UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`
`VIPTELA,INC.
`Petitioner
`
`V.
`
`FATPIPE NETWORKSINDIA LIMITED,
`Patent Owner
`
`
`
`Inter Partes Review Case No. 2017-
`
`
`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW OFU.S. PATENT NO.6,775,235
`UNDER35 U.S.C. §§ 311-319 AND 37 C.F.R. § 42.100
`
`
`
`84794665_1
`
`FatPipe Exhibit 2001, pg. 1
`Viptela v. FatPipe
`IPR2017-01125
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`U.S. Patent No. 6,775,235
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`MANDATORYNOTICES.0......cccceccccceeceeseeeeseeeeseeeeseecseeesseeenseeeeseeesseeeeeenes 1
`I.
`A.—Real Party-In-Interest (37 C.F.R. § 42.8(D)(1)) oo... eeeseeeteeeeees 1
`B.—Related Matters (37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(2)).....c ccc ccccceeseeeeeseeeeees 1
`C.
`Lead and Backup Counsel (37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(3) and
`BD MGA)) sess sises was seeapcntsiseasiahs.----.00-.aecceecceeneceencceesesenscessecenescenccasceees 2
`Service Information (37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(4)) ..... cee cccccceeteeeeeeeeees 3
`Paymentof Fees (37 C.F.R. §§ 42.15(a) and 42.103(a)) ....... ee 3
`Standing (37 C.F.R. § 42.104(a)) occ cee ceccccc cece ceeseeesseeseeeesseeesseeeses 3
`
`D
`E.
`F.
`
`OVERVIEW OF CHALLENGE AND RELIEF REQUESTED.................... 3
`Il.
`A.—Publications Relied Upon .........ccccccecceccecceeseeesseeeseeeeeeceseeesseensseensaes 3
`B.
`Grounds For Challenge -2......0. 0.0. cceccceeeccceeseceeeeeeceeeaeeeeeeeeeeeaeeeneneeeenees4
`
`HI.
`
`RELEVANT INFORMATION CONCERNING THE CONTESTED
`BUY sacs ceesscassss panes TAGRONRGTCL--.----.----.000cceeceencceencceencceenesenscseseceseceesees 4
`A.
`Effective Filing Date of the ’235 Patent .00........ccceccceceeseeeseeeeeeees 4
`B.
`The 7235 Patent (Ex. 1001) oo... ccc ccccceseceeseceeeeeeseeceeeeneeenseeens 5
`1.
`Overview of the °235 Patent .............ccccccccccesseeseeeeseeesseeesseeeeees 5
`2.
`Prosecution History .........c.ccccccccccscessccessecesseeesseceseeessecesseeesseenses 5
`C. Cat Construction o......ccccccceecceeeseeesseceseeesceeescecececeeecnneeeeneeenneeenneeees 6
`1.
`Level-of Ordinary Skill mi the Attiscscccccsccccconivcscrmmnsnnree 6
`2.
`Patent Owner’s Proposed Constructions.............ccccccessccceeseeeees 6
`
`SUMMARY OF PRIOR ART AND REFERENCESRELIED ON.............. 8
`IV.
`A.—Brief Summary of Karol (Ex. 1006) 20.0... ceeccceeeeeseeesseeesseensees 8
`B.—Brief Summary ofStallings (Ex. 1011)... cece ceeeeeseeeeneeees 9
`
`V.
`
`B.
`
`A REASONABLE LIKELIHOOD EXISTS THAT THE
`CHALLENGED CLAIMS ARE UNPATENTABLE...........0ccccccccsseesseeees 9
`A.
`Ground 1: Claims 4-11, 14, 19, and 22-24 of the ’235 Patent
`(Ex. 1001) are anticipated by Karol (Ex. 1006) 0000... eee eeeeeeeeeeeeees 9
`Ground 2: Claims5, 6, 11-15, 19, 22, and 23 of the ’235 Patent
`are obvious over Karol (Ex. 1006) in view of Stallings (Ex.
`LOUD) sisccesiseamsmmncsmencissmemaes mae mmmanemenmnmanianmieuass! 31
`Ground 3: Claims 4-15, 19, and 22-24 of the ’235 Patent (Ex.
`1001) are obvious over Karol (Ex. 1006)... ccceecceeseeeeeeeeees45
`
`C.
`
`bt)ie
`
`Oo. 0)sO1ee 60
`
`84794665_1
`
`-ii-
`
`FatPipe Exhibit 2001, pg. 2
`Viptela v. FatPipe
`IPR2017-01125
`
`

