UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`___________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`___________________
`
`VIPTELA, INC.
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`FATPIPE NETWORKS INDIA LIMITED,
`Patent Owner
`
`___________________
`
`Inter Partes Review Case No. 2017-______
`
`___________________
`
`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
`
`___________________
`
`84794665_1
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`U.S. Patent No. 6,775,235
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`I. 
`
`II. 
`
`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)) ...................................... 3 
`D. 
`Payment of Fees (37 C.F.R. §§ 42.15(a) and 42.103(a)) ..................... 3 
`E. 
`Standing (37 C.F.R. § 42.104(a)) ......................................................... 3 
`F. 
`OVERVIEW OF CHALLENGE AND RELIEF REQUESTED ................... 3 
`A. 
`Publications Relied Upon ..................................................................... 3 
`B. 
`Grounds For Challenge ........................................................................ 4 
`III.  RELEVANT INFORMATION CONCERNING THE CONTESTED
`PATENT ......................................................................................................... 5 
`A. 
`Effective Filing Date of the ’235 Patent .............................................. 5 
`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 
`IV.  SUMMARY OF PRIOR ART AND REFERENCES RELIED ON .............. 8 
`A. 
`Brief Summary of Karol (Ex. 1006) .................................................... 8 
`B. 
`Brief Summary of Zhang (Ex. 1019) ................................................... 9 
`C. 
`Brief Summary of McCullough (Ex. 1020) ......................................... 9 
`D. 
`Brief Summary of Pearce (Ex. 1021) ................................................. 10 
`V.  A REASONABLE LIKELIHOOD EXISTS THAT THE
`CHALLENGED CLAIMS ARE UNPATENTABLE ................................. 10 
`A.  Ground 1: Claims 5-11, 14, and 22-24 of the ’235 Patent are
`obvious over Karol (Ex. 1006) in view of Zhang (Ex. 1019) ............ 10 
`Ground 2: Claims 4 and 19 of the ’235 Patent are obvious over
`Karol (Ex. 1006) in view of Pearce (Ex. 1021).................................. 28 
`Ground 3: Claims 9, 10, and 14 of the ’235 Patent are obvious
`over Karol (Ex. 1006) in view of Zhang (Ex. 1019), further in
`view of Pearce (Ex. 1021) .................................................................. 45 
`
`C. 
`
`B. 
`
`C. 
`
`84794665_1
`
`-ii-
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`U.S. Patent No. 6,775,235
`
`D.  Ground 4: Claims 6, 9-13, 15, and 22-24 of the ’235 Patent are
`obvious over Karol (Ex. 1006) in view of Zhang (Ex. 1019),
`further in view of McCullough (Ex. 1020) ........................................ 50 
`VI.  CONCLUSION ............................................................................................. 60 
`
`
`
`84794665_1
`
`-iii-
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`U.S. Patent No. 6,775,235
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`Cases 
`In re Translogic Tech., Inc., 504 F.3d 1249 (Fed. Cir. 2007) ................................... 7
`In re Zletz, 13 USPQ2d 1320 (Fed. Cir. 1989) .......................................................... 8
`KSR v. Teleflex, 550 U.S. 398 (2007) ............................................................... 14, 15
`Statutes 
`35 U.S.C. § 103 .......................................................................................................... 4
`35 U.S.C. § 318(b) ................................................................................................... 60
`35 U.S.C. §§ 311-319 ................................................................................................ 1
`Other Authorities 
`MPEP § 2143 .................................................................................................... 14, 15
`Regulations 
`37 C.F.R. § 42.8 ......................................................................................................... 1
`37 C.F.R. §§ 42.100 ................................................................................................... 1
`37 C.F.R. §§ 42.103(a) ............................................................................................... 3
`
`
`
`84794665_1
`
`-iv-
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`U.S. Patent No. 6,775,235
`
`PETITIONER’S EXHIBITS
`
`1001
`
`1002
`
`1003
`
`1004
`1005
`
`1006
`
`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. Leonard J. Forys in IPR2017-00684
`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”).
