-real time applications, the interest in sharing multimedia content
`
`quickly developed. Multimedia-based applications ranged from downloading
`
`content to a device to streaming multimedia content to be instantly used. One of
`
`the challenges was that multimedia content is typically larger than text-only
`
`content but there are also opportunities to use different delivery techniques since
`
`multimedia content is more resilient to errors. I have worked on a variety of
`
`research problems and used a number of systems that were developed to deliver
`
`multimedia content to users.
`
`
`
`In 1994, I began to research issues associated with the development
`
`and deployment of a one-to-many communication facility (called “multicast”) in
`
`the Internet (first deployed as the Multicast Backbone, a virtual overlay network
`
`supporting one-to-many communication). Some of my more recent research
`
`endeavors have looked at how to use the scalability offered by multicast to provide
`
`streaming media support for complex applications like distance learning,
`
`distributed collaboration, distributed games, and large-scale wireless
`
`5
`
`IPR2017-00216
`SIPCO, LLC
`Exhibit 2014
`
`

`

`communication. Multicast has also been used as the delivery mechanism in
`
`systems that perform local filtering (i.e., sending the same content to a large
`
`number of users and allowing them to filter locally content in which they are not
`
`interested).
`
` Starting in 1997, I worked on a project to integrate the streaming
`
`media capabilities of the Internet together with the interactivity of the web. I
`
`developed a project called the Interactive Multimedia Jukebox (IMJ). Users would
`
`visit a web page and select content to view. The content would then be scheduled
`
`on one of a number of channels, including delivery to students in Georgia Tech
`
`dorms delivered via the campus cable plant. The content of each channel was
`
`delivered using multicast communication.
`
`
`
`In the IMJ, the number of channels varied depending on the
`
`capabilities of the server including the available bandwidth of its connection to the
`
`Internet. If one of the channels was idle, the requesting user would be able to
`
`watch their selection immediately. If all channels were streaming previously
`
`selected content, the user’s selection would be queued on the channel with the
`
`shortest wait time. In the meantime, the user would see what content was currently
`
`playing on other channels, and because of the use of multicast, would be able to
`
`join one of the existing channels and watch the content at the point it was currently
`
`being transmitted.
`
`6
`
`IPR2017-00216
`SIPCO, LLC
`Exhibit 2014
`
`

`

` The IMJ service combined the interactivity of the web with the
`
`streaming capabilities of the Internet to create a jukebox-like service. It supported
`
`true Video-on-Demand when capacity allowed, but scaled to any number of users
`
`based on queuing requested programs. As part of the project, we obtained
`
`permission from Turner Broadcasting to transmit cartoons and other short-subject
`
`content. We also attempted to connect the IMJ into the Georgia Tech campus
`
`cable television network so that students in their dorms could use the web to
`
`request content and then view that content on one of the campus’s public access
`
`channels.
`
` More recently, I have also studied issues concerning how users choose
`
`content, especially when considering the price of that content. My research has
`
`examined how dynamic content pricing can be used to control system load. By
`
`raising prices when systems start to become overloaded (i.e., when all available
`
`resources are fully utilized) and reducing prices when system capacity is readily
`
`available, users’ capacity to pay as well as their willingness can be used as factors
`
`in stabilizing the response time of a system. This capability is particularly useful
`
`in systems where content is downloaded or streamed on-demand to users.
`
` As a parallel research theme, starting in 1997, I began researching
`
`issues related to wireless devices and sensors. In particular, I was interested in
`
`showing how to provide greater communication capability to “lightweight
`
`7
`
`IPR2017-00216
`SIPCO, LLC
`Exhibit 2014
`
`

`

`devices,” i.e., small form-factor, resource-constrained (e.g., CPU, memory,
`
`networking, and power) devices. Starting by at least 2004 I researched techniques
`
`to wirelessly disseminate information, for example advertisements, between users
`
`using ad hoc networks. In one technique, called Coupons, an incentive scheme is
`
`used to encourage users to relay information, including advertisements, to other
`
`nearby users.
`
` Starting in 1998, I published several papers on my work to develop a
`
`flexible, lightweight, battery-aware network protocol stack. The lightweight
`
`protocols we envisioned were similar in nature to protocols like Universal Plug and
`
`Play (UPnP) and Digital Living Network Alliance (DLNA).
`
` From this initial work, I have made wireless networking-including ad
`
`hoc and mesh networks and wireless devices-one of the major themes of my
`
`research. One topic includes developing applications for mobile devices, for
`
`example, virally exchanging and tracking “coupons” through “opportunistic
`
`contact” (i.e., communication with other devices coming into communication
`
`range with a user). Other topics include building network communication among a
`
`set of mobile devices unaided by any other kind of network infrastructure. Yet
`
`another theme is monitoring wireless networks, in particular different variants of
`
`IEEE 802.11 compliant networks, to (1) understand the operation of the various
`
`protocols used in real-world deployments, (2) use these measurements to
`
`8
`
`IPR2017-00216
`SIPCO, LLC
`Exhibit 2014
`
`