`

`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)....7
`In re Translogic Tech., Inc., 504 F.3d 1249 (Fed. Cir. 2007) ........cccccceccceeseceseeees 6
`In re Zletz, 13 USPQ2d 1320 (Fed. Cir. 1989) oo... ccccceecceeeeeseeeeseeeseeeesseensees 7
`KSR v. Teleflex, 550 U.S. 398 (2007) ......cceeecccccccescceseeeeseeeeeeeeseeeeseeeesseeesseenaes passim
`
`Statutes
`99 LLSGs § 10S scssssisrsavceuusaeaeecavsueqeuvaueeig...-..--..0ccceeccceececececenceeescesescesnsecnscesnseesnees4
`39 WSC. § SISO) suissccrcnveseraseeavascasusnauedig......-...eccceeccceccceeccesecceseeceescensncesenceseseess 60
`35 U.S.C. §§ 311-319 oe cece ccesecceseseseeeeseeesseeeeseeeseecsseeenseeceseeeeseseeeesseeeeseeeees 1
`
`Other Authorities
`NEPEP 6 DEAS sssssccsssunssswwasnussiee ean venweape we teneeeh-----00ceesncccecaccceneccsssacccesseseessceneaes passim
`
`Regulations
`37 CLF.R. § 42.8 wooo ccccccscccsccessecessecessecesseceseeesseeesaeeeeseeeseeeeseceeeceeseessseeeseeseneessaeensaee 1
`BT CBR. 89 42ND ccsisnsswsanvwsvsenavoursenecenicauta.s-s.ccccecccenscsecccenccsencesenceeeccenceecncesenceeenees 1
`SE, CIR, GA ISD)wr ccorcwvacasrweassenewer scout scssssscsesnssnsessnccenacnsaaencaaesssacsteessnsessasessnees 3
`
`84794665_1
`
`-ili-
`
`FatPipe Exhibit 2001, pg. 3
`Viptela v. FatPipe
`IPR2017-01125
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`U.S. Patent No. 6,775,235
`
`PETITIONER’S EXHIBITS
`
`1002
`
`
`
`Description
`U.S. Patent No. 6,775,235 by Sanchaita Datta and Ragula Bhaskar
`entitled “Tools and Techniques for Directing Packets Over
`1001
`
`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
`1003
`
`Disparate Networks” (“the ’048 Patent’’)
`File History
`for U.S. Patent No. 7,406,048
`1004
`
`Declaration of Dr. Leonard J. Forys
`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 Volume1, 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 Methodfor 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.
`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 (November2, 2016)
`FatPipe’s Infringement Contentions
`
`
`
`|
`
`1013
`1014
`
`1017
`1018
`
`847946651
`
`-iv-
`
`FatPipe Exhibit 2001, pg. 4
`Viptela v. FatPipe
`IPR2017-01125
`
`

`

`Petition for Jnter Partes Review
`U.S. Patent No. 6,775,235
`
`Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. §§ 311-319 and 37 C.F.R. §§ 42.100 ef seg., Viptela,
`
`Inc. (“Petitioner”) hereby respectfully requests infer partes review ofclaims4, 5,
`
`6-15, 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.
`
`MANDATORYNOTICES
`
`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. A separate IPR
`
`petition has been filed by Petitioner with respect to the ’048 Patent. Petitioner
`
`FatPipe Exhibit 2001, pg. 5
`Viptela v. FatPipe
`IPR2017-01125
`
`