`Complaint, D.I. 1 in 1:16- cv-00182-LPS in the District of Delaware
`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”)
`Petition for Inter Partes Review, IPR2016-00976, Paper No. 1
`(April 29, 2016)
`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)
`Decision, IPR2016-00976, Paper No. 7 (November 2, 2016)
`FatPipe’s Infringement Contentions
`U.S. Patent No. 6,396,833 to Zhang et al. entitled “Per User and
`Network Routing Tables” (“Zhang”)
`U.S. Patent Publication No. 2002/0010866 by David J. McCullough
`
`1007
`
`1008
`
`1009
`
`1010
`
`1011
`1012
`1013
`1014
`1015
`
`1016
`1017
`1018
`1019
`1020
`
`84794665_1
`
`-v-
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`U.S. Patent No. 6,775,235
`
`et al. entitled “Method and Apparatus for Improving Peer-to-Peer
`Bandwidth Between Remote Networks by Combining Multiple
`Connections Which Use Arbitrary Data Paths” (“McCullough”)
`U.S. Patent No. 5,910,951 by Michael David Pearce, Rodd Bryan
`Zurcher, and Lewis B. Oberlander entitled “Transmitting Device
`with Mobility Manager and Method of Communicating” (“Pearce”)
`Patent Owner Response, IPR2016-00976, Paper No. 22 (February 8,
`2017)
`Declaration of Dr. Leonard J. Forys
`
`1021
`
`1022
`1023
`
`
`
`84794665_1
`
`-vi-
`
`

`

`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., Viptela,
`
`Inc. (“Petitioner”) hereby respectfully requests inter partes review of claims 4-15,
`
`19, and 22-24 (“Challenged Claims”) of U.S. Patent No. 6,775,235 (Ex. 1001; “the
`
`’235 Patent”). There exists a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner will prevail with
`
`respect to at least one of the Challenged Claims, which are unpatentable over the
`
`prior art discussed herein.
`
`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, Viptela, Inc., located at 1732 North First St., Suite 600, San Jose,
`
`California 95112, 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 (the “District
`
`Court Litigation”) involving Petitioner originally captioned FatPipe, Inc. v.
`
`Viptela, Inc., United States District Court For the District Of Delaware, Case No.
`
`1:16-CV-182. (Ex. 1008.) FatPipe, Inc. is also asserting U.S. Patent No. 7,406,048
`
`(Ex. 1003; “the ’048 Patent”) in the District Court Litigation against Petitioner.
`
`Furthermore, the ’235 Patent is the subject of a proceeding before the Board,
`
`IPR2017-00684, filed by Petitioner on January 13, 2017 (the “’684 IPR”). The
`
`
`
`1
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`U.S. Patent No. 6,775,235
`
`’048 Patent is also the subject of a proceeding before the Board, IPR2017-00680,
`
`filed by Petitioner on January 13, 2017 (the “’680 IPR”).
`
`A separate IPR petition is currently 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.
`
`The ‘235 Patent is also subject to a separate proceeding before the Board in
`
`IPR2016-00976, filed by Talari Networks, Inc. (the “’976 IPR”). See Petition for
`
`Inter Partes Review, IPR2016-00976, Paper No. 1 (April 29, 2016) (Ex. 1010).
`
`The Board recently instituted proceedings on claims 4, 5, 7-15, and 19 in the ’976
`
`IPR. See Decision, IPR2016-00976, Paper No. 7 (November 2, 2016) (Ex. 1017).
`
`C. Lead and Backup Counsel (37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(3) and 42.10(a))
`
`Lead Counsel:
`Robert C. Hilton (Reg. No. 47,649)
`
`Email: Viptela-FP@mcguirewood.com
`
`Postal/Hand Delivery Address:
`MCGUIREWOODS LLP
`2000 McKinney Ave., Suite 1400
`Dallas, TX 75201
`
`Tel.: (214) 932-6400
`Fax.: (214) 932-6499
`
`
`Backup Counsel:
`George B. Davis (Reg. No. 68,205)
`
`Email: Viptela-FP@mcguirewood.com
`
`Postal/Hand Delivery Address:
`MCGUIREWOODS LLP
`Gateway Plaza
`800 East Canal Street
`Richmond, VA 23219
`
`Tel.: (804) 775-1000
`Fax.: (804) 775-2016
`
`2
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`U.S. Patent No. 6,775,235
`
`D.
`
`Service Information (37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(4))
`
`Service on Petitioner may be made by email, mail or hand delivery at the
`
`addresses shown above.
`
`E.
`
`Payment of Fees (37 C.F.R. §§ 42.15(a) and 42.103(a))
`
`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. 231951 as well as any
`
`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 the
`
`Challenged Claims on the grounds set forth below and requests that they be found
`
`unpatentable. Additional support for each ground is set forth in the Declaration of
`
`Dr. Leonard Forys (Ex. 1023).
