UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`___________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`___________________
`
`TALARI NETWORKS, INC.
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`FATPIPE NETWORKS INDIA LIMITED,
`Patent Owner
`
`
`
`
`
`___________________
`
`Inter Partes Review Case No. 2016-00976
`___________________
`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW OF U.S. PATENT NO. 6,775,235
`UNDER 35 U.S.C. §§ 311-319 AND 37 C.F.R. § 42.100
`___________________
`
`
`
`
`
`FatPipe Exhibit 2002, pg. 1
`Viptela v. FatPipe
`IPR2017-00684
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`U.S. Patent No. 6,775,235
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`I.
`
`MANDATORY NOTICES ............................................................................ 1
`A.
`Real Party-In-Interest (37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(1)) ................................... 1
`B.
`Related Matters (37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(2)) ............................................. 1
`C.
`Lead and Backup Counsel (37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(3) and
`42.10(a)) ............................................................................................... 2
`Service Information (37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(4)) ...................................... 2
`Payment of Fees (37 C.F.R. §§ 42.15(a) and 42.103(a)) .................... 2
`Standing (37 C.F.R. § 42.104(a)) ......................................................... 3
`
`D.
`E.
`F.
`
`II.
`
`OVERVIEW OF CHALLENGE AND RELIEF REQUESTED ................... 3
`A.
`Publications Relied Upon ..................................................................... 3
`B.
`Grounds For Challenge ........................................................................ 4
`
`III. RELEVANT INFORMATION CONCERNING THE CONTESTED
`PATENT ......................................................................................................... 4
`A.
`Effective Filing Date of the ’235 Patent .............................................. 4
`B.
`The ’235 Patent (Ex. 1001) .................................................................. 5
`1.
`Overview of the ’235 Patent ...................................................... 5
`2.
`Prosecution History .................................................................... 6
`Claim Construction .............................................................................. 6
`1.
`Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art .............................................. 6
`2.
`Patent Owner’s Proposed Constructions.................................... 7
`
`C.
`
`IV. SUMMARY OF PRIOR ART AND REFERENCES RELIED ON .............. 9
`A.
`Brief Summary of Karol (Ex. 1006) .................................................... 9
`B.
`Brief Summary of Stallings (Ex. 1011) .............................................. 10
`
`V. A REASONABLE LIKELIHOOD EXISTS THAT THE
`CHALLENGED CLAIMS ARE UNPATENTABLE ................................. 10
`A. Ground 1: Claims 4, 5, 7-11, 14, and 19 of the ’235 Patent
`(Ex. 1001) are anticipated by Karol (Ex. 1006) ................................. 10
`Ground 2: Claims 5, 11-15, and 19 of the ’235 Patent are
`obvious over Karol (Ex. 1006) in view of Stallings (Ex. 1011) ........ 30
`Ground 3: Claims 4, 5, 7-15, and 19 of the ’235 Patent (Ex.
`1001) are obvious over Karol (Ex. 1006) ........................................... 42
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`VI. CONCLUSION ............................................................................................. 60
`
`
`
`-i-
`
`FatPipe Exhibit 2002, pg. 2
`Viptela v. FatPipe
`IPR2017-00684
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`U.S. Patent No. 6,775,235
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`
`
`CASES
`Amazon.com, Inc. v. Barnesandnoble.com, Inc.,
`239 F.3d 1343 (Fed. Cir. 2001) ............................................................................ 8
`
`Page(s)
`
`KSR v. Teleflex,
`550 U.S. 398 (2007) .....................................................................................passim
`
`In re Translogic Tech., Inc.,
`504 F.3d 1249 (Fed. Cir. 2007) ............................................................................ 7
`
`In re Zletz,
`13 USPQ2d 1320 (Fed. Cir. 1989) ....................................................................... 8
`
`REGULATIONS
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.8 ..................................................................................................... 1, 2
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.15 ....................................................................................................... 2
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.100 ................................................................................................. 1, 7