`

`characterize use of the networks and identify protocol limitations and weaknesses,
`
`and (3) propose and evaluate solutions to these problems.
`
` Protecting networks, including their operation and content, has been
`
`an underlying theme of my research almost since the beginning. Starting in 2000, I
`
`have also been involved in several projects that specifically address security,
`
`network protection, and firewalls. After significant background work, a team on
`
`which I was a member successfully submitted a $4.3M grant proposal to the Army
`
`Research Office (ARO) in the Department of Defense to propose and develop a
`
`high-speed intrusion detection system. Once the grant was awarded, we spent
`
`several years developing and meeting the milestones of the project. I have also
`
`used firewalls in developing techniques for the classroom to ensure that students
`
`are not distracted by online content.
`
` As an important component of my research program, I have been
`
`involved in the development of academic research into available technology in the
`
`market place. One aspect of this work is my involvement in the Internet
`
`Engineering Task Force (IETF) including many content delivery-related working
`
`groups like the Audio Video Transport (AVT) group, the MBone Deployment
`
`(MBONED) group, Source Specific Multicast (SSM) group, the Inter- Domain
`
`Multicast Routing (IDMR) group, the Reliable Multicast Transport (RMT) group,
`
`the Protocol Independent Multicast (PIM) group, etc. I have also served as a
`
`9
`
`IPR2017-00216
`SIPCO, LLC
`Exhibit 2014
`
`

`

`member of the Multicast Directorate (MADDOGS), which oversaw the
`
`standardization of all things related to multicast in the IETF. Finally, I was the
`
`Chair of the Internet2 Multicast Working Group for seven years.
`
`
`
`I am an author or co-author of approximately 200 technical papers,
`
`published software systems, IETF Internet Drafts and IETF Request for Comments
`
`(RFCs). A list of these papers is included in my CV.
`
` My involvement in the research community extends to leadership
`
`positions for several journals and conferences. I am the co-chair of the Steering
`
`Committee for the ACM Network and System Support for Digital Audio and
`
`Video (NOSSDAV) workshop and on the Steering Committees for the
`
`International Conference on Network Protocols (ICNP), ACM Sigcomm
`
`Workshop on Challenged Networks (CHANTS), and IEEE Global Internet (GI)
`
`Symposium. I have served or am serving on the editorial boards of IEEE/ACM
`
`Transactions on Networking, IEEE Transactions on Mobile Computing, IEEE
`
`Transactions on Networks and System Management, IEEE Network, ACM
`
`Computers in Entertainment, AACE Journal of Interactive Learning Research
`
`(JILR), and ACM Computer Communications Review.
`
` Furthermore, in the courses I teach, the class spends significant time
`
`covering all aspects of the Internet including each of the layers of the Open System
`
`Interconnect (OSI) protocol stack commonly used in the Internet. These layers
`
`10
`
`IPR2017-00216
`SIPCO, LLC
`Exhibit 2014
`
`

`

`include the physical and data link layers and their handling of signal modulation,
`
`error control, and data transmission. I also teach DOCSIS, DSL, and other
`
`standardized protocols for communicating across a variety of physical media
`
`including cable systems, telephone lines, wireless, and high-speed Local Area
`
`Networks (LANs). I teach the configuration and operation of switches, routers,
`
`and gateways including routing and forwarding and the numerous respective
`
`protocols as they are standardized and used throughout the Internet. Topics
`
`include a wide variety of standardized Internet protocols at the Network Layer
`
`(Layer 3), Transport Layer (Layer 4), and above.
`
`
`
`In addition, I co-founded a technology company called Santa Barbara
`
`Labs that was working under a sub-contract from the U.S. Air Force to develop
`
`very accurate emulation systems for the military’s next generation internetwork.
`
`Santa Barbara Labs’ focus was in developing an emulation platform to test the
`
`performance characteristics of the network architecture in the variety of
`
`environments in which it was expected to operate, and in particular, for network
`
`services including IPv6, multicast, Quality of Service (QoS), satellite-based
`
`communication, and security. Applications for this emulation program included
`
`communication of a variety of multimedia-based services.
`
`
`
`In addition to having co-founded a technology company myself, I
`
`have worked for, consulted with, and collaborated with companies such as IBM,
`
`11
`
`IPR2017-00216
`SIPCO, LLC
`Exhibit 2014
`
`

