Filed: April 4, 2018
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`______________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`______________________
`
`INTEL CORP. and CAVIUM, INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`ALACRITECH, INC.,
`Patent Owner.
`______________________
`
`Case IPR2017-01392
`U.S. Patent No. 7,337,2411
`Title: FAST-PATH APPARATUS FOR RECEIVING DATA CORRESPONDING
`TO A TCP CONNECTION
`______________________
`
`PETITIONER’S RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION TO PATENT OWNER’S
`CONTINGENT MOTION TO AMEND UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.121
`
`Mail Stop “PATENT BOARD”
`Patent Trial and Appeal Board
`U.S. Patent and Trademark Office
`P.O. Box 1450
`Alexandria, VA 22313-1450
`
`1 Cavium, Inc., which filed a Petition in Case IPR2017-01728, has been joined as a
`
`petitioner in this proceeding.
`
`

`

`
`
`I.
`II.
`III.
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`Case IPR2017-01392
`U.S. Patent No. 7,337,241
`
`Page
`
`PATENT OWNER HAS NOT MET ITS BURDEN TO SHOW IT IS
`
`Patent Owner Does Not Show Adequate Written Description
`
`SUBSTITUTE CLAIMS 25-48 ARE OBVIOUS OVER ERICKSON
`
`INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................... 1
`ENTITLED TO AMEND ITS CLAIMS ......................................................... 2
`A.
`Support .................................................................................................. 3
`IN VIEW OF TANENBAUM96 AND ALTEON .......................................... 5
`A.
`Tanenbaum96 and Alteon ..................................................................... 7
`1.
`comprising: .................................................................................. 7
`2.
`header; ......................................................................................... 7
`3.
`
`Substitute Claim 25 Is Obvious Over Erickson in view of
`
`[25.P] A method for network communication, the method
`
`[25.1] receiving a plurality of packets from the network,
`each of the packets including a media access control
`layer header, a network layer header and a transport layer
`
`[25.2] processing the packets by a first mechanism, so
`that for each packet the network layer header and the
`transport layer header are validated without an interrupt
`dividing the processing of the network layer header and
`
`the transport layer header; ........................................................... 7
`the packets of the first type each contain data; ........................... 8
`
`the
`the packets, dependent upon
`[25.3] sorting
`processing, into first and second types of packets, so that
`
`4.
`
`i
`
`

`

`
`
`5.
`
`B.
`
`Case IPR2017-01392
`U.S. Patent No. 7,337,241
`
`[25.4] sending, by the first mechanism, the data from
`each packet of the first type to a destination in memory
`allocated to an application running on a host computer
`without sending any of the media access control layer
`headers, network layer headers or transport layer headers
`to the destination or to a host protocol stack running on
`
`the host computer. ....................................................................... 8
`Tanenbaum96 and Alteon ................................................................... 11
`1.
`
`Substitute Claims 26-32 are Obvious Over Erickson in view of
`
`2.
`
`3.
`4.
`
`5.
`
`[26.1] The method of claim 25, wherein processing the
`packets by a first mechanism further comprises:
`processing the media access control layer header for each
`packet without an interrupt dividing the processing of the
`media access control layer header and the network layer
`
`header. ....................................................................................... 11
`
`[27.1] The method of claim 25, further comprising:
`processing an upper layer header of at least one of the
`packets by a second mechanism, thereby determining the
`destination, wherein the upper layer header corresponds
`
`to a protocol layer above the transport layer. ........................... 12
`thereby determining the destination. ......................................... 12
`
`[28.1] The method of claim 25, further comprising:
`processing an upper layer header of at least one of the
`packets of the second type by a second mechanism,
`
`[29.1] The method of claim 25, further comprising:
`processing a transport layer header of another packet by a
`second mechanism, prior to receiving the plurality of
`packets from
`the network,
`thereby establishing a
`Transmission Control Protocol (TCP) connection for the
`
`packets of the first type. ............................................................ 12
`Transmission Control Protocol (TCP). ..................................... 13
`
`[30.1] The method of claim 25, wherein sorting the
`packets includes classifying each of the packets of the
`first type as having an Internet Protocol (IP) header and a
`
`ii
`
`