`
`A.
`
`Publications Relied Upon
`
`Exhibit 1006 – U.S. Patent No. 6,628,617 to Karol et al. (“Karol”) filed on
`
`March 3, 1999 and issued on September 30, 2003. Karol is prior art under at least
`
`35 U.S.C. § 102(e).
`
`
`
`3
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`U.S. Patent No. 6,775,235
`
`Exhibit 1019 – U.S. Patent No. 6,396,833 to Zhang et al. (“Zhang”) filed on
`
`December 2, 1998 and issued on May 28, 2002. Zhang is prior art under at least 35
`
`U.S.C. § 102(e).
`
`Exhibit 1020 – U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2002/0010866 by
`
`McCullough et al. (“McCullough”) filed on December 18, 2000 and published on
`
`January 24, 2002. McCullough is prior art under at least 35 U.S.C. § 102(e).
`
`Exhibit 1021 – U.S. Patent No. 5,910,951 by Pearce et al. (“Pearce”) issued
`
`on June 8, 1999. Pearce is prior art under at least 35 U.S.C. § 102(b).
`
`B. Grounds For Challenge
`
`Petitioner requests cancellation of the Challenged Claims on the following
`
`grounds:
`
`(i)
`
`Claims 5-11, 14, and 22-24 of the ‘235 Patent are obvious under 35
`
`U.S.C. § 103 over the combination of Karol and Zhang.
`
`(ii) Claims 4 and 19 of the ‘235 Patent are obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103
`
`over the combination of Karol and Pearce.
`
`(iii) Claims 9, 10, and 14 of the ’235 Patent are obvious under 35 U.S.C. §
`
`103 over the combination of Karol, Zhang, and Pearce.
`
`(iv) Claims 6, 9-15, and 22-24 of the ‘235 Patent are obvious under 35
`
`U.S.C. § 103 over the combination of Karol, Zhang, and McCullough.
`
`
`
`4
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`U.S. Patent No. 6,775,235
`
`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
`
`Application No. 60/355,509 was filed on February 8, 2002. All of the asserted
`
`prior art precedes the earliest possible 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.) The ’235
`
`Patent teaches that it was well known in the prior art to: have a frame relay
`
`network configured in parallel with a disparate VPN or other Internet-based
`
`network (see, e.g., Ex. 1001 at 5:24-27); use a disparate network for
`
`reliability/redundancy (see, e.g., Ex. 1001 at 4:25-27 and FIG. 5); use a disparate
`
`network for load-balancing (see, e.g., Ex. 1001 at 9:4-9); and use secure routing
`
`paths to route to “Internet-based communication solutions such as VPNs and
`
`Secure Sockets Layer (SSL).” (See, e.g., Ex. 1001 at 4:5-10; see also Ex. 1023 at
`
`¶¶ 47, 50-53, 59-61, 135-140.)
`
`
`
`5
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`U.S. Patent No. 6,775,235
`
`2.
`
`Prosecution History
`
`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.) 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.)
`
`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
`
`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. 1023 at ¶ 31.)
`
`
`
`6
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`U.S. Patent No. 6,775,235
`
`2.
`
`Patent Owner’s Proposed Constructions
`
`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.
`
`In the co-pending case of Fatpipe, Inc. v. Talari Networks, Inc., 5:16-CV-54-BO
`
`(E.D.N.C.), Patent Owner (“PO”) proposed the following constructions (Ex. 1014):
`
`Term
`“private network”
`
`“Internet based network”
`
`“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
`“a communication path that is unavailable to
`the general public”
`“a communication path that is available on
`the public Internet”
`“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”
`
`7
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`U.S. Patent No. 6,775,235
`
`For this IPR, Petitioner submits that none of these terms needs 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. 1023 at ¶¶ 72-81.) 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).
`
`IV. SUMMARY OF PRIOR ART AND REFERENCES RELIED ON
`
`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. 1023 at
`
`¶¶ 84, 86, 87.) No secondary considerations support a finding of nonobviousness.
`
`A. Brief Summary of Karol (Ex. 1006)
`
`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. 1023 at ¶¶ 85-89,
`
`91.)