`

`Hitachi Telecom, Digital Fountain, RealNetworks, Intel Research, Cisco Systems,
`
`and Lockheed Martin.
`
`
`
`I am a Member of the Association of Computing Machinery (ACM)
`
`and a Fellow of the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE).
`
` Additional details about my employment history, fields of expertise,
`
`and publications are further included in my CV. (Ex. 2015).
`
`B. Compensation
`
`
`
`I am being compensated at a rate of $600 per hour for my time spent
`
`on this proceeding. I am also being reimbursed for reasonable and customary
`
`expenses associated therewith. No part of my compensation is dependent upon the
`
`results of this IPR or the substance of my testimony.
`
`II. Technology Background
`
`A.
`
`Fundamentals of Network Communication
`
` As basic background, one of the most widely used computer networks
`
`is the Internet. The Internet has been around for several decades. Many trace the
`
`origins of the Internet to the Arpanet (the Advanced Research Projects Agency
`
`Network), which dates back to the late 1960s. While the origins of the Internet
`
`were humble, it has grown into a massive, highly sophisticated network for highly
`
`complex and highly varied forms of communication. One of the major leaps in the
`
`Internet’s evolution did not occur until the early 1990s and the sale of the NSFnet
`
`12
`
`IPR2017-00216
`SIPCO, LLC
`Exhibit 2014
`
`

`

`Backbone to MCI, spurring commercialization of the Internet and interest in the
`
`World Wide Web (WWW). These changes were significant contributors towards
`
`the Internet becoming more widely available and usable.
`
` Originally useful mainly for the exchange of text documents through
`
`email (using the Simple Mail Transfer Protocol, or SMTP) or file exchange (using
`
`a protocol like the File Transfer Protocol, or FTP), the Internet has evolved to
`
`support more complex data including multiple media types (e.g., pictures, audio,
`
`video), hence the concept of “multimedia.” Coupled with new and improved
`
`delivery capabilities and increased ways of offering information to users, the ways
`
`in which the Internet could be used increased dramatically during the 1990s.
`
`These factors led to numerous technical innovations in the way data was made
`
`available to users.
`
` One of the more important capabilities that existed within the Internet
`
`was that it was acting as an information repository whereby servers held
`
`information and clients would make requests for that information. The Internet
`
`was also evolving such that, instead of servers holding important information, it
`
`was other users who held the information. In some cases, instead of information
`
`stored in documents, it was the users themselves who were the object of contact,
`
`for example, in multimedia conferencing. As described in more detail below, an
`
`13
`
`IPR2017-00216
`SIPCO, LLC
`Exhibit 2014
`
`

`

`underlying and long-standing challenge in the Internet was identifying the right
`
`address to use in contacting other users or servers.
`
` Much Internet communication takes place using a client/server
`
`paradigm. That is, content servers hold information desired by users. Through
`
`their clients, users make requests for this information, and the server responds by
`
`providing the requested information. Such a paradigm is used in, for example, the
`
`World Wide Web (WWW). In other applications, like email, servers are
`
`responsible for accepting, storing, and forwarding email.
`
` Two principles upon which applications and the underlying network
`
`infrastructure are based are the use of layered communication to break the task of
`
`data delivery into more manageable sub-tasks, and the use of protocols to establish
`
`rules for how data is communicated.
`
` Generally, a protocol is a set of rules that defines how a set of
`
`functions will be performed. Protocols are important within networks since the
`
`two sides of a communication must act in the same, predictable way for data to be
`
`successfully delivered. For example, the HyperText Transfer Protocol (HTTP)
`
`defines both how requests/responses for objects are to be made and the syntax of
`
`request/response messages. The way in which data is exchanged is as important as
`
`the format of the data when it is exchanged. Called syntax, protocol specifications
`
`typically include the way information in a message is formatted. By clearly
`
`14
`
`IPR2017-00216
`SIPCO, LLC
`Exhibit 2014
`
`