`

`Case IPR2017-01392
`U.S. Patent No. 7,337,241
`
`transmitting a second plurality of packets to the network, ....... 13
`layer header and a transport layer header, ................................ 13
`
`[31.1.1] The method of claim 25, further comprising:
`
`the second plurality of packets
`[31.1.2] each of
`containing a media access control layer header, a network
`
`[31.1.3] including processing the second plurality of
`packets by the first mechanism, so that for each packet
`the media access control layer header, the network layer
`header and the transport layer header are prepended at
`
`[32.1] The method of claim 25, wherein the first
`
`
`
`6.
`7.
`8.
`
`C.
`
`one time as a packet header. ..................................................... 13
`9.
`mechanism is a sequencer running microcode. ........................ 13
`Tanenbaum96 ...................................................................................... 14
`1.
`network, the method comprising: ............................................. 14
`2.
`by a first processor; ................................................................... 14
`3.
`[33.2] dividing the data into multiple segments; ...................... 14
`4.
`
`Substitute Claim 33 Is Obvious Over Erickson in view of
`
`[33.P] A method for communicating information over a
`
`[33.1] obtaining data from a source in memory allocated
`
`[33.3] prepending a packet header to each of the
`segments by a second processor, thereby forming a
`packet corresponding to each segment, each packet
`header containing a media access control layer header, a
`network layer header and a transport layer header,
`wherein the network layer header is Internet Protocol
`(IP), the transport layer header is Transmission Control
`Protocol (TCP) and the media access control layer
`header, the network layer header and the transport layer
`header are prepended at one time as a sequence of bits
`
`during the prepending of each packet header; and ................... 15
`
`iii
`
`

`

`
`
`D.
`
`5.
`
`Case IPR2017-01392
`U.S. Patent No. 7,337,241
`
`[33.4] transmitting the packets to the network, wherein
`the dividing, prepending, and transmitting occur without
`the second processor generating an interrupt to the first
`
`Substitute Claims 34-40 Are Obvious Over Erickson in view of
`
`processor. .................................................................................. 15
`Tanenbaum96 ...................................................................................... 17
`1.
`created by the first processor. ................................................... 17
`2.
`
`[34.1] The method of claim 33, wherein each packet
`header is formed based upon a block of information
`
`[35.1] The method of claim 33, further comprising:
`receiving another packet from the network, the other
`packet containing a receive header including information
`corresponding to a network layer and a transport layer;
`
`and ............................................................................................. 17
`the transmitted packets. ............................................................. 17
`
`[35.2] determining, by the second processor, whether the
`other packet corresponds to the same TCP connection as
`
`[36.1] The method of claim 33, further comprising
`establishing a Transmission Control Protocol (TCP)
`connection by
`the first processor and using
`the
`connection to prepend the packet header to each of the
`
`[37.1] The method of claim 33, further comprising
`creating a template header and forming each packet
`
`[38.1] The method of claim 33, wherein obtaining data
`from the source in memory allocated by the first
`processor is performed by a Direct Memory Access
`
`segments by the second processor. ........................................... 18
`header based upon the template header. ................................... 18
`(DMA) unit controlled by the second processor. ...................... 18
`dividing the data into multiple segments. ................................. 18
`
`[39.1] The method of claim 33, further comprising
`prepending an upper layer header to the data, prior to
`
`iv
`
`3.
`4.
`
`5.
`6.
`7.
`
`

`

`Case IPR2017-01392
`U.S. Patent No. 7,337,241
`
`[40.1] The method of claim 33, further comprising:
`receiving another packet from the network, the other
`packet containing a receive header including information
`corresponding to a network layer and a transport layer;
`
`[40.2] selecting whether to process the other packet by
`
`
`
`8.
`
`E.
`
`and ............................................................................................. 19
`9.
`the first processor or by the second processor. ......................... 19
`Tanenbaum96 ...................................................................................... 19
`1.
`network, the method comprising: ............................................. 19
`2.
`and a Transmission Control Protocol (TCP) connection; ......... 19
`3.
`data into multiple segments; ..................................................... 20
`4.
`
`Substitute Claim 41 Is Obvious Over Erickson in view of
`
`[41.P] A method for communicating information over a
`
`[41.1] providing, by a first mechanism, a block of data
`
`[41.2] dividing, by a second mechanism, the block of
`
`the second mechanism, an
`[41.3] prepending, by
`outbound packet header to each of the segments, thereby
`forming an outbound packet corresponding to each
`segment, the outbound packet header containing an
`outbound media access control layer header, an outbound
`Internet Protocol (IP) header and an outbound TCP
`header, wherein the prepending of each outbound packet
`header occurs without an
`interrupt dividing
`the
`prepending of the outbound media access control layer
`header, the outbound (IP) header and the outbound TCP
`
`header; and ................................................................................ 20
`the first mechanism. .................................................................. 20
`
`[41.4] transmitting the outbound packets to the network,
`wherein the dividing, prepending, and transmitting occur
`without the second mechanism generating an interrupt to
`
`5.
`
`v
`
`