`

`Petition for Jnter Partes Review
`U.S. Patent No. 6,775,235
`
`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 Patentis 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 (November2, 2016) (Ex. 1017).
`
`This Petition is substantially identical to the Petition in the 976 IPR.!
`
`Lead and Backup Counsel(37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(3) and 42.10(a))
`C.
`
`
`Backup Counsel:
`Lead Counsel:
`Robert C. Hilton (Reg. No. 47,649)|George B. Davis (Reg. No. 68,205)
`
`
`
`Email: rhilton@mecguirewoods.com|Email: gdavis@mcguirewoods.com
`
`Postal/Hand Delivery Address:
`MCGUIREWOODS LLP
`2000 McKinney Ave., Suite 1400
`Dallas, TX 75201
`
`Tel.: (214) 932-6400
`Fax.: (214) 932-6499
`
`Postal/Hand Delivery Address:
`MCGUIREWOODSLLP
`Gateway Plaza
`800 East Canal Street
`Richmond, VA 23219
`
`Tel.: (804) 775-1000
`Fax.: (804) 775-2016
`
`' In addition to the claims under review in the 976 IPR,this Petition also
`
`challenges claims 6 and 22-24 of the ’235 Patent.
`
`FatPipe Exhibit 2001, pg. 6
`Viptela v. FatPipe
`IPR2017-01125
`
`

`

`Petition for Jnter 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.
`
`Paymentof 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 infer
`
`partesreview andthat Petitioneris not barred or estopped from requesting an inter
`
`partesreview challenging the patent claims on the groundsidentified herein.
`
`Il.
`
`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 groundsset forth below and requests that they be found
`
`unpatentable. Additional support for each groundis set forth in the Declaration of
`
`Dr. Leonard Forys (Ex. 1005).
`
`A.
`
`Publications Relied Upon
`
`Exhibit 1006 — U.S. Patent No. 6,628,617 to Karol et al. (“Karol”) filed on
`
`March3, 1999 and issued on September30, 2003. Karolis prior art underat least
`
`35 U.S.C. § 102(e).
`
`FatPipe Exhibit 2001, pg. 7
`Viptela v. FatPipe
`IPR2017-01125
`
`

`

`Petition for Jnter Partes Review
`U.S. Patent No. 6,775,235
`
`Exhibit 1011 — Data and Computer Communications by William Stallings,
`
`Prentice-Hall, 5th Edition, 1997, ISBN-81-203-1240-6, (“Stallings”). Stallings is
`
`prior art underat least 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) because it was published in 1997. (Ex.
`
`1011 at inside cover page.)
`
`B.
`
`GroundsFor Challenge
`
`Petitioner requests cancellation of the Challenged Claims on the following
`
`grounds:
`
`(i)
`
`Claims 4-11, 14, 19, and 22-24 are anticipated under 35 U.S.C. § 102
`
`by Karol.
`
`(11)
`
`Claims 5, 6, 11-15, 19, and 22-24 are obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103
`
`based on Karol (Ex. 1006) in view of Stallings.
`
`(iii) Claims 4-15, 19, and 22-24 are obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103 based
`
`on Karol.
`
`Il. 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 wasfiled on December 29, 2000, and Provisional
`
`application No. 60/355,509 wasfiled on February 8, 2002. All of the asserted prior
`
`art precedesthe earliest possible priority date — December29, 2000.
`
`FatPipe Exhibit 2001, pg. 8
`Viptela v. FatPipe
`IPR2017-01125
`
`