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.103 ..................................................................................................... 2
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.104 ..................................................................................................... 3
`
`STATUTES
`
`35 U.S.C. § 101 .......................................................................................................... 7
`
`35 U.S.C. § 102 ...................................................................................... 3, 4, 9, 10, 49
`
`35 U.S.C. § 103 .......................................................................................................... 4
`
`35 U.S.C. § 112 .......................................................................................................... 7
`
`35 U.S.C. §§ 311-319 .......................................................................................... 1, 60
`
`OTHER AUTHORITIES
`
`Manual of Patent Examining Procedure § 2143 (9th ed., 2015) ......................passim
`
`
`
`-ii-
`
`FatPipe Exhibit 2002, pg. 3
`Viptela v. FatPipe
`IPR2017-00684
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`U.S. Patent No. 6,775,235
`
`PETITIONER’S EXHIBITS
`
`1001
`
`1002
`
`1003
`
`1004
`1005
`
`1006
`
`1007
`
`1008
`
`
`Exhibit No. Description
`U.S. Patent No. 6,775,235 by Sanchaita Datta and Ragula Bhaskar
`entitled “Tools and Techniques for Directing Packets Over
`Disparate Networks” (“the ’235 Patent”)
`File History for U.S. Patent No. 6,775,235
`U.S. Patent No. 7,406,048 by Sanchaita Datta and Ragula Bhaskar
`entitled “Tools and Techniques for Directing Packets Over
`Disparate Networks” (“the ’048 Patent”)
`File History for U.S. Patent No. 7,406,048
`Declaration of Dr. Kevin Negus
`U.S. Patent No. 6,628,617 by Mark John Karol and Malathi
`Veeraraghavan entitled “Technique for Internetworking Traffic on
`Connectionless and Connection-Oriented Networks” (“Karol”)
`W.R. Stevens, “TCP/IP Illustrated Volume 1, the Protocols,”
`Addison-Wesley Professional Computing Series, 1994, ISBN-0-
`201-63346-9 (“Stevens”).
`February 1, 2016 Order granting Motion to Transfer to the Western
`Division of the Eastern District of North Carolina, D.I. 57 in 6:15-
`cv-00458-RWS in the Eastern District of Texas
`U.S. Patent No. 6,748,439 by David R. Monachello et al. entitled
`“System and Method for Selecting Internet Service Providers from a
`Workstation that is Connected to a Local Area Network”
`(“Monachello”)
`FatPipe’s Infringement Contentions
`William Stallings, “Data and Computer Communications,” Prentice-
`Hall, 5th Edition, 1997, ISBN-81-203-1240-6, (“Stallings”)
`Office Action dated 4/13/2012 for U.S. Application No. 10/034,197
`Office Action dated 2/2/2012 for U.S. Application No. 10/034,197
`FatPipe’s Proposed Modifications to Claim Construction
`U.S. Patent No. 6,317,431 by Terence G. Hodgkinson and Alan W.
`O’Neill entitled “ATM Partial Cut-Through” (“Hodgkinson”)
`Adaptive Private Networking Configuration Editor User’s Guide,
`APNware Release 2.5 (FATPIPE-001374-1448)
`
`1009
`
`1010
`1011
`1012
`1013
`1014
`1015
`
`1016
`
`
`
`-iii-
`
`FatPipe Exhibit 2002, pg. 4
`Viptela v. FatPipe
`IPR2017-00684
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`U.S. Patent No. 6,775,235
`
`Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. §§ 311-319 and 37 C.F.R. §§ 42.100 et seq., Talari
`
`Networks, Inc. (“Petitioner”) hereby respectfully requests inter partes review of
`
`claims 4, 5, 7-15, and 19 (“Challenged Claims”) of U.S. Patent No. 6,775,235 (Ex.
`
`1001; “the ’235 Patent”) which issued on August 10, 2004. As explained in this
`
`Petition, there exists a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner will prevail with
`
`respect to at least one of the Challenged Claims. The Challenged Claims are
`
`unpatentable over the prior art publications identified and applied in this Petition.
`
`I. MANDATORY NOTICES
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.8, Petitioner provides the following disclosures:
`
`A. Real Party-In-Interest (37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(1))
`Petitioner, Talari Networks, Inc., located at 1 Almaden Blvd., Suite 200, San
`
`Jose, California 95113, is the real party-in-interest for the instant petition.
`
`B. Related Matters (37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(2))
`The ’235 Patent is currently involved in a pending lawsuit involving
`
`Petitioner originally captioned FatPipe, Inc. v. Talari Networks, Inc., United States
`
`District Court For the Eastern District Of Texas, Case No. 6:15-CV-458. On
`
`February 2, 2016, the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas
`
`ordered the case to be to be transferred to the Western Division of the United
`
`States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, Case No. 5:16-CV-
`
`54-BO (“the District Court Litigation”). (Ex. 1008.)
