`
`IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT & TRADEMARK OFFICE
`______________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`______________________
`
`
`VIPTELA, INC.,
`
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`FATPIPE NETWORKS PRIVATE LIMITED,
`
`Patent Owner.
`______________________
`
`Case IPR2017-00684
`Patent U.S. 6,775,235
`______________________
`
`
`DECLARATION OF JOEL WILLIAMS
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`FatPipe Exhibit 2006, pg. 1
`Viptela v. FatPipe
`IPR2017-00684
`
`

`

`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`
`
`I. 
`II. 
`
`III. 
`
`Introduction ...................................................................................................... 1 
`Qualifications and Experience ......................................................................... 2 
`A. 
`Education and work experience ............................................................ 2 
`B. 
`Compensation ........................................................................................ 4 
`C. 
`Documents and other materials relied upon .......................................... 5 
`Statement of Legal Principles .......................................................................... 5 
`A.  Anticipation ........................................................................................... 5 
`B. 
`Obviousness ........................................................................................... 6 
`IV.  Claim Construction .......................................................................................... 8 
`V. 
`Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art ................................................................... 9 
`VI.  The ’235 patent .............................................................................................. 10 
`VII.  Overview of Karol ......................................................................................... 14 
`VIII.  Claims 6 and 22-24 are not anticipated by Karol. ......................................... 20 
`A. 
`The item to be modified is the final destination IP address in the
`incoming packet. ................................................................................. 20 
`Protocol and header conversions do not require modifications to
`the destination IP address .................................................................... 21 
`The actual destination IP address in the incoming packet in is
`not modified in the protocol conversion process of Karol. ................. 26 
`IX.  Claims 6 and 22-24 are not obvious over Karol. ........................................... 36 
`X. 
`Claim 6 is patentable over Karol in view of Stallings. .................................. 37 
`XI.  Claims 5-6 and 22-24 are not anticipated by Karol or obvious over
`Karol alone or in view of Stallings. ............................................................... 40 
`
`B. 
`
`C. 
`
`
`
`
`i
`
`FatPipe Exhibit 2006, pg. 2
`Viptela v. FatPipe
`IPR2017-00684
`
`

`

`
`
`A. 
`
`Claims 5 and 22 are patentable over Karol alone or in view of
`Stallings. .............................................................................................. 40 
`Karol does not anticipate claim 5 or 22. ............................................. 41 
`B. 
`Karol does not render obvious claims 5 and 22. ................................. 43 
`C. 
`D.  Karol in view of Stallings does not render obvious claims 5 and
`22. ........................................................................................................ 44 
`XII.  Conclusion ..................................................................................................... 47 
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`ii
`
`FatPipe Exhibit 2006, pg. 3
`Viptela v. FatPipe
`IPR2017-00684
`
`

`

`I.
`
`
`
`
`
`Inttroductionn
`
`
` My n. name is Joe
`
`
`
`el William
`s.
`
`
`
`I havve been enggaged by thhe Exclusivve Licenseee FatPipe,, Inc.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1 2
`
`
`2.
`
`
`
`(“FatPippe”) to invvestigate annd opine onn certain isssues relatiing to U.S.. Patent Noo.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`6,775,235 B2 (“thhe ’235 pattent”) in coonnection wwith FatPippe’s Respoonse to Pet
`
`
`
`
`
`Review in IPfor Interr Partes R
`
`
`
`
`PR2017-000684.
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`
`
`I undderstand thaat FatPipe has asserteed the ’2355 patent aggainst Vipt
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`ition
`
`ela
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`. n
`
`
`
`in an on-going pattent infringgement lawwsuit, FatPPipe, Inc. vv. Viptela, IInc., whichh
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`was origginally fileed as Case No. DED--1-16-cv-0
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`0182 in th
`
`
`
`e United SStates Distrrict
`
`
`
`
`
`Court foor Delawarre.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`In thiis declaratiion, I will ffirst discusss the technnology bacckground
`
`
`
`
`
`44.
`
`
`
`
`
`related tto the ’2355 patent an
`
`
`
`
`
`d then provvide my annalyses andd opinions
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` on claimss 6
`
`
`
`and 22-24 for the ’235 patennt.
`
`
`
`
`
`5
`
`
`
`
`This
`
`
`
`declarationn is based on the infoormation c
`
`
`
`
`
`urrently avvailable to
`
`me.
`
`. e
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`To the extent that additionall informatioon becomees availabl
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`y include a which maynd study, wstigation ancontinue my inves
`
`
`
`
`
`e, I reservee the right
`
`to
`
`review of
`
`document
`
`s
`
`
`
`hat positions thy from deps testimonyd, as well ase producedhat may beand infoormation th
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`may nott yet be takken.
`
`
`
`
`
`66.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`In forrming my opinions, II have relieed on inforrmation annd evidencee
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`identifieed in this ddeclarationn, includingg the ’235 ppatent, thee prosecutioon history,, and
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`
`FatPipe Exhibit 2006, pg. 4
`Viptela v. FatPipe
`IPR2017-00684
`
`