`

`describing a protocol’s communication rules and syntax, ambiguities and errors
`
`can be avoided.
`
` Protocols are then combined, based on the layer at which each
`
`operates, to perform the functions necessary to deliver data between sources and
`
`destinations. In many cases, there is one protocol responsible for the functions of
`
`not one, but sometimes multiple layers. Each layer and its corresponding protocol
`
`perform a set of functions based on widely, but not universally, agreed upon
`
`guidelines. As data is prepared for transmission by an application, it is sent
`
`through a set of layers. Each layer performs specified functions. For some of the
`
`layers, there is a corresponding protocol and a corresponding protocol header that
`
`is added to the application’s data.
`
` To help understand the process and give direction to the flow of data,
`
`the layers are “stacked” one on the other, from the highest layer (the application
`
`layer) to the lowest layer (the physical layer). Data, therefore, flows “down” the
`
`stack from the application layer of the transmitting host, across the network, and
`
`“up” a corresponding stack at the receiver.
`
` Over the years, there have been several efforts to “standardize” the
`
`layers and the functions performed by each. One example is the International
`
`Standards Organization’s (ISO) Open System Interconnect (OSI). The OSI stack
`
`has seven layers and the general functions of each layer are well-known. ISO’s
`
`15
`
`IPR2017-00216
`SIPCO, LLC
`Exhibit 2014
`
`

`

`OSI stack model is an older example dating back to the mid-1980s. A more recent
`
`example is the “TCP/IP stack,” also called the “Internet stack.” It integrated the
`
`functionality of two of the layers from the OSI stack (Presentation and Session
`
`Layers) into the Application Layer and better maps to the Internet’s currently used
`
`protocols, e.g., IP, UDP, and TCP.
`
` Of the layers in the TCP/IP stack, the “highest” layer is the
`
`application layer and includes protocols like the HyperText Transfer Protocol
`
`(HTTP) and the Simple Mail Transfer Protocol (SMTP). There are dozens of
`
`application layer protocols, each typically corresponding to a specific application.
`
` The next layer is the transport layer. The two most common protocols
`
`are the Transmission Control Protocol (TCP) and the User Datagram Protocol
`
`(UDP). Where the UDP protocol only provides support for “ports,” TCP provides
`
`better support for reliable data delivery through acknowledgements, in-order
`
`packet delivery, connections, as well as congestion control, and similar to UDP,
`
`port numbers. Data sent through the Internet almost always uses one of these two
`
`protocols.
`
` The next layer down, and the cornerstone of the Internet, is the
`
`Internet layer. The corresponding protocol, the Internet Protocol (IP), provides
`
`end-to-end delivery. Using IP address and a variety of support protocols (e.g.,
`
`routing protocols), routers in the Internet are able to choose the next path towards a
`
`16
`
`IPR2017-00216
`SIPCO, LLC
`Exhibit 2014
`
`

`

`destination, thereby robustly moving packets closer to their destination. From a
`
`lay perspective, the most common transport protocol, TCP, along with IP, form the
`
`core of Internet communications. Hence, the Internet’s protocols are commonly
`
`called “TCP/IP.” Yet, there are two other important layers below IP.
`
` The Data Link Layer (DLL) and the Physical Layer are often closely
`
`coupled. The reason is that the function of the DLL is to move bits across one
`
`physical hop of an end-to-end path. A DLL protocol is typically designed for a
`
`specific physical medium, though there are often many different protocols that can
`
`be used for a given medium. Physical Layer protocols are responsible for
`
`converting digital bits into the analog transmission signal specific to the particular
`
`medium being used for communication. It is therefore clear why there is a close
`
`relationship between a DLL protocol and the Physical Layer: both work for a
`
`specific medium and together move data across a single hop along a path from a
`
`source to a destination.
`
` Often overlooked in the transmission of data is that DLL protocols-
`
`and their headers-only survive across a single hop. Once data is delivered across
`
`the hop, the DLL layer header is removed, leaving the IP header exposed, and then
`
`based on the next hop to the destination, a new DLL protocol header is added-this
`
`one specific to the new medium the packet is to traverse. This process is repeated
`
`for each hop along the path from a source to a destination.
`
`17
`
`IPR2017-00216
`SIPCO, LLC
`Exhibit 2014
`
`

`

` As mentioned above, while the stack concept is a popular metaphor to
`
`help understand how network communication occurs, no reference model is
`
`perfect, and each serves as a guideline. Protocols, for example, may perform
`
`functions of other layers in violation of a particular reference model,