`
`
`
`-1-
`
`FatPipe Exhibit 2002, pg. 5
`Viptela v. FatPipe
`IPR2017-00684
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`U.S. Patent No. 6,775,235
`
`FatPipe, Inc. is also asserting U.S. Patent No. 7,406,048 (Ex. 1003; “the
`
`’048 Patent”) in the District Court Litigation against Petitioner. A separate IPR
`
`petition has been filed by Petitioner with respect to the ’048 Patent. Petitioner
`
`requests that both Petitions be assigned to the same Board for administrative
`
`efficiency, as that patent is directed generally to the same subject matter.
`
`C. Lead and Backup Counsel (37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(3) and 42.10(a))
`
`Lead Counsel:
`Andy H. Chan (Reg. No. 56,893)
`Email: chana@pepperlaw.com
`
`Postal/Hand Delivery Address:
`Pepper Hamilton LLP
`333 Twin Dolphin Dr., Suite 400
`Redwood City, CA 94065
`
`Tel.: 650.802.3600
`Fax: 650.802.3650
`
`Backup Counsel:
`Charles F. Koch (Reg. No. 58,669)
`Email: kochc@pepperlaw.com
`
`Thomas F. Fitzpatrick (pro hac vice
`to be filed)
`Email: fitzpatrickt@pepperlaw.com
`
`Postal/Hand Delivery Address:
`Pepper Hamilton LLP
`333 Twin Dolphin Dr., Suite 400
`Redwood City, CA 94065
`
`Tel.: 650.802.3600
`Fax: 650.802.3650
`
`
`
`Service Information (37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(4))
`
`D.
`Service on Petitioner may be made by email, mail or hand delivery at the
`
`addresses shown above.
`
`Payment of Fees (37 C.F.R. §§ 42.15(a) and 42.103(a))
`
`E.
`The Office is authorized to charge the fees specified by 37 C.F.R.
`
`§§ 42.103(a) and 42.15(a) to Deposit Account No. 500436 as well as any
`
`
`
`-2-
`
`FatPipe Exhibit 2002, pg. 6
`Viptela v. FatPipe
`IPR2017-00684
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`U.S. Patent No. 6,775,235
`
`additional fees that might be due in connection with this Petition.
`
`F.
`Standing (37 C.F.R. § 42.104(a))
`Petitioner certifies that the patent sought for review is eligible for inter
`
`partes review and that Petitioner is not barred or estopped from requesting an inter
`
`partes review challenging the patent claims on the grounds identified herein.
`
`II. OVERVIEW OF CHALLENGE AND RELIEF REQUESTED
`Pursuant to C.F.R. § 42.104(b), Petitioner requests inter partes review of
`
`claims 4, 5, 7-15, and 19 of the ’235 Patent to Sanchaita Datta and Ragula Bhaskar,
`
`titled “Tool and Techniques for Directing Packets over Disparate Networks” (Ex.
`
`1001) on the grounds set forth below and requests that each of the Challenged
`
`Claims be found unpatentable. An explanation of unpatentability is provided in the
`
`detailed description that follows, which indicates where each element can be found
`
`in the cited prior art, and the relevance of that prior art. Additional explanation and
`
`support for each ground of unpatentability is set forth in Exhibit 1005, the
`
`Declaration of Dr. Kevin Negus, referenced throughout this Petition.
`
`Publications Relied Upon
`
`A.
`Exhibit 1006 – U.S. Patent No. 6,628,617 to Karol et al., “Technique for
`
`Internetworking Traffic on Connectionless and Connection-Oriented Networks,”
`
`(“Karol”) filed on March 3, 1999 and issued as a U.S. Patent on September 30,
`
`2003. Karol is prior art under at least 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) because it was filed on
`
`
`
`-3-
`
`FatPipe Exhibit 2002, pg. 7
`Viptela v. FatPipe
`IPR2017-00684
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`U.S. Patent No. 6,775,235
`
`March 3, 1999, which is before the earliest priority date of the ’235 Patent.
`
`Exhibit 1011 – Data and Computer Communications by William Stallings,
`
`Prentice-Hall, 5th Edition, 1997, ISBN-81-203-1240-6, (“Stallings”). Stallings is
`
`prior art under at least 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) because it was published in 1997 more
`
`than one year before the earliest priority date of the ’235 Patent. (See, e.g., Ex.