`

`
`
`and
`
`
`
`prior artt referencees listed in the Grounnds of Petittioner’s chaallenges, aand the
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`declarattions submmitted by DDr. Forys.
`
`
`
`II. Quualificationns and Ex
`
`
`perience
`
`
`
`
`A. Educatiion and woork experiience
`
`
`
`Attacched as Exhhibit A to tthis declarration is a ccopy of myy curriculuum
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`A 7
`
`
`7.
`
`
`
`vitae, wwhich proviides a subsstantially complete lisst of my edducation, eexperience
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`publicattions that aare relevannt to the subbject matteer of this reeport.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`I receeived a B.SS. in Compputer Sciennce from thhe Ohio Staate Univerrsity
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`8
`
`
`
`. .
`
`in 1978
`
`
`
`
`
`99.
`
`
`
`I havve worked oon the desiign of nummerous netwwork routeers and otheer
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`networkk devices ffor a numbeer of majorr Silicon VValley commpanies, inccluding HPP,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Cisco, SSpace Systtems Loral, and a nummber of smmall start-upp companiies.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`10.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`I worrked for Beell Telephoone Laboraatories fromm 1970 to
`
`
`
`
`
`1978. As aan
`
`
`
`networkk managemment systemms and cenntral office
`
`
`
`
`
`cipated in
`
`
`
`the develoopment of
`
`interfaces
`
`.
`
`
`
`Associaate Membeer of the Teechnical Sttaff, I parti
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` Whil11. le working
`
`
`
`for Bell TTelephone LLaboratori
`
`
`
`State es, I attendded Ohio S
`
`
`
`
`
`Universsity, receivving a Bachhelor of Sccience in C
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1978. omputer SScience in 1
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1982, I worrked at the Vidar Divvision of TTRW as a
`
`
`
`
`
` From12. m 1978 to 1
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Superviisor of Softftware Engiineering, wwhere I wa
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`s responsibble for the
`
`
`
`design andd
`
`
`
`implemmentation off telephonee central offfice switcching and trransmissioon equipmeent.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`2
`
`FatPipe Exhibit 2006, pg. 5
`Viptela v. FatPipe
`IPR2017-00684
`
`

`

`
`
`13.
`
`
`
`In 19982, I begann working as an indeependent coonsultant,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`specializinng in
`
`
`
`
`
`the speccification, rreview, deesign, and iimplementtation of neetworking,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`telecommmunicatioons, and commputer operating sysstems.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` Over14. r the course
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`e of my carreer, I havee developeed extensivve expertise
`e in
`
`
`
`
`
`the speccification, ddesign andd developmment of netwworking eqquipment aand compuuter
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`systemss. Much of f my work iinvolves assessing, ddesigning,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`and debuggging syste
`
`ms
`
`
`
`of the tyype at issuee in this caase, as welll as systemms level arcchitecture aand designn.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`15.
`
`
`
`I havve worked oon numeroous networkking and mmessaging
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`systems. MMy
`
`
`
`networkking experiience datess to the earrly days of f networkinng, before tthe “Internnet”
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`was welll known. IIt includes modem, ddirect wiredd, and wireeless compputer links.. I
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`have addvanced myy skills witth experiennce with leeading edgee communnications
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`technoloogy ever siince, incluuding TCP//IP, satellitte and wireeless protoccols, and
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`various network roouting protocols.
`
`
`
`16.
`
`
`
`I alsoo hold or h
`
`
`
`uding tions (incluber of positave also heeld a numb
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`leadershhip positionns) in a vaariety of proofessional
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`associatioons. I am a
`
`
`
`Member oof
`
`
`
`the Assoociation foor Computiing Machinnery (“ACMM”), a Liffe Senior MMember of
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`the
`
`
`
`Institutee of Electriical and Ellectronics EEngineers
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`(“IEEE”),
`
`and a Sen
`
`
`
`ior Certifieed
`
`
`
`Professiional Conssultant in thhe Professiional and TTechnical CConsultantts Associattion,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`the latteer of whichh I previously served as presideent. I previoously serveed as a Vicce
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`3
`
`FatPipe Exhibit 2006, pg. 6
`Viptela v. FatPipe
`IPR2017-00684
`
`