`

`Petition for Jnter Partes Review
`U.S. Patent No. 6,775,235
`
`B.
`
`The ’235 Patent (Ex. 1001)
`
`1.
`
`Overview of the ’235 Patent
`
`The ’235 Patentis directed “to computer network data transmission, and
`
`moreparticularly 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 knownin the prior art to: have a frame relay
`
`network configured in parallel with a disparate VPN orother 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 that secure routing
`
`paths were used 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. 1005
`
`at J§ 47, 50-53, 59-61, 116-121.)
`
`2.
`
`Prosecution History
`
`The application leading to the ’235 Patent wasfiled on February 7, 2003,
`
`and is a continuation-in-part of application number 10/034,197 filed on
`
`December28, 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 ef a/. (Ex. 1002 at 367-373.) The
`
`FatPipe Exhibit 2001, pg. 9
`Viptela v. FatPipe
`IPR2017-01125
`
`

`

`Petition for Jnter Partes Review
`U.S. Patent No. 6,775,235
`
`Examinerallowedclaims 11-22, 30, 31, and 33-35 which recited “per-packet
`
`selection” and/or “accessing the multiple parallel disparate networks usingat least
`
`two knownlocation 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 hadat least a Bachelor of Science in Computer
`
`Science, Computer Engineering, Electrical Engineering, or an equivalentfield as
`
`well as at least two years of academic or industry experience in any type of
`
`networkingfield. (Ex. 1005 at § 31.)
`
`2:
`
`Patent Owner’s Proposed Constructions
`
`Petitioner submits that no construction is necessary andthatall 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 Jn 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.), PO proposed the following constructions (Ex. 1014):
`
`FatPipe Exhibit 2001, pg. 10
`Viptela v. FatPipe
`IPR2017-01125
`
`

`

`
` Term
`
`Patent Owner’s Proposed Construction
`“a communication path that is unavailable to
`“private network”
`
`
`the general
` public”
`
` “Internet based network”
`
`“a communication path that is available on
`the public Internet”
` “disparate networks”
`
`
`“networks that are different in kind,e.g. a
`private network and an Internet based
`
`
`
`network”
`
`ce
`”
`
`
`packet by packet”
`'
`packet basis
`
`“ner-session basis”
`“session by session”
`“module(s) that selects which path to send a
`“packet path selector”
`given packet on”
`
`“more than one occurrence of selecting a
`“repeated instances of the
`network path”
`selecting step make network
`path selections”
`
`“at least two networks configured to allow
`“parallel network”
`alternate data paths”
`
`
`
`“Session”
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` “an active communications connection,
`
`Petition for Jnter Partes Review
`U.S. Patent No. 6,775,235
`
`
`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 determinesthat any of these terms require construction for
`
`purposesof this IPR, a POSITA would understand PO’s constructions to be within
`
`the broadest reasonable interpretation. (See, e.g., Ex. 1005 at [ff 72-81.) 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 wayto avoid
`
`anticipation and anotherto find infringement.”). Any interpretation of claim terms
`
`here is not binding uponPetitionerin anylitigation related to the ’235 Patent. See
`
`In re Zletz, 13 USPQ2d 1320, 1322 (Fed. Cir. 1989).
`
`FatPipe Exhibit 2001, pg. 11
`Viptela v. FatPipe
`IPR2017-01125
`
`

`

`Petition for Jnter Partes Review
`U.S. Patent No. 6,775,235
`
`IV.
`
`SUMMARY OF PRIOR ART AND REFERENCES RELIED ON
`
`None ofthe prior art discussed belowwas considered by the Patent Office
`
`during prosecution of the ’235 Patent. These prior art references are directed to the
`
`samefield as the ’235 Patent (data networking) and operate using the same
`
`architecture as the ’235 Patent (routing to parallel disparate networks). (Ex. 1005 at
`
`{| 84, 86, 87.) No secondary considerations support a finding of nonobviousness.
`
`A.
`
`Brief Summaryof Karol (Ex. 1006)
`
`Karolis prior art underat least 35 U.S.C. § 102(e). (See supra at § I(A).)
`
`Karolis directed towardsparallel “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 §f§ 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. 1005 at § 91.) The gateway can makea routing selection
`
`between the connection oriented or connectionless network based on specific
`
`criteria, such as “maximizingefficiency.” (Ex. 1006 at 3:58-66; Ex. 1005 at § 87.)
`
`For routing, Karol discloses routing tables in databases:
`
`the CL network usesthe
`
`forwarding database, and the CO network uses the flow database. (See, e.g., Ex.
`
`1006 at 7:31-54 and FIG. 4; Ex. 1005 at 4 95-99.)
`
`FatPipe Exhibit 2001, pg. 12
`Viptela v. FatPipe
`IPR2017-01125
`
`