`
`1011 at inside cover page.) Stallings was known to the inventors of Karol as Karol
`
`cites to Stallings in the specification. (Ex. 1006 at 12:63-64.)
`
`B. Grounds For Challenge
`Petitioner requests cancellation of claims 4, 5, 7-15, and 19 of the ’235
`
`Patent on the following grounds:
`
`(i)
`
`Claims 4, 5, 7-11, 14, and 19 of the ’235 Patent are anticipated under
`
`35 U.S.C. § 102 by Karol (Ex. 1006).
`
`(ii) Claims 5, 11-15, and 19 of the ’235 Patent are obvious under 35
`
`U.S.C. § 103 based on Karol (Ex. 1006) in view of Stallings (Ex. 1011).
`
`(iii) Claims 4, 5, 7-15, and 19 of the ’235 Patent are obvious under 35
`
`U.S.C. § 103 based on Karol (Ex. 1006).
`
`III. RELEVANT INFORMATION CONCERNING THE CONTESTED
`PATENT
`A. Effective Filing Date of the ’235 Patent
`The ’235 Patent references two provisional applications. Provisional
`
`application No. 60/259,269 was filed on December 29, 2000, and Provisional
`
`
`
`-4-
`
`FatPipe Exhibit 2002, pg. 8
`Viptela v. FatPipe
`IPR2017-00684
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`U.S. Patent No. 6,775,235
`
`application No. 60/355, 509 was filed on February 8, 2002. Patent Owner (“PO”)
`
`contends “claims 4 and 19 of the ’235 Patent are believed to be entitled to a
`
`priority date of December 29, 2000.” (Ex. 1010 at 3.) PO also contends “[c]laims
`
`5 and 7-15 of the ’235 [P]atent … are believed to be entitled to a priority date of
`
`February 8, 2002. (Id.) While Petitioner disagrees with PO regarding the priority
`
`dates of the claims, all of the asserted prior art in this Petition precedes the earliest
`
`alleged priority date – December 29, 2000.
`
`B.
`
`The ’235 Patent (Ex. 1001)
`1. Overview of the ’235 Patent
`The ’235 Patent is directed “to computer network data transmission, and
`
`more particularly relates to tools and techniques for communications using
`
`disparate parallel networks….” (Ex. 1001 at 1:17-24, 1:56-60, 2:19-26; Ex. 1005
`
`at ¶¶ 46, 49.) The ’235 Patent specification teaches that it was well known in the
`
`prior art to: have a frame relay network configured in parallel with a VPN or other
`
`Internet-based network that is disparate to the frame relay network (see, e.g., Ex.
`
`1001 at 5:24-27; Ex. 1005 at ¶¶ 50, 51, 113, 114); use a disparate network for
`
`reliability/redundancy (see, e.g., Ex. 1001 at 4:25-27 and FIG. 5; Ex. 1005 at ¶¶ 52,
`
`58, 116-118); use a disparate network for load-balancing (see, e.g., Ex. 1001 at
`
`9:4-9; Ex. 1005 at ¶¶ 59, 119); and that secure routing paths were used to route to
`
`“Internet-based communication solutions such as VPNs and Secure Sockets Layer
`
`
`
`-5-
`
`FatPipe Exhibit 2002, pg. 9
`Viptela v. FatPipe
`IPR2017-00684
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`U.S. Patent No. 6,775,235
`
`(SSL).” (See, e.g., Ex. 1001 at 4:5-10; Ex. 1005 at ¶¶ 60, 115.)
`
`Prosecution History
`
`2.
`The application leading to the ’235 Patent was filed on February 7, 2003,
`
`and is a continuation-in-part of application number 10/034,197 filed on
`
`December 28, 2001 (“the ’197 Application”). (Ex. 1001 at cover.) The ’197
`
`Application was abandoned on April 13, 2012 (Ex. 1012) after the Board on appeal
`
`affirmed the Examiner’s rejection of the claims (Ex. 1013). During prosecution of
`
`the application leading to the ’235 Patent, the first Office Action mailed
`
`February 25, 2004 rejected claims 1-4, 8-10, 23-26, 28, 29, and 32 as invalid over
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,016,307 to Kaplan et al. (Ex. 1002 at 367-373.) The Examiner
`
`allowed claims 11-22, 30, 31, and 33-35 which recited “per-packet selection”
`
`and/or “accessing the multiple parallel disparate networks using at least two known
`
`location address ranges.” (Ex. 1002 at 373-377.) The rejected claims were
`
`canceled, and the remaining allowed claims were accepted. (Ex. 1002 at 384-392;
`
`see also, Ex. 1004.) As explained in detail below in Section V, these supposed
`
`distinctions from the prior art were widely used and disclosed in the prior art.