`

`
`
`Chair off the IEEEE Consultannts Networrk of Silicoon Valley ((“CNSV”)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`serve onn the Boardd of Directtors.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`and currenntly
`
`
`
`17.
`
`
`
`Fi Alliaance.
`
`
`
`18.
`
`
`
`I wass a past conntributing mmember off both the DDSL Forumm and the WWi-
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`I am
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`a named innventor onn six patentts issued byy the Uniteed States
`
`
`
`
`
`Patent aand Trademmark Office, four of wwhich are ddirected too networkinng:
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`gistrationr Event RegMethod forstem and M7,552 – SysU.S. Patent No. 9,367
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`U.S. Patent No. 9,2055,841 — Syystem and
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Road in an Electric VVehicle;
`
`
`
`
`
`Method foor Computiing Slope oof a
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`etwork Prootocol for WWireless BBroadband--
`
`
`
`
`
`U U R U I
`
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,151
`,312 — N
`
`
`
`
`
`SDN Usingg ATM;
`
`
`
`acity ction Capathe Connecmproving tache for Im4,956 — CaU.S. Patent No. 5,914
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`S U o U B A U B 1
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`of a Commuunications Switch;
`
`
`
`
`
`ry of Wirethe Deliverystem for t6,989 — SyU.S. Patent No. 5,886
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`less
`
`
`
`Broadband Integratedd Services DDigital Nettwork (ISDDN) Usingg
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Asynchronoous Transffer Mode (AATM); andd
`
`
`
`
`
`U.S. Patent No. 4,9422,812 — Device for CCompressinng Empty
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Cans.
`
`
`
`B. Compennsation
`
`
`9.
`
`compensa
`I am
`
`
`ted at a ratte of $450
`
`
`
`per hour fofor the servvices I provvide
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`to FatPiipe in connnection witth FatPipe’’s Responsse to Petitioon for Inte
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`r Partes
`
`
`
`4
`
`FatPipe Exhibit 2006, pg. 7
`Viptela v. FatPipe
`IPR2017-00684
`
`

`

`
`
`or
`
`t the
`
`
`
`declarattion are doocuments annd materiaals identifieed in this ddeclarationn, includingg the
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`’235 paatent, the prrosecution history, thhe prior artt referencess, the petittion agains
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`’235 paatent, and innformationn discussedd in this deeclaration,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`including tthe referennces
`
`
`
`
`
`Revieww in IPR20117-00684. The compeensation iss not continngent uponn my
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`performmance, the ooutcome o
`
`
`
`
`
`f this interr partes revview or anyy other prooceedings,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`any issuues involveed in or rellated to thi
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`proceeddings.
`
`
`
`s inter parrtes revieww or any othher
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`C. Documeents and oother mateerials relieed upon
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` The d20. documents
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`C 2
`
`
`
`
`
`ed in this ns expressethe opinions on which I rely for t
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`provideed in Petitiooner’s grouunds and aany other reeferences sspecificallyy identifiedd in
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`for a patennt claim too be valid, tthe
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`this decclaration.
`
`III. Staatement off Legal Prrinciples
`
`
`
`
`
`
`A. Anticipaation
`
`A 2
`
`
`21.
`
`
`
`It is mmy understtanding thaat in order
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`claimedd inventionn must be nnovel. In orrder for an invention
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`in a claimm to be
`
`
`
`anticipaated, all of the elemennts and limmitations off the claimm must be ddisclosed inn a
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`single pprior refereence, arrangged as in thhe claim. AA claim is
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`and eveery elementt as set fortth in the cllaim is fouund, either
`
`
`
`
`
`anticipatedd only if eaach
`
`
`
`expressly
`
`tly
`or inherent
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`describeed, in a sinngle prior aart referencce. In orderr for a refeerence to innherently
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`5
`
`FatPipe Exhibit 2006, pg. 8
`Viptela v. FatPipe
`IPR2017-00684
`
`