`

`B._Brief Summary ofStallings (Ex. 1011)
`
`Petition for Jnter Partes Review
`U.S. Patent No. 6,775,235
`
`Stallings is prior art underat least 35 U.S.C. § 102(b). (See supra at § II(A).)
`
`Stallings describes “ATM,” “Frame Relay,” “Packet Switching (Routing),”
`
`“Network Security,” frame relay, IP protocol, among other data and computer
`
`communicationstopics. (See, e.g., Ex. 1011 at 24-26; Ex. 1005 at 4¥ 129-141.)
`
`V.
`
`A REASONABLE LIKELIHOOD EXISTS THAT THE
`CHALLENGED CLAIMS ARE UNPATENTABLE
`
`A.
`
`Ground 1: Claims 4-11, 14, 19, and 22-24 of the ’235 Patent (Ex.
`1001) are anticipated by Karol (Ex. 1006)
`
`Claim 4[a]: “4 controller which controls access to multiple networks in a
`parallel network configuration, suitable networks comprising Internet-based
`networks andprivate networks from at least one more provider, in combination,
`the controller comprising:”
`
`Karol discloses “A controller” which controls access to multiple networks in
`
`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 9
`
`157-160.) “The CL networkis typically, although not necessarily, an IP network.”
`
`(Ex. 1006 at 2:58-59; Ex. 1005 at ¥ 157.) In parallel with the CL network, the CO
`
`networkis a private networkthat “can be an MPLS ...” or “telephony network....”
`
`(Ex. 1006 at 2:52-58; Ex. 1005 at § 157.) PO has identified MPLSasa private,
`
`parallel, disparate network. (Ex. 1018 at Appendix I at p. 44; and Ex. 1005 at 7
`
`9
`
`FatPipe Exhibit 2001, pg. 13
`Viptela v. FatPipe
`IPR2017-01125
`
`

`

`Petition for Jnter Partes Review
`U.S. Patent No. 6,775,235
`
`161-162.) 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 § 159.)
`
`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 networksin 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 MPLSprotocol
`
`service from a second service provider). (Ex. 1005 at § 160 and 4] 161-163.)
`
`Claim 4[b]: “a site interface connecting the controllerto asite;”
`
`Considering the “controller” to be the CL-CO gateway alone,then the “site”
`
`in Karolis either the routers/switches connected to the CL-CO gateway and/orthe
`
`source 101 and/or destination 151 endpoints. (Ex. 1005 at 4] 175; 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 — shownin Fig. | as an
`
`“interface” between source 101 and node 111. (Ex. 1005 at § 172-176; Ex. 1006
`
`at 3:44-51, 4:36-44, 4:65-67, 6:44-50 and Figs. 1 and 4.)
`
`10
`
`FatPipe Exhibit 2001, pg. 14
`Viptela v. FatPipe
`IPR2017-01125
`
`