`
`C. Claim Construction
`1.
`Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art
`A person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing date of the ’235
`
`Patent (“POSITA”) would have had at least a Bachelor of Science in Computer
`
`
`
`-6-
`
`FatPipe Exhibit 2002, pg. 10
`Viptela v. FatPipe
`IPR2017-00684
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`U.S. Patent No. 6,775,235
`
`Science, Computer Engineering, Electrical Engineering, or an equivalent field as
`
`well as at least two years of academic or industry experience in any type of
`
`networking field. (Ex. 1005 at ¶ 30.)
`
`Patent Owner’s Proposed Constructions
`
`2.
`The claim terms of the ’235 Patent should be given their broadest reasonable
`
`interpretation in light of the specification. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b). Petitioner
`
`submits that no construction is necessary and that all claim terms of the ‘235 Patent
`
`should be given their ordinary and customary meaning, as understood by a
`
`POSITA in the context of the entire disclosure. See In re Translogic Tech., Inc.,
`
`504 F.3d 1249, 1257 (Fed. Cir. 2007). Petitioner does not concede that any
`
`Challenged Claim meets statutory standards for patent claiming. Petitioner
`
`recognizes that IPR does not address issues, such as those under 35 U.S.C. §§ 101
`
`and 112, and therefore, Petitioner reserves all rights to raise such issues in the
`
`District Court Litigation. In the District Court Litigation, PO proposed the
`
`following constructions in Ex. 1014:
`
`Term
`“private network”
`
`“Internet based network”
`
`Patent Owner’s Proposed Construction
`“a communication path that is unavailable to
`the general public”
`“a communication path that is available on the
`public Internet”
`
`
`
`-7-
`
`FatPipe Exhibit 2002, pg. 11
`Viptela v. FatPipe
`IPR2017-00684
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`U.S. Patent No. 6,775,235
`
`Term
`“disparate networks”
`
`“per-packet basis”
`“per-session basis”
`“packet path selector”
`
`“repeated instances of the
`selecting step make network
`path selections”
`“parallel network”
`
`“Session”
`
`Patent Owner’s Proposed Construction
`“networks that are different in kind, e.g. a
`private network and an Internet based
`network”
`“packet by packet”
`“session by session”
`“module(s) that selects which path to send a
`given packet on”
`“more than one occurrence of selecting a
`network path”
`
`“at least two networks configured to allow
`alternate data paths”
`“an active communications connection,
`measured from beginning to end, between
`computers or applications over a network”
`
`For this IPR, Petitioner submits that none of these terms need construction.
`
`To the extent the Board determines that any of these terms require construction for
`
`purposes of this IPR, a POSITA would understand PO’s constructions to be within
`
`the broadest reasonable interpretation. (See, e.g., Ex. 1005 at ¶¶ 72-80.) See
`
`Amazon.com, Inc. v. Barnesandnoble.com, Inc., 239 F.3d 1343, 1351 (Fed. Cir.
`
`2001) (“A patent may not, like a ‘nose of wax,’ be twisted one way to avoid
`
`anticipation and another to find infringement.”). Because the standards of claim
`
`interpretation in litigation differ from PTO proceedings, any interpretation of claim
`
`terms here is not binding upon Petitioner in any litigation related to the ’235
`
`Patent. See In re Zletz, 13 USPQ2d 1320, 1322 (Fed. Cir. 1989).
`
`
`
`-8-
`
`FatPipe Exhibit 2002, pg. 12
`Viptela v. FatPipe
`IPR2017-00684
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`U.S. Patent No. 6,775,235
`
`IV. SUMMARY OF PRIOR ART AND REFERENCES RELIED ON
`The ’235 Patent discloses nothing more than what was well-known in the art
`
`prior to the filing of the application which led to the ’235 Patent. None of the prior
`
`art discussed below was considered by the Patent Office during prosecution of the
`
`’235 Patent. These prior art references are directed to the same field as the ’235
`
`Patent (data networking) and operate using the same architecture as the ’235 Patent
`
`(routing to parallel disparate networks). (Ex. 1005 at ¶¶ 83, 85, 86.) No secondary
`
`considerations support a finding of nonobviousness.