`

`
`
`disclosee a claim liimitation, tthat claim llimitation
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`must nece
`
`
`
`ssarily be ppresent in
`
`the
`
`
`
`referencce.
`
`
`
`B. Obvioussness
`
`
`
`It is mmy understtanding thaat obviousnness is a baasis for invvalidity. I
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`B 2
`
`
`22.
`
`
`
`understaand that where a prioor art refereence does nnot disclosse all of thee limitationns
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`of a givven patent cclaim, that patent claiim is invallid if the diifferences
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`between thhe
`
`
`
`claimedd subject mmatter and tthe prior arrt referencee are such
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`ject that the claaimed subj
`
`
`
`invention
`
`
`
`was madee to a
`
`
`
`matter aas a whole would havve been obvious at thhe time the
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`person hhaving orddinary skilll in the releevant art (““POSA”). II understannd that
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`obvioussness can bbe based onn a single pprior art re
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`ference or
`
`
`
`a combinaation of
`
`
`
`referencces that either expresssly or inheerently discclose all limmitations oof the claimmed
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`inventioon. In an obbviousnesss analysis, it is not neecessary too find preciise teachinngs
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`in the prrior art directed to thhe specific subject maatter claimmed becausee inferencees
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`and creaative steps that a POSSA would employ caan be takenn into accouunt.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`223.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`yzed ust be analyC. § 103 mur 35 U.S.Cness underat obviousnI undderstand tha
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`from thee perspectiive of a POOSA, at thee time the iinvention wwas made.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`In analyziing
`
`
`
`obvioussness, I undderstand thhat it is impportant to uunderstandd the scopee of the claaims,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`the leveel of skill inn the relevvant art, thee scope andd content oof the priorr art, the
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`differennces between the prioor art and thhe claims,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`and any seecondary cconsiderati
`
`
`
`ons.
`
`
`
`6
`
`FatPipe Exhibit 2006, pg. 9
`Viptela v. FatPipe
`IPR2017-00684
`
`

`

`
`
`224.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`I undderstand thaat assessinng which prrior art refeferences to
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`combine aand
`
`
`
`how theey may be combined to match the assertedd claim maay not be bbased on
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`hindsighht reconstrruction or eex-post reaasoning. Hiindsight reeconstructiion is usingg the
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`patent ittself as a rooad map foor recreatinng the inveention. In aassessing oobviousnesss,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`only whhat was knoown beforee the invenntion was mmade can bbe considerred.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`225.
`
`
`
`I alsoo understannd that onee importantt guard agaainst such hhindsight
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`reconstrruction is aa determinaation whetther a POS
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`A would hhave been mmotivated,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`taught, or suggested to combbine the rellevant teacchings of thhe prior arrt to duplic
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`ate
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`e of the patat the timethe pateent claims a
`
`
`
`ented inveention.
`
`
`
`I undderstand thaat determinning the sccope and coontent of thhe prior arrt
`
`
`
`226.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`requiress consideraation of whhether the pprior art w
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`as reasonaably relevannt to the
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`red by the ntion coverg the invenparticullar problemm the invenntors faced in making
`
`
`
`
`
`patent cclaims.
`
`
`
`227.
`
`
`
`terial re any mather there arning whethat determinI undderstand tha
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`differennces between the scoppe and conntent of thee prior art aand each chhallenged
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`claim off the patennt under revview requirres consideeration of tthe claimeed inventionn as
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`a wholee to determmine whetheer or not itt would havve been obbvious in liight of the
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`prior artt. If the priior art disccloses all thhe steps or
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`elements iin separatee referencees,
`
`
`
`consideeration shouuld be giveen to whethher it woulld have beeen obviouss to combinne
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`7
`
`FatPipe Exhibit 2006, pg. 10
`Viptela v. FatPipe
`IPR2017-00684
`
`

`

`
`
`those reeferences. II understannd that a cllaim is not
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`obvious mmerely becaause all of f the
`
`
`
`steps orr elements of that claiim alreadyy existed.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`228.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`I alsoo understannd that wheen prior artrt teaches aaway from
`
`
`
`
`
`combiningg
`
`
`
`prior artt referencees, the discovery of a successfull way to coombine theem is less
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`likely too be obviouus. Prior arrt teaches aaway fromm an inventiion when aa POSA w
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`ould
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`be discoouraged or diverted ffrom followwing the paath leadingg to the invvention
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`becausee of the prior art.
`
`
`
`
`
`229.
`
`
`
` I undderstand thhat in orderr to rely onn inherencyy in an obvviousness
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`analysiss for establlishing the existence of a claim
`
`
`
`limitationn in the prioor art, the
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`missingg descriptivve materiall must neceessarily be present inn the prior aart and nott
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`merely probably oor possiblyy present.
`
`aim Consttruction
`
`
`
`I undderstand thaat in an intter partes rreview, claaims are giiven the
`
`
`
`
`
`IV. Cla
`
`
`
`30.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`broadesst reasonabble interpreetation (“BRRI”) in lighht of the sppecificatioon of the paatent
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`in whichh it appearrs. Both thee specification and thhe prosecuttion historyy can inforrm
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`the claimm interprettation but ddo not necessarily limmit it.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`31.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`articles, extbooks, aI undderstand thaat extrinsicc evidence such as te
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`dictionaaries, etc. ccan be usedd to help innterpret thee claims.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`8
`
`FatPipe Exhibit 2006, pg. 11
`Viptela v. FatPipe
`IPR2017-00684
`
`