`

`
`
`F.
`
`Case IPR2017-01392
`U.S. Patent No. 7,337,241
`
`Substitute Claims 42, 46, and 47 Are Obvious Over Erickson in
`
`view of Tanenbaum96 and Alteon ...................................................... 20
`1.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`4.
`
`5.
`
`6.
`7.
`
`[42.1] The method of claim 41, further comprising:
`receiving multiple inbound packets from the network,
`each of the inbound packets including an inbound media
`access control layer header, an inbound IP header and an
`
`inbound TCP header; ................................................................ 20
`
`[42.2] processing the inbound packets, so that for each
`packet the inbound IP header and the inbound TCP
`header are validated without an interrupt dividing the
`processing of the inbound network layer header and the
`
`inbound transport layer header; ................................................ 21
`outbound packet header to each of the segments. ..................... 21
`
`[42.3] wherein the processing the inbound packets is
`performed simultaneously with
`the prepending
`the
`
`[46.1] The method of claim 41, further comprising:
`receiving multiple inbound packets from the network,
`each of the inbound packets including an inbound media
`access control layer header, an inbound IP header and an
`
`inbound TCP header; ................................................................ 21
`
`[46.2] processing the inbound packets, so that for each
`packet the inbound IP header and the inbound TCP
`header are validated without an interrupt dividing the
`processing of the inbound network layer header and the
`
`inbound transport layer header; and .......................................... 22
`headers or TCP headers to the destination. ............................... 22
`
`[46.3] sending data from each inbound packet to a
`destination in memory allocated to an application without
`sending any of the media access control layer headers, IP
`
`[47.1] The method of claim 46, further comprising:
`processing an upper layer header of at least one of the
`packets by the second mechanism, thereby determining
`the destination, wherein
`the upper
`layer header
`
`corresponds to a protocol layer above the transport layer. ....... 22
`
`vi
`
`

`

`Case IPR2017-01392
`U.S. Patent No. 7,337,241
`
`Substitute Claims 43-45 and 48 Are Obvious Over Erickson in
`
`[43.1] The method of claim 41, further comprising
`creating a template header and using the template header
`
`view of Tanenbaum96 ......................................................................... 22
`1.
`to form each outbound packet header. ...................................... 22
`2.
`second mechanism. ................................................................... 23
`3.
`prior to dividing the block of data into multiple segments. ...... 23
`4.
`
`
`
`G.
`
`[44.1] The method of claim 41, wherein the TCP
`connection is passed from the first mechanism to the
`
`[45.1] The method of claim 44, further comprising
`prepending an upper layer header to the block of data,
`
`[48.1] The method of claim 41, further comprising:
`processing a transport layer header of another inbound
`packet, prior to receiving the plurality of packets from
`the network, thereby establishing a Transmission Control
`
`Protocol (TCP) connection for the inbound packets. ................ 23
`IV. CONCLUSION .............................................................................................. 23
`
`
`
`
`vii
`
`

`

`Case IPR2017-01392
`U.S. Patent No. 7,337,241
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`Page(s)
`
`
`
`Cases
`
`Aqua Products, Inc. v. Matal,
`872 F.3d 1290 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (en banc) .............................................................. 2
`
`B.E. Tech., L.L.C. v. Google, Inc.,
`Nos. 2015-1827, 2015-1828, 2015-1829, 2015-1879,
`2016 U.S. App. LEXIS 20591 (Fed. Cir. Nov. 17, 2016) ...................................... 4
`Respironics, Inc. v. Zoll Med. Corp.,
`No. IPR2013-00322, 2014 WL 4715644
`(P.T.A.B. Sept. 17, 2014) ....................................................................................... 3
`
`Statutes and Regulations
`
`35 U.S.C. § 102(e) ..................................................................................................... 5
`35 U.S.C. § 316(d) ..................................................................................................... 2
`35 U.S.C. § 316(d)(1)(a)–(b) ..................................................................................... 2
`35 U.S.C. § 316(d)(3)................................................................................................. 2
`37 C.F.R. § 42.121(a)(2)(ii) ....................................................................................... 2
`37 C.F.R. § 42.121(b) ................................................................................................ 2
`77 Fed. Reg. 48756 (Aug. 14, 2012) ......................................................................... 3
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`viii
`
`