`

`Petition for Jnter Partes Review
`U.S. Patent No. 6,775,235
`
`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 § 175; 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 4
`
`172-176; Ex. 1006 at 3:44-51, 4:36-44, 4:65-67, 6:44-50 and Figs. | and4.)
`
`Claim 4[c]: “at least two networkinterfaces which send packets towardthe
`networks; and”
`
`Karol discloses that at least two “output line cards 402”are utilized to
`
`“receive datagramsfrom 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 9] 96-99, 173, 177; Ex. 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 7 178.)
`
`Alternatively, the combination of the CL-CO gateway and one or morerouters
`
`and/or switches shownin FIG. | also depicts at least two “network interfaces” to
`
`both of the CL network and the CO networkthat 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 44] 158, 179.)
`
`Thus, Karol discloses a “controller” (e.g., the CL-CO gateway) with atleast
`
`two “network interfaces” (e.g., the output line cards coupling the CL router to the
`
`11
`
`FatPipe Exhibit 2001, pg. 15
`Viptela v. FatPipe
`IPR2017-01125
`
`

`

`Petition for Jnter Partes Review
`U.S. Patent No. 6,775,235
`
`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 fj 180-181.)
`
`Claim 4[d]: “a packet path selector which selects between networkinterfaces on
`a per-packet basis according to at least: a destination ofthe packet, an optional
`presenceofalternate paths to that destination, andat least one specified criterion
`for selecting between alternate paths when such alternate paths are present;”
`
`Karol discloses a “packet path selector” includingat least a “gateway
`
`processor,” a “CL router/switch,” a “CO switch,” a “packet buffer,” a “protocol
`
`converter,” and one or more “inputline cards” that together determineif 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 forwardedto either the CL or CO network based on multiple criteria
`
`including whether the CO network hasa valid connection for the particular packet
`
`as furtherillustrated in and described with respect to Figure 4 of Karol. (Ex. 1005
`
`at J§ 96-99, 183-189; 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
`
`12
`
`FatPipe Exhibit 2001, pg. 16
`Viptela v. FatPipe
`IPR2017-01125
`
`

`

`Petition for Jnter Partes Review
`U.S. Patent No. 6,775,235
`
`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 4] 96-99,
`
`184-185; 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 determineif a particular packet matches a combination of
`
`“Destination IP address; Next hop router; Outgoing port (interface)” that would
`
`cause such a packetto be routed to the CL networkor to be considered for routing
`
`over the CO network.(Ex. 1006 at 7:36-41; Ex. 1005 at § 185.)
`
`For packets that are candidates for the CO network, Karol also discloses that
`
`each such packet is compared at the gateway processorwith the “flow database
`
`433” to determine if a particular packet matches a desired combinationof“(a) an
`
`outgoing port field, which indicates the port on which a datagram whoseentries
`
`matcha 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) protocolfield;
`
`(1) TCP Flags; (j) outgoing port; (k) forward or hold flag, and (1) a mask which
`
`indicates which ofthe data entries is applicable to the particular record”in order to
`
`route such a packet to the CO networkinstead of the CL network depending on
`
`13
`
`FatPipe Exhibit 2001, pg. 17
`Viptela v. FatPipe
`IPR2017-01125
`
`

`

`Petition for Jnter Partes Review
`U.S. Patent No. 6,775,235
`
`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 §§ 186, 187.)
`
`Karol discloses routing selections between the CL and CO networksare
`
`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 J 188.)
`
`Thus, Karol discloses a “packet path selector” (e.g., the structural elements
`
`depicted in FIG. 4 of Ex. 1005 at
`
`184) that “selects between networkinterfaces
`
`on a per-packetbasis” (e.g., packet path selector compares information in each
`
`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) accordingto at least “a
`
`destination of the packet” (e.g., gateway processor in the CL-CO gateway
`
`comparesthe destination address of each received packetto fields in both the
`
`forwarding and flow databases), “an optional presence of alternate paths to that
`
`destination”(e.g., the gateway processor will only forward a particular packet to
`
`the CO network whena valid connection exists for the flow associated with the
`
`particular packet), and “at least one specified criterion for selecting between
`
`alternate paths when suchalternate paths are present”(e.g., based upon the needs
`
`of a particular flow or to avoid congested links). (Ex. 1005 at189-191.)
`
`14
`
`FatPipe Exhibit 2001, pg. 18
`Viptela v. FatPipe
`IPR2017-01125
`
`