`

`cannot be
`at the BRI I undderstand tha
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` construedd so broadlyy as to
`
`
`
`32.
`
`
`
`encomppass prior aart technoloogies excluuded by thee use of thhose terms
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`in the pateent
`
`
`
`specificcation.
`
`
`
`33.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`ctive the perspeceted from tbe interprems should bat the claimI undderstand tha
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`of a POSA at the ttime the innvention was made. I understannd that the
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`’235 patennt
`
`
`
`ation filed nal applicaa provisionclaims ppriority to
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`er 28, 2001n Decembeart filed oncontinuation-in-pa
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`on Decembmber 29, 20
`
`00 and a
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`. My opiniion is the ssame for eiither
`
`date.
`
`
`
`34.
`
`
`
`It is mmy understtanding thaat Claims 66 and 22-224 will be cconstrued
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`accordinng to the oordinary meeaning of aall terms, ssubject to tthe constraaints impossed
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`by the sspecificatioon to informm a POSAA.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`V. Level of Orddinary Skiill in the AArt
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`35.
`
`
`
`I undderstand thaat the claimms and speecification
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`and connstrued throough the eyyes of a POOSA at thee time of thhe priority
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`claims. To determmine the apppropriate level of a PPOSA, the
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`of a patentt must be rread
`
`
`
`
`
`date of thee
`
`following
`
`
`
`factors maay
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`ield ng in the fihose workintered by thms encountbe considered: (a) the types of problem
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`tion of the sophisticatto; (b) the tions theretand prioor art solut
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`and the rapidity wwith which innovationns occur inn the field;
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`technologgy in questiion,
`
`
`
`
`
`(c) the eduucational leevel
`
`
`
`
`of activ
`
`
`
`ventor. of the invional level the educatid; and (d) te workers in the field
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`9
`
`FatPipe Exhibit 2006, pg. 12
`Viptela v. FatPipe
`IPR2017-00684
`
`

`

`
`
`36.
`
`
`
`In ligght of the ddisclosed teechnology
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`in the ’2355 patent, itt is my opi
`
`
`
`
`
`nion
`
`
`
`that a POSA shouuld have a BBachelor oof Science oor equivaleent degree
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Sciencee or Electrical Engineeering or reelated technhnical field
`
`
`
`
`
`in Compuuter
`
`
`
`with at leaast 2 years
`
` of
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`experiennce in a tecchnical field related tto networkk design, addministratiion,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`configuuration, andd/or diagnoosis. This ddescriptionn is approxiimate and
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`additional
`
`
`
`educatioonal experiience couldd make up
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` for less wwork experiience and vvice versa.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Appropriate recoggnized induustry profeessional cerrtificationss, such as CCisco Certiified
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Networkk Adminisstration (CCCNA), mayy be substiituted for oor supplemment other
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`educatioon.
`
`
`
`t describess a system
`
`
`
`that dynammically loaad-balancess
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`VI. Thhe ’235 pattent
` The ’37. ’235 paten
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`over WAAN paths oon disparatte networkks. Specificcally, the ’2235 patentt is directedd to
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`a controoller that innterfaces wwith a site aand “two oor more dissparate netwworks in
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`parallel” to “proviide load baalancing accross netwoork connecctions, greaater reliabiility,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`and/or iincreased ssecurity.” ((Ex. 1001, Abstract).
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`The ’235
`
`
`
`patent’s cllaimed
`
`
`
`inventioon represennted a majoor advanceement in thhe field of ccomputer nnetworkingg.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`(See, e.gg., Ex. 20111, p. 2). S
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`anchaita DDatta, the fifirst-namedd inventor oon the ’2355
`
`
`
`
`
`patent, wwas honored as a “WWomen Innoovator” byy the Wommen Tech CCouncil for
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`her
`
`
`
` claimed inn
`
`
`
`major immpact on technologyy for, amonng other thiings, the innnovations
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`the ’2355 patent. (EEx. 2006).
`
`
`
`
`
`10
`
`FatPipe Exhibit 2006, pg. 13
`Viptela v. FatPipe
`IPR2017-00684
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` Prior38. r art approa
`
`
`
`
`
`aches did nnot combinne two or mmore disparrate netwoorks
`
`
`
`
`
`in parallel to provvide benefitts such as ddynamic p
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`er-packet lload-balanncing. (Ex.
`
`
`
`
`
`elow), for 1001, cool. 4:40–455). Prior arrt Fig. 2 (b
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`example, uused a primmary netwoork
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`(the framme relay nnetwork 1066) and onlyy used the
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`secondaryy network ((the ISDN
`
`
`
`
`
`networkk 204) wheen the primmary netwoork failed. ((Ex. 1001,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`primaryy network ppath is usedd for most or all of trraffic whil
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1001, col.. 9:55–65).. The priorr art
`
`
`
`col. 3:18––28). The
`
`
`
`e the otherr path is ussed
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`only whhen the primmary path
`
`fails. (Ex.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`configuuration of FFig. 2 does not considder load baalancing onn a packet--by-packet
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`een basis, orr provide ssecurity byy splitting aand distribuuting piecees of messaages betwe
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`disparatte networkks. (Ex. 10001, col. 9:665–10:3).
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`(EEx. 1001, FFig. 2).
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` Nor d39. did prior ar
`
`
`
`
`
`rt approachhes providee dynamicc load balanncing overr
`
`
`
`
`
`multiplee disparatee networks.. (Ex. 10011, col. 2:566–65). Prioor art Fig. 11 (below),
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`for
`
`
`
`11
`
`FatPipe Exhibit 2006, pg. 14
`Viptela v. FatPipe
`IPR2017-00684
`
`