`
`A. Brief Summary of Karol (Ex. 1006)
`Karol is prior art under at least 35 U.S.C. § 102(e). (See supra at § II(A).)
`
`Karol is directed towards parallel “internetworking of connectionless (e.g. Internet
`
`Protocol or “IP”) and connection oriented (e.g., ATM, MPLS, RSVP) networks.”
`
`(See, e.g., Ex. 1006 at 1:7-14, 1:19-20, Fig. 1; Ex. 1005 at ¶¶ 85-88, 90.)
`
`To route data between the connection oriented and connectionless networks,
`
`Karol discloses a “gateway” that can operate in either serial or parallel modes.
`
`(Ex. 1006 at 3:58-66; Ex. 1005 at ¶ 90.) The gateway can make a routing selection
`
`between the connection oriented or connectionless network based on specific
`
`criteria, such as “maximizing efficiency.” (Ex. 1006 at 3:58-66; Ex. 1005 at ¶ 92.)
`
`For routing, Karol discloses routing tables in databases: the CL network uses the
`
`forwarding database, and the CO network uses the flow database. (See, e.g., Ex.
`
`
`
`-9-
`
`FatPipe Exhibit 2002, pg. 13
`Viptela v. FatPipe
`IPR2017-00684
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`U.S. Patent No. 6,775,235
`
`1006 at 7:31-54 and FIG. 4; Ex. 1005 at ¶¶ 94-98.) Karol discloses criteria for
`
`selecting between networks, for example, by adjusting link weights in the routing
`
`protocol to divert connections away from congested links, which reflects
`
`bandwidth availability. (See, e.g., Ex. 1006 at 17:63-18:2; Ex. 1005 at ¶ 111.)
`
`B.
`Brief Summary of Stallings (Ex. 1011)
`Stallings is prior art under at least 35 U.S.C. § 102(b). (See supra at §
`
`II(A).) The public availability and publication date of Stallings is further
`
`corroborated by Karol, which cites the reference within the specification. (Ex.
`
`1006 at 12:63-64.) Stallings has a copyright date of 1997, which is more than a
`
`year before the ’235 Patent’s earliest effective priority date of December 2, 2000.
`
`(See, e.g., Ex. 1011 at inside cover page.) Stallings describes “ATM,” “Frame
`
`Relay,” “Packet Switching (Routing),” “Network Security,” frame relay, IP
`
`protocol, among other data and computer communications topics. (See, e.g., Ex.
`
`1011 at 24-26; Ex. 1005 at ¶¶ 128-139.)
`
`V. A REASONABLE LIKELIHOOD EXISTS THAT THE
`CHALLENGED CLAIMS ARE UNPATENTABLE
`A. Ground 1: Claims 4, 5, 7-11, 14, and 19 of the ’235 Patent
`(Ex. 1001) are anticipated by Karol (Ex. 1006)
`
`Claim 4[a]: “A controller which controls access to multiple networks in a
`parallel network configuration, suitable networks comprising Internet-based
`networks and private networks from at least one more provider, in combination,
`the controller comprising:”
`
`Karol discloses “A controller” which controls access to multiple networks in
`
`
`
`-10-
`
`FatPipe Exhibit 2002, pg. 14
`Viptela v. FatPipe
`IPR2017-00684
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`U.S. Patent No. 6,775,235
`
`a parallel configuration: the “CL-CO gateway” alone or in combination with one
`
`or more routers and/or switches controls access to either a “connectionless” (or
`
`“CL”) network data path or to a “connection oriented” (or “CO”) network data
`
`path that are configured in parallel. (See Ex. 1006 at 1:7-16, Fig. 1; Ex. 1005 at ¶¶
`
`154-157.) “The CL network is typically, although not necessarily, an IP network.”
`
`(Ex. 1006 at 2:58-59; Ex. 1005 at ¶ 155.) In parallel with the CL network, the CO
`
`network is a private network that “can be an MPLS …” or “telephony network….”
`
`(Ex. 1006 at 2:52-58; Ex. 1005 at ¶ 155.) PO has identified MPLS as a private,
`
`parallel, disparate network. (Ex. 1010 at Appendix I at 1; and Ex. 1005 at ¶¶ 159-
`
`160.) Karol discloses the CL-CO “parallel configuration could occur, for
`
`example, if two service providers, one with an IP-router-based network and the
`
`other with a CO-switch-based network, offer enterprises ‘long-distance’
`
`connectivity….” (emphasis added) (Ex. 1006 at 3:47-51; Ex. 1005 at ¶ 157.)