`

`Petition for Jnter Partes Review
`U.S. Patent No. 6,775,235
`
`Claim 4[e]: “wherein the controller receives a packet through the site interface
`and sends the packet through the network interface that was selected by the
`packet path selector.”
`
`If the “controller” is the CL-CO gatewayalone, Karol discloses that the CL-
`
`CO gatewayreceives packets through the “site interface” which 1s the “input line
`
`cards 401” and the packets “can be directed either to CO switch 410 or CL
`
`router/switch 420”to send the packets through the “network interface,” which are
`
`the “output line cards 402 [that] can receive datagrams from eitherofthe last
`
`mentioned elements and direct them to external networks.” (Ex. 1005 at JJ 96-99,
`
`200; Ex. 1006 at 6:44-50 and FIG. 4.) If the “controller” is the CL-CO gateway in
`
`combination with one or more routers and switches, then the “controller” receives
`
`packets through the “network connection,” and as described above, the packets are
`
`routed to the network interface (such as node 121 or 161). (/d.) Figure 5 discloses
`
`an exemplary process for determining the network path selection and actual
`
`forwarding to the CL or CO network interface. (Ex. 1005 at ¢§ 100-103, 200, 201;
`
`Ex. 1006 at 8:56-9:36 and FIG. 5 and 6.) Thus, Karol’s packet path selector(e.g.,
`
`depicted in FIG. 4) compares information in each packet received at the CL-CO
`
`gateway and then routes each packet either to the CL network interface output line
`
`card or to the CO networkinterface output line card according to the process
`
`described in FIG. 5. (Ex. 1005 at 4 200-202.)
`
`Claim S[a]: “4 methodfor combining connectionsfor access to multiple
`parallel disparate networks, the method comprising the steps of:”
`
`15
`
`FatPipe Exhibit 2001, pg. 19
`Viptela v. FatPipe
`IPR2017-01125
`
`

`

`Petition for Jnter Partes Review
`U.S. Patent No. 6,775,235
`
`For the reasons noted in § V(A)at claim element4[a], claim 5[a] is
`
`anticipated, and Karol discloses that the CO and CL networks are disparate in that
`
`the CL and CO networksare “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. 1005 at | 207, 208; see also Ex. 1005 at Jf 85-99, 206-212.)
`
`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
`
`(interface).” (emphasis added) (Ex. 1006 at 7:36-41; Ex. 1005 at 97, 224.) The
`
`flow database 433 provides the same function for the CO network. (Ex. 1006 at
`
`7:42-54; Ex. 1005 at §§ 98, 225.)
`
`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 whichusers’ flowsare sent to the CO network”versus thosethat
`
`16
`
`FatPipe Exhibit 2001, pg. 20
`Viptela v. FatPipe
`IPR2017-01125
`
`

`

`Petition for Jnter Partes Review
`U.S. Patent No. 6,775,235
`
`are routed to the CL network. (emphasis added) (Ex. 1006 at 16:3-9; Ex. 1005 at 4
`
`108-112, 226.) Karol also discloses obtaining “updates” to such routing tables. (Ex.
`
`1006 at 13:6-16, FIG. 8; Ex. 1005 at 9 108-112, 226.)
`
`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
`
`addressesstored in the routing tables for routing packets to the CO network) that
`
`“have associated networks”(e.g., the CL and CO networksrespectively), and
`
`Karol discloses the step of “obtaining” such “knownlocation address ranges”(e.g.,
`
`by user input to a network providerto set the addresses in the routing tables). (Ex.
`
`1005 at §] 227, see also Ex. 1005 at 9] 222-231.)
`
`Claim 5[c]: “obtaining topology information which specifies associated
`networks that provide, when working, connectivity between a current location
`andat least one destinat