`

`
`
`examplee, requires that netwoorks agree upon factoors relatingg to commuunications
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`prior to
`
`traffic bei
`
`
`
`
`
`ng sent. (EEx. 1001, ccol. 2:52–555). They ccan providee a rough
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`balance by sendinng differentt types of ttraffic or fllows througgh particullar routers
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`(e.g., roouter A or rrouter B), bbut this dooes not balaance routerr loads dynnamically,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`packet bby packet bbasis, in reesponse to actual traffffic at the tiime the pa
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`on a
`
`cket is
`
`
`
`processed. (Ex. 10001, col. 2::56–65). TThe prior arrt approachhes requireed set-up wwith
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`broad granularity and did noot load balaance dynammically in rresponse too actual
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`traffic. ((Ex. 1001, col. 9:4–99). Other prrior art appproaches, ssuch as thoose describbed
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`01, lel (Ex. 100ks in parallde networkd not providpatent, didf the ’235 pin Figs. 3 and 4 of
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`col. 3:2
`
`
`
`9–4:4) andd could nott provide looad-balanccing or impprove reliabbility (Ex.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1001, cool. 3:63–4::4).
`
`
`
`
`
`(EEx. 1001, FFig. 1).
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` Other440. r parallel n
`
`
`
`
`
`networks, ssuch as thoose in Fig.
`
`
`
`
`
`5, did not
`
`have the “
`
`fine
`
`
`
`grained packet rouuting of thee present innvention.”” (Ex. 10011, col. 5:244–28). Thesse
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`12
`
`FatPipe Exhibit 2006, pg. 15
`Viptela v. FatPipe
`IPR2017-00684
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`networkks only hadd coarse roouting of traffic or floows where
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`“all packeets from
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`kets ile all packon 106 whiy connectiorame relaydepartmment X migght be sent over the fr
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`from deepartment YY are sent over the Innternet 5000. Or the arrchitecturee might sennd
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`all traffific over thee frame relaay networkk unless thaat networkk fails ….”
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`(Ex. 1001
`
`,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`col. 4:18–22). Succh prior-artt architectuures did noot provide ddynamic ppacket-by-
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`works. parate netwtween disppacket rrouting bet
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`(EEx. 1001, FFig. 5).
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`t describess numerouss parallel nnetworks thhat can be
`
`of
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` The ’441. ’235 paten
`
`
`
`
`
`many diifferent typpes (Ex. 10001, col. 7::6–20) wheere the nettworks are
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`divided annd
`
`
`
`routed bby known aaddress rannges. (Ex. 1001, col.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`8:23–28).
`
`
`
`These rannges, for
`
`
`
`net, or 0.x.x.x forr the Intern
`
`
`
`
`
`examplee, can incluude 192.1668.x.x for aa LAN, 20
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`196.x.x.x for a Fraame Relayy. (Ex. 100
`
`
`
`1, col. 8:500–53). Pacckets can bee re-routedd to
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`destination ging their ds by changdifferennt networks
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`address raanges. (Ex.
`
` 1001, col
`
`.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`9:12–299, col. 13:339–57). Forr example,, a packet bbearing a ddestinationn address
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`13
`
`FatPipe Exhibit 2006, pg. 16
`Viptela v. FatPipe
`IPR2017-00684
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`10.0.x.xx can be chhanged to 1198.x.x x too route it thhrough thee frame rellay networkk.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`(Ex. 10001, col. 9:112–29). Thhis provideed for easy
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`routing off packets b
`
`etween
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`disparatte networkks. “Withouut the invenntion, . . . nnetwork deevices are ppre-
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`configuured … succh that all ssuch packets with [a ggiven] des
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`sent to [[the addresssed netwoork], even tthough theere is [seco
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`tination adddress musst be
`
`
`
`
`
`nd networkk]
`
`55–63).
`
`
`
`connecttivity betwween the twwo locationss.” (Ex. 10001, col. 8:
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`VII. Ovverview off Karol
` Karo442.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`ess (e.g. onnectionlerking of conternetworl is directeed “to the in
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Internett Protocol oor “IP”) annd connectiion orienteed (e.g. ATTM, MPLSS, RSVP)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`networkks ….” (Exx. 1006, Abbstract). Kaarol’s systeem uses “nnodes calleed CL-CO
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`e connectivvity to botth the CL nnetwork annd
`
`
`
`
`
`gatewayys, [which]] are arrangged to hav
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`the CO network.” (Ex. 10066, col. 2:13––15). Karool’s CL-COO gateway
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`routing techniquess in making network path decissions. (Ex.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`15:30).
`
`
`
`
`Karol toutts its invenntion as a mmethod for
`
`
`
`
`
`rk bound handling CCO-networ
`
`
`
`
`
`uses standdard
`
`1006, col.
`. 13:43–
`
`packets
`
`
`
`
`that arrivee at the CLL-CO gatewway while aa CO netwwork conneection is beeing
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`establishhed. (Ex. 11006, col. 22:13–62, col. 4:12–1
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`5).
`
`
`
`443.
`
`
`
`In Kaarol’s shortest-path syystem, a p
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`O at a CL-COacket onlyy ends up a
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`gatewayy if it happpens to be aalong the shortest patth to the deestination——the
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`endpoinnts do not ccontrol whhich packetts reach thee gateway.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`For exampple, a packket
`
`
`
`
`
`from a ssource enddpoint, “succh as a perrsonal commputer, worrkstation, oor other
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`14
`
`FatPipe Exhibit 2006, pg. 17
`Viptela v. FatPipe
`IPR2017-00684
`
`