`

`
`
`EXHIBIT LIST
`
`Case IPR2017-01392
`U.S. Patent No. 7,337,241
`
`Exhibit #
`
`Description
`
`1001
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,337,241 (“241 Patent”)
`
`1002
`
`Excerpts from Prosecution File History of U.S. Patent No.
`7,337,241 (“241 File History”)
`
`1003
`
`Declaration of Robert Horst
`
`1004
`
`Curriculum Vitae of Robert Horst
`
`1005
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,768,618 (“Erickson”)
`
`1006
`
`1007
`
`1008
`
`1009
`
`1010
`
`1011
`
`1012
`
`1013
`
`1014
`
`Tanenbaum, Andrew S., Computer Networks, Prentice-Hall, Inc.,
`New Jersey (1996). (“Tanenbaum96”)
`Transmission Control Protocol, “Darpa Internet Protocol
`Specification”, RFC: 793, Sept. 1981. (“RFC 793”)
`Stevens, W. Richard, TCP/IP Illustrated Volume 1: The Protocols,
`Addison-Wesley (1994). (“Stevens1”)
`Lilinkamp, J., Mandell. R. and Padlipsky, M., “Proposed Host-
`Front End Protocol”, Network Working Group Request for
`Comments: 929, Dec. 1984. (“RFC 929”)
`Number Not Used
`Librarian Declaration of Rice Mayors regarding Andrew S.
`Tanenbaum, Computer Networks (3rd ed. 1996)
`(Ex.1006,“Tanenbaum96”)
`Number Not Used
`Stevens, W. Richard and Gary R. Wright, TCP/IP Illustrated
`Volume 2: The Implementation, Addison-Wesley (1995).
`(“Stevens2”)
`Number Not Used
`
`ix
`
`

`

`
`
`1015
`
`1016
`
`1017
`
`1018
`
`1019
`
`1020
`
`1021
`
`1022
`
`1023
`
`1024
`
`1025
`
`1026
`
`Case IPR2017-01392
`U.S. Patent No. 7,337,241
`
`Thia, Y.H., Woodside, C.M., “A Reduced Operation Protocol
`Engine (ROPE) for a Multiple-Layer Bypass Architecture”,
`Protocols for High Speed Networks (Dordrecht), 1995. (“Thia”)
`Biersack, E. W., Rütsche E., “Demultiplexing on the ATM
`Adapter: Experiments with Internet Protocols in User Space”,
`Journal on High Speed Networks, Vol. 5, No. 2, May 1996.
`(“Biersack”)
`Rütsche, E., Kaiserswerth, M., “TCP/IP on the Parallel Protocol
`Engine”, Proceedings, IFIP Conference on High Performance
`Networking, Liege (Belgium), Dec. 1992. (“Rütsche92”)
`Rütsche, E., “The Architecture of a Gb/s Multimedia Protocol
`Adapter”, Computer Communication Review, 1993. (“Rütsche93”)
`Padlipsky, M. A., “A Proposed Protocol for Connecting Host
`Computers to Arpa-Like Networks Via Directly-Connected Front
`End Processors”, Network Working Group RFC #647, Nov. 1974.
`(“RFC 647”)
`U.S. Patent No. 5,619,650 (“Bach”)
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,915,124 (“Morris”)
`Cooper, E.C., et al., “Protocol Implementation on the Nectar
`Communication Processor”, School of Computer Science, Carnegie
`Mellon University, Sept. 1990. (“Cooper”)
`Kung, H.T., et al., “A Host Interface Architecture for High-Speed
`Networks”, School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon
`University and Network Systems Corporation. (“Kung”)
`Exhibit D to Declaration of Dr. Gregory L. Chesson in Support of
`Microsoft’s Opposition to Alacritech’s Motion for Preliminary
`Injunction: “Protocol Engine Handbook”, Protocol Engines
`Incorporated, Oct. 1990. (“Chesson”)
`Kanakia, H., Cheriton, D.R., “The VMP Network Adapter Board
`(NAB): High-Performance Network Communication for
`Multiprocessors”, Communications Architectures & Protocols,
`Stanford University, Aug. 1988. (“Kanakia”)
`Kung, H.T., Cooper, E.C., et al., “Network-Based Multicomputers:
`An Emerging Parallel Architectures”, School of Computer Science,
`Carnegie Mellon University. (“Kung and Cooper”)
`
`x
`
`