`
`Thus, Karol discloses a “controller” (e.g., either of the CL-CO gateway or
`
`the combination of the CL-CO gateway with one or more routers and/or switches)
`
`that “controls access to multiple networks in a parallel network configuration in
`
`combination” (e.g., the CL or CO network) and multiple networks are chosen from
`
`“suitable networks comprising Internet-based networks and private networks from
`
`at least one more provider” (e.g., the CL path is based on Internet protocol service
`
`from a first service provider and the CO path is based on ATM or MPLS protocol
`
`
`
`-11-
`
`FatPipe Exhibit 2002, pg. 15
`Viptela v. FatPipe
`IPR2017-00684
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`U.S. Patent No. 6,775,235
`
`service from a second service provider). (Ex. 1005 at ¶ 158 and ¶¶ 159-161.)
`
`Claim 4[b]: “a site interface connecting the controller to a site;”
`
`Considering the “controller” to be the CL-CO gateway alone, then the “site”
`
`in Karol is either the routers/switches connected to the CL-CO gateway and/or the
`
`source 101 and/or destination 151 endpoints. (Ex. 1005 at ¶ 173; Ex. 1006 at 3:44-
`
`51, 4:36-44, 4:65-67, and Fig. 1.) The “site interface” in Karol is one or more of
`
`the input line cards 401 or a network connection – shown in Fig. 1 as an
`
`“interface” between source 101 and node 111. (Ex. 1005 at ¶¶ 170-174; Ex. 1006
`
`at 3:44-51, 4:36-44, 4:65-67, 6:44-50 and Figs. 1 and 4.)
`
`Considering the “controller” to be the CL-CO gateway in combination with
`
`one or more routers and/or switches, then the “site” in Karol is the source 101
`
`and/or destination 151 endpoints. (Ex. 1005 at ¶ 173; Ex. 1006 at 3:44-51, 4:36-
`
`44, 4:65-67, and Fig. 1.) The “site interface” is a network connection. (Ex. 1005
`
`at ¶¶ 170-174; Ex. 1006 at 3:44-51, 4:36-44, 4:65-67, 6:44-50 and Figs. 1 and 4.)
`
`Claim 4[c]: “at least two network interfaces which send packets toward the
`networks; and”
`
`Karol discloses that at least two “output line cards 402” are utilized to
`
`“receive datagrams from either of” the “CO switch 410 or CL router/switch 420”
`
`and then “direct them to external networks” as further illustrated in and described
`
`with respect to FIG. 4 of Karol. (See, e.g. Ex. 1005 at ¶¶ 94-97, 171, 176; Ex.
`
`
`
`-12-
`
`FatPipe Exhibit 2002, pg. 16
`Viptela v. FatPipe
`IPR2017-00684
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`U.S. Patent No. 6,775,235
`
`1006 at 3:58-66, 4:45-65, 6:44-50, Figs.1 and 4.) FIG. 4 discloses at least two such
`
`“output line cards” that send packets over network interfaces to the two respective
`
`CL and CO networks. (Ex. 1006 at 4:36-67, FIG. 1, and FIG. 4; Ex. 1005 at ¶
`
`176.) Alternatively, the combination of the CL-CO gateway and one or more
`
`routers and/or switches shown in FIG. 1 also depicts at least two “network
`
`interfaces” to both of the CL network and the CO network that are depicted as
`
`exemplary router “node 121” and exemplary CO switching element “node 161.”
`
`(Ex. 1006 at 3:58-66, 4:45-65, and FIG. 1; Ex. 1005 at ¶¶ 156, 177.)
`
`Thus, Karol discloses a “controller” (e.g., the CL-CO gateway) with at least
`
`two “network interfaces” (e.g., the output line cards coupling the CL router to the
`
`CL network and the CO switch to the CO network), which “send packets toward”
`
`the “networks” (e.g., the CL and CO networks). Alternatively, Karol discloses a
`
`“controller” (e.g., the CL-CO gateway in combination with one or more routers
`
`and/or switches) having at least two “network interfaces” (e.g., the network
`
`connections to respective CL and CO networks), which “send packets toward” the
`
`“networks” (e.g., the CL and CO networks). (Ex. 1005 at ¶¶ 178-179.)