`
`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. 1023 at ¶ 91.) The gateway can make a routing selection
`
`
`
`8
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`U.S. Patent No. 6,775,235
`
`between the connection oriented or connectionless network based on specific
`
`criteria, such as “maximizing efficiency.” (Ex. 1006 at 3:58-66; Ex. 1023 at ¶ 87.)
`
`For routing, Karol discloses routing tables in databases: the connectionless (CL)
`
`network uses the forwarding database, and the connection oriented (CO) network
`
`uses the flow database. (See, e.g., Ex. 1006 at 7:31-54 and FIG. 4; Ex. 1023 at ¶¶
`
`95-99.)
`
`B.
`
`Brief Summary of Zhang (Ex. 1019)
`
`Zhang relates to routing of packets “in systems where a user may connect to
`
`multiple networks”. (Ex. 1019 at 1:7-11; Ex. 1023 at ¶¶ 115-120.) Zhang describes
`
`a “gateway” which utilizes per-user routing tables that contain the network address
`
`ranges of networks which are currently accessible to the user. The gateway routes
`
`a packet sent by a user “to a matching network if said destination address is
`
`contained within one of said ranges of network addresses for said currently
`
`accessible networks”. (Ex. 1019 at 2:49-65; Ex. 1023 at ¶¶ 115-120.)
`
`C. Brief Summary of McCullough (Ex. 1020)
`
`McCullough is directed towards connecting two or more remote private
`
`networks using a VPN through a public network such as the Internet. (Ex. 1020 at
`
`[0002], [0047] and FIGS. 2 and 4; Ex. 1023 at ¶¶ 121-128.) McCullough
`
`recognizes the benefits of private point-to-point links connecting private remote
`
`networks and provides a VPN solution capable of achieving those same benefits.
`
`
`
`9
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`U.S. Patent No. 6,775,235
`
`(Ex. 1020 at [0004], [0018]; Ex. 1023 at ¶¶ 121-128.) McCullough describes a
`
`“gateway” capable of aggregating multiple “tunnels” through the public network
`
`via a multiplicity of ISPs. (Ex. 1020 at [0055]; Ex. 1023 at ¶¶ 121-128.)
`
`D. Brief Summary of Pearce (Ex. 1021)
`
`Pearce describes a transmitting device and a receiving device connected via
`
`a multiplicity of qualifying networks. (Ex. 1021 at 1:55-62 and FIG. 1; Ex. 1023 at
`
`¶¶ 129-133.) When the transmitting device is ready to transmit a packet of data, it
`
`can select which network to use based on a variety of characteristics associated
`
`with each network. (Ex. 1021 at 2:1-30; Ex. 1023 at ¶¶ 129-133.) Qualifying
`
`networks are ranked in a list (“prioritized list”) and each transmission is sent over
`
`the highest-priority qualifying network. (Ex. 1021 at 2:61–3:5; Ex. 1023 at ¶¶ 129-
`
`133.)
`
`V. A REASONABLE
`EXISTS
`LIKELIHOOD
`CHALLENGED CLAIMS ARE UNPATENTABLE
`
`THAT
`
`THE
`
`A. Ground 1: Claims 5-11, 14, and 22-24 of the ’235 Patent are
`obvious over Karol (Ex. 1006) in view of Zhang (Ex. 1019)
`
`Claim 5[a]: “A method for combining connections for access to multiple
`parallel disparate networks, the method comprising the steps of:”
`
`Karol discloses a “CL-CO gateway” that 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. 1023 at ¶¶
`
`
`
`10
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`U.S. Patent No. 6,775,235
`
`177-180.) “The CL network is typically, although not necessarily, an IP network.”
`
`(Ex. 1006 at 2:58-59; Ex. 1023 at ¶ 177.) 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, claim 18; Ex. 1023 at ¶ 177.) PO has identified MPLS as a
`
`private, parallel, disparate network. (Ex. 1018 at Appendix I at p. 44; and Ex. 1023
`
`at ¶¶ 181-182.) 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. 1023 at ¶ 179.)
`
`Accordingly, Karol discloses that the CO and CL networks are disparate in
`
`that the CL and CO networks are “two different, parallel routes” comprising, for
`
`example, an IP network in parallel with a MPLS or ATM network. (Ex. 1006 at
`
`4:40-44; Ex. 1023 at ¶¶ 227-228; see also Ex. 1023 at ¶¶ 85-99, 226-232.)