`

`
`
`process
`
`
`
`
`or attachedd to any infformation source,” iss directed tto a CL nettwork. (Exx.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`hrough the n routed thcket is then0). The pac1006, cool. 4:36–40
`
`
`
`
`
`CL networrk using thhe
`
`
`
`
`
`standardd IP routinng mechaniism, whichh may be coontrolled bby the welll-known O
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`pen
`
`
`
`Shortestt Path First (OSPF) rrouting prootocol. (Ex
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`. 1006, coll. 4:45–67,, col. 13:433–
`
`
`
`15:30). The packeet’s route too the destinnation willl result in tthe packet
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`arriving att one
`
`
`
`her ng to the othh accordinhortest pathart of the shy if it is paeways onlyof the CCL-CO gate
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IP routeers’ routingg tables: “PPackets onlly appear aat a CL-COO gateway
`
`
`
`if it is partt of
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`the shorrtest path aaccording tto the IP roouting tablees.” (Ex. 1
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`006, col. 114:52–54, ssee
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`also coll. 4:45–67, col. 14:366–43, col. 113:43–15:330).
`
`
`
` Once
`
`444.
`
`
`
`
`e at the CL-CO gatewway, the gaateway connsults the foforwarding
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`database—which is a routingg table—too find the ppacket’s prredeterminned “shorteest”
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`13:43–151006, col. ation. (Ex. path to tthe destina
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`:30). The ddeterminat
`
`ion of the
`
`
`
`s packet-hhandling prrocess:
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`shortestt path is thee first step (step 503)) in Karol’
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`(EEx. 1006, FFig. 5, croppped).
`
`
`
`15
`
`FatPipe Exhibit 2006, pg. 18
`Viptela v. FatPipe
`IPR2017-00684
`
`