`
`Claim 4[d]: “a packet path selector which selects between network interfaces on
`a per-packet basis according to at least: a destination of the packet, an optional
`presence of alternate paths to that destination, and at least one specified criterion
`for selecting between alternate paths when such alternate paths are present;”
`
`
`
`-13-
`
`FatPipe Exhibit 2002, pg. 17
`Viptela v. FatPipe
`IPR2017-00684
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`U.S. Patent No. 6,775,235
`
`Karol discloses a “packet path selector” including at least a “gateway
`
`processor,” a “CL router/switch,” a “CO switch,” a “packet buffer,” a “protocol
`
`converter,” and one or more “input line cards” that together determine if a
`
`particular packet (or “datagram,” which is a term used by Karol interchangeably
`
`with the term “packet” (e.g., Ex. 1006 at 5:23-25)) from a “source endpoint”
`
`should be forwarded to either the CL or CO network based on multiple criteria
`
`including whether the CO network has a valid connection for the particular packet
`
`as further illustrated in and described with respect to Figure 4 of Karol. (Ex. 1005
`
`at ¶¶ 94-97, 181-187; Ex. 1006 at 6:31-50 and FIG. 4.)
`
`The “packet-path” selector of Karol selects between network interfaces
`
`associated with a CO and CL network on a per packet basis: “datagrams received
`
`in input line cards 401 can be directed either to CO switch 410 or CL router/switch
`
`420” so that “output line cards 402 can receive datagrams from either of the last
`
`mentioned elements and direct them to external networks.” (Ex. 1005 at ¶¶ 94-97,
`
`182-183; Ex. 1006 at 6:44-50 and FIG. 4.) To route the packets to a destination of
`
`the packet, Karol discloses a “forwarding database 432” within the gateway
`
`processor to determine if a particular packet matches a combination of
`
`“Destination IP address; Next hop router; Outgoing port (interface)” that would
`
`cause such a packet to be routed to the CL network or to be considered for routing
`
`over the CO network. (Ex. 1006 at 7:36-41; Ex. 1005 at ¶ 183.)
`
`
`
`-14-
`
`FatPipe Exhibit 2002, pg. 18
`Viptela v. FatPipe
`IPR2017-00684
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`U.S. Patent No. 6,775,235
`
`For packets that are candidates for the CO network, Karol also discloses that
`
`each such packet is compared at the gateway processor with the “flow database
`
`433” to determine if a particular packet matches a desired combination of “(a) an
`
`outgoing port field, which indicates the port on which a datagram whose entries
`
`match a particular record’s entries is forwarded; (b) if the outgoing port is
`
`‘invalid,’ the next field ‘forward or hold’[] entry indicates whether packet should
`
`be forwarded or held in packet buffer 440; (c) destination address; (d) source
`
`address; (e) source port; (f) destination port; (g) type of service; (h) protocol field;
`
`(i) TCP Flags; (j) outgoing port; (k) forward or hold flag, and (l) a mask which
`
`indicates which of the data entries is applicable to the particular record” in order to
`
`route such a packet to the CO network instead of the CL network depending on
`
`availability of a valid connection in the CO network for a flow associated with the
`
`particular packet. (Ex. 1006 at 7:42-54, 7:60-8:2; Ex. 1005 at ¶¶ 184, 185.)
`
`Karol discloses routing selections between the CL and CO networks are
`
`based at least upon “bandwidth availability” that can be “dynamically allocated to
`
`flows on an as-needed basis” and can “divert[] connections away from congested
`
`links.” (Ex. 1006 at 17:18-26 and 17:63-18:2; Ex. 1005 at ¶ 186.)
`
`Thus, Karol discloses a “packet path selector” (e.g., the structural elements
`
`depicted in FIG. 4 of Ex. 1005 at ¶ 182) that “selects between network interfaces
`
`on a per-packet basis” (e.g., packet path selector compares information in each
`
`
`
`-15-
`
`FatPipe Exhibit 2002, pg. 19
`Viptela v. FatPipe
`IPR2017-00684
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`U.S. Patent No. 6,775,235
`
`packet received at the CL-CO gateway to determine if the packet will be routed to
`
`the CL or CO network interface output line card) according to at least “a
`
`destination of the packet” (e.g., gateway processor in the CL-CO gateway
`
`compares the destination address of each received packet to f