`
`Claim 5[b]: “obtaining at least two known location address ranges which have
`associated networks;”
`
`Karol discloses this element through the use of routing tables that contain
`
`location addresses. For example, Karol discloses with respect to the CL network
`
`that the “datagram forwarding database 432” is “the database used in typical CL IP
`
`routers” that “stores the next hop router address and outgoing port number
`
`corresponding to each destination address,” and thus the “fields in each record in
`
`this database would be: Destination IP address; Next hop router; Outgoing port
`
`
`
`11
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`U.S. Patent No. 6,775,235
`
`(interface).” (emphasis added) (Ex. 1006 at 7:36-41; Ex. 1023 at ¶ 97, 244.) The
`
`flow database 433 provides the same function for the CO network. (Ex. 1006 at
`
`7:42-54; Ex. 1023 at ¶¶ 98, 245.)
`
`Karol also discloses methodologies for obtaining
`
`the routing
`
`table
`
`information, which include the location address ranges associated with the CL and
`
`CO network paths as shown above, such as “the network provider can set user-
`
`specific routing tables at the CL-CO gateways” so that “the user-specific routing
`
`then determines which users’ flows are sent to the CO network” versus those that
`
`are routed to the CL network. (emphasis added) (Ex. 1006 at 16:3-9; Ex. 1023 at ¶¶
`
`108-112, 246.) Karol also discloses obtaining “updates” to such routing tables. (Ex.
`
`1006 at 13:6-16, FIG. 8; Ex. 1023 at ¶¶ 108-112, 246.)
`
`Thus, Karol discloses “at least two known location address ranges” (e.g., the
`
`addresses stored in the routing tables for routing packets to the CL network and the
`
`addresses stored in the routing tables for routing packets to the CO network) that
`
`“have associated networks” (e.g., the CL and CO networks respectively), and
`
`Karol discloses the step of “obtaining” such “known location address ranges” (e.g.,
`
`by user input to a network provider to set the addresses in the routing tables). (Ex.
`
`1023 at ¶ 247, see also Ex. 1023 at ¶¶ 242-248.)
`
`In the event the Board finds that this element is not expressly disclosed in
`
`Karol, Zhang discloses a gateway which routes a packet sent from a user to a
`
`
`
`12
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`U.S. Patent No. 6,775,235
`
`connected network using a “per user routing table.” (Ex. 1019 at 2:49-65; Ex. 1023
`
`at ¶ 250.) In Zhang, the per user routing table contains entries corresponding to
`
`one or more accessible networks for the user and the ranges of network addresses
`
`corresponding to the networks. (Ex. 1019 at 2:51-55.) First, the gateway uses the
`
`source address of a packet “to find a per-user routing table corresponding to the
`
`user who sent the packet.” (Ex. 1019 at 4:19-20.) In Zhang, “[e]ach per user
`
`routing table 250 contains a user address 252, indicating the host address of the
`
`user to which the routing table corresponds.” (Id. at 4:23-25; Ex. 1023 at ¶ 250.)
`
`The per-user routing table also includes “one or more entries 254, each entry
`
`corresponding to a currently accessible network for the corresponding user.” (Ex.
`
`1019 at 4:25-28; Ex. 1023 at ¶ 250.) “Each entry 254 may contain a range of
`
`addresses 256, indicating the network addresses which correspond to the
`
`corresponding accessible network.” (Ex. 1019 at 4:28-30 (emphasis added).) Thus,
`
`Zhang clearly discloses obtaining “at least two known location address ranges
`
`which have associated networks.” (Ex. 1023 at ¶ 250.)
`
`It would have been obvious to a POSITA to use the per-user routing tables
`
`disclosed in Zhang that can route packets to one of multiple network interfaces
`
`based upon the range of end-system addresses to route data on Karol’s parallel
`
`multiple networks which rely on routing addresses. (Ex. 1023 at ¶¶ 251-253.)
`
`
`
`13
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`U.S. Patent No. 6,775,235
`
`A POSITA would have combined Karol in view of Zhang as described
`
`above for several reasons. First, using the per-user routing tables disclosed in
`
`Zhang with Karol would have amounted to nothing more than the use of a known
`
`technique to improve similar methods in the same way or the combination of prior
`
`art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. KSR v.
`
`Teleflex, 550 U.S. 398, 417 (2007); MPEP § 2143; Ex. 1023 at ¶ 252. Karol
`
`teaches that its parallel network configuration offers “enterprises ‘long-distance’
`
`connectivity of their geographically distributed networks.” (Ex. 1006 at 3:46-51.)