`

`
`
`445.
`
`
`
`If thee shortest ppath is overr the CL neetwork, thee result of
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`step 503 iss
`
`
`
`“NO.” IIf the shorttest path is
`
`
`
`
`
` over the CCO networrk, the resuult of step 5503 is “YEES.”
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`s two technniques for ccreating thhe forwardiing databa
`
`
`
`
`
` Karo446. l describes
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`se,
`
`
`
`which is an OSPFF-based rouuting table:: (1) repressenting thee CO netwoork as a “nnon-
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`broadcaast networkk” (a well-kknown techhnique useed in OSPFF) or (2) noot
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`broadcaasting the CCO networrk and creaating an inttegrated rouuting tablee. (Ex. 10006,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`col. 13:443–50).
`
`
`
`447.
`
`
`
` Usinng the first technique, Karol expplains that
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`the CO neetwork pathh is
`
`
`
`
`
`in the IP rrouters 9111–
`
`
`
`
`
`only choosen if it iss the shorteest: Routinng tables coonstructed
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`917 (inccluding thee CL-CO ggateways 960–962, F
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`count the igure 9) taake into acc
`
`
`
`
`
`presence of the noon-broadcaast networkk, and enabble traffic tto flow fro
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`m CL netwwork
`
`the CO
`
`
`
`901 to CCO networrk 950 and back to thhe CL netwwork if pathhs through
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`networkk are “shorrter” accordding to somme measurre of intere
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`st. (Ex. 10
`
`06, col.
`
`
`
`14:12–117).
`
` Likew
`
`448.
`
`
`
`
`wise, usingg the seconnd techniquue, Karol eexplains th
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`at CO netwwork
`
`
`
`path is oonly choseen if it is thhe shortest:: Each CL--CO gatewway 960–9662 determinnes
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`shortestt paths to IPP destinatiions by commparing itss path on thhe two nettworks for
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`each destination.
`
`
`
`16
`
`FatPipe Exhibit 2006, pg. 19
`Viptela v. FatPipe
`IPR2017-00684
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` The s449. shorter of t
`
`
`
`
`
`the two patths is mainntained at tthe CL-COO gateway iin
`
`
`
`
`
`an integgrated IP-CCO routing table for eeach destinnation addrress. (Ex. 11006, col.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`14:57–662).
`
` When
`
`50.
`
`
`
`
`n a packet arrives at tthe CL-COO gateway,, the prede
`
`
`
`
`
`termined
`
`
`
`routes inn the forwarding dataabase will dictate thee network ppath for thee packet.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` Karo
`
`51.
`
`
`
`
`l’s forwardding databaase can alsso include
`
`
`
`user-speci
`
`fic
`
`
`
`informaation. Karool states thaat user-specific routinng informaation can bbe integrateed
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`into the forwardinng databasee to advanttageously aallow the uuser to requuest and
`
`
`
`
`
`
`receive
`
`
`
`a guaranteeed qualityy of servicee. (Ex. 100
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`6, col. 13:550–54, coll. 17:20–222).
`
`
`
`eeks hy Karol sewhich is whbenefits, wvide such bcannot provL network cImplicittly, the CL
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`to take aadvantage of the CO network wwhenever ppossible. (EEx. 2003 ¶¶ 59).
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`52.
`
`ding databa Karol’s forward
`
`
`
`
`ase can be updated ““from time
`
`
`
`
`
`standardd Link Statte Advertissements (LLSAs). Karrol further
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`to time” uusing
`
`
`
`explains thhat the linkk
`
`
`
`
`
`weightss used to coonstruct the forwarding databasse can be uupdated usiing standarrd
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Link Staate Adverttisements ((LSAs) (Exx. 1006, cool. 14:23–336, col. 17:
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`17:63–118:2). While Karol sttates that thhese adjusttments are
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`the OSPPF protocool only sendds LSAs “ffrom time
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`to time.” ((Ex. 1011,
`
`p. 557) (S
`
`ee
`
`
`
`53–55, coll.
`
`
`
`made “dynnamically,,”
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`y a quently byalso Ex. 1007, p. 1111, “The routing tabble … is uppdated mucch less freq
`
`
`
`
`
`routing
`
`
`
`
`daemon (ppossibly onnce every 330 secondss).”). This iis too infreequent to
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`continu
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`ally updatee the routinng table in response tto actual trraffic.
`
`
`
`
`
`17
`
`FatPipe Exhibit 2006, pg. 20
`Viptela v. FatPipe
`IPR2017-00684
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` Only53. y after a det
`
`
`
`
`
`terminationn has beenn made thatt the packeet flow shoould
`
`
`
`
`
`be routeed over thee CO netwoork does KKarol’s metthod dictatte how thatt packet is
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`handledd; at