`
`A POSITA, recognizing the motivation to connect remote enterprise networks
`
`would have understood that network address ranges as taught by Zhang would
`
`have been applicable to the operation of Karol’s gateway. (Ex. 1023 at ¶ 252.)
`
`Zhang depicts a router 88 connecting a LAN to gateway 82. (Ex. 1019 at FIG. 2.)
`
`On the destination side, Zhang teaches network address ranges for multiple
`
`available networks, each with a router providing connectivity. (Ex. 1019 at 5:65-
`
`6:2.) Karol describes the source endpoint 101 as “a personal computer,
`
`workstation, or other processor attached to any information source.” (Ex. 1006 at
`
`4:36-38; Ex. 1023 at ¶ 252.) A POSITA would have recognized that, similar to
`
`Zhang, a router serving a local area network (LAN) (with an associated range of
`
`addresses) was a potential “source of information” in Karol. In the same way, a
`
`router serving a LAN would have been viewed as a valid destination endpoint by a
`
`
`
`14
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`U.S. Patent No. 6,775,235
`
`POSITA. (Ex. 1023 at ¶ 252.) Alternatively, networks 110 and 130 may be viewed
`
`as the “geographically distributed networks” analogous to Zhang’s corporate
`
`intranets. (Ex. 1006 at FIG. 1.) A POSITA would have recognized that
`
`implementing the routing tables disclosed in Zhang with the method in Karol
`
`would enable Karol to “obtain[] at least two known location address ranges which
`
`have associated networks” and therefore send data over multiple parallel networks.
`
`(Ex. 1023 at ¶¶ 250-253, 239.) A POSITA would look to combine Zhang with
`
`Karol because Karol also describes network addressing in routers over multiple
`
`parallel routes, and Zhang describes additional routing characteristics of network
`
`addresses as well as methods to obtain such network addresses. (Ex. 1023 at ¶
`
`252.)
`
`Second, the combination of Karol and Zhang was obvious to try. KSR, 550
`
`U.S. at 417; MPEP § 2143; Ex. 1023 at ¶¶ 250-253. The need in the art was the
`
`ability to route to multiple network locations based on the IP protocol. (Ex. 1023 at
`
`¶ 253.) Thus, a POSITA would have pursued this combination with a high
`
`likelihood of success. (Id.)
`
`Claim 5[c]: “obtaining topology information which specifies associated
`networks that provide, when working, connectivity between a current location
`and at least one destination location;”
`
`For both the CL and CO networks, Karol discloses routing tables with
`
`information about the specific route topology that a particular packet takes based
`
`
`
`15
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`U.S. Patent No. 6,775,235
`
`on currently available parallel CO and CL paths from a source to a destination.
`
`(Ex. 1023 at ¶ 255.) For example, Karol discloses routing tables that are
`
`maintained at the CL-CO gateway comprising of various “databases” associated
`
`with the “gateway processor” including the “datagram forwarding database 432, a
`
`flow database 433, and a header translation database 434.” (Ex. 1006 at 7:31-35;
`
`Ex. 1023 at ¶ 255.)
`
`Karol discloses with respect to the CL network that the “datagram
`
`forwarding database 432” is “the database used in typical CL IP routers” that
`
`“stores the next hop router address and outgoing port number corresponding to
`
`each destination address,” and thus the “fields in each record in this database
`
`would be: Destination IP address; Next hop router; Outgoing port (interface).”
`
`(emphasis added) (Ex. 1006 at 7:36-41; Ex. 1023 at ¶ 256.) Similarly, Karol
`
`discloses with respect to the CO network that “flow database 433” is used to
`
`“determine how to handle packets from flows requiring a connection-oriented
`
`service”, wherein “[t]ypical fields in each record in this database include: (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; ....” (emphasis
`
`added) (Ex. 1006 at 7:42-54; Ex. 1023 at ¶ 256.) Karol further discloses that the
`
`
`
`16
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`U.S. Patent No. 6,775,235
`
`“header translation database 434” is also updated when the “integrated routing
`
`table” that obtains the “resources of the CO network” to include at least “CO
`
`packet header field values or circuit identifiers.” (emphasis added) (Ex. 1006 at
`
`7:55-59, 13:6-16; Ex. 1023 at ¶ 256.) Karol also d