`

`
`
`1027
`
`1028
`
`1029
`
`1030
`
`1031
`
`1032
`
`1033
`
`1034
`
`1035
`
`1036
`
`Case IPR2017-01392
`U.S. Patent No. 7,337,241
`
`Dalton, C., et al., “Afterburner: Architectural Support for High-
`Performance Protocols”, Networks & Communications
`Laboratories, HP Laboratories Bristol, July 1993. (“Dalton”)
`Murphy, E., Hayes, S., Enders, M., TCP/IP Tutorial and Technical
`Overview Fifth Edition, Prentice-Hall, Inc. New Jersey, (1995).
`(“Murphy”)
`MacLean, A.R., Barvick, S. E., “An Outboard Processor for High
`Performance Implementation of Transport Layer Protocols”, IEEE
`Globecom ’91, Phoenix, AZ, Dec. 1991. (“MacLean”)
`Clark, D.D., et al., “An Analysis of TCP Processing Overhead”,
`IEEE Communications Magazine, June 1989. (“Clark”)
`U.S. Provisional Application 60/061,809 (“Alacritech 1997
`Provisional Application”)
`Culler, E.C., et al., “Parallel Computing on the Berkeley NOW”,
`Computer Science Division, University of California, Berkeley.
`(“Culler”)
`“Gigabit Ethernet Technical Brief: Achieving End-to-End
`Performance”, Alteon Networks, Inc. First Edition, Sept. 1996.
`(“Alteon”)
`Smith, J.A., Primmer, M., “Tachyon: A Gigabit Fibre Channel
`Protocol Chip”, Hewlett-Packard Journal, Article 12, Oct. 1996.
`(“Smith”)
`Patterson, D.A., Hennessy, J.L., Computer Architecture: A
`Quantitative Approach, Morgan Kaufmann Publishers, Inc., San
`Mateo, CA (1990). (“Patterson”)
`Internet Protocol, “Darpa Internet Protocol Specification”, RFC:
`791, Sept. 1981. (“RFC 791”)
`
`1037
`
`1038
`
`Number Not Used
`Woodside, C. M., Ravindran, K. and Franks, R. G.. “The protocol
`bypass concept for high speed OSI data transfer.” IFIP Workshop
`on Protocols for High Speed Networks. 1990. (“Woodside”)
`Joint Claim Construction and Pre-Hearing Statement Pursuant to
`Rule 4-3 (Alacritech, Inc. v. Dell Inc, Intel Corporation, et al.)
`(“JCCS”)
`1040-1050 Numbers Not Used
`
`1039
`
`xi
`
`

`

`Case IPR2017-01392
`U.S. Patent No. 7,337,241
`
`
`
`1051
`
`U.S. Patent No. 4,027,293
`
`1052
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,329,630
`
`1053-1061 Numbers Not Used
`
`1062
`
`Rebuttal Declaration of Paul S. Min in Support of Plaintiff’s Claim
`Construction Brief (“Min Rebuttal Declaration”)
`
`1063-1076 Numbers Not Used
`
`1077
`
`Deposition of Paul S. Min on March 21, 2017 (“Min Depo”)
`
`1087
`
`1201
`
`1078-1086 Numbers Not Used
`Librarian Declaration of Christopher Butler regarding “Gigabit
`Ethernet Technical Brief: Achieving End-to-End Performance”,
`Alteon Networks, Inc. First Edition, Sept. 1996. (Ex.1033,
`“Alteon”) (“First Butler Declaration”)
`1088-1200 Numbers Not Used
`A true and correct copy of the following website as of December 27,
`2017:
`https://web.archive.org/web/19970622102719/http://www.alteon.com/
`index.html
`“Archived version of the Alteon home page”.
`
`A true and correct copy of the following website as of December 27,
`2017:
`https://web.archive.org/web/19970622102647/http://www.alteon.com:
`80/presintr.html
`
`A true and correct copy of the following website as of December 27,
`2017:
`https://web.archive.org/web/19970622102901/http://www.alteon.com:
`80/techbr01.html
`
`1202
`
`1203
`
`xii
`
`

`

`Case IPR2017-01392
`U.S. Patent No. 7,337,241
`
`
`
`1204
`
`1205
`
`A true and correct copy of the following website as of December 27,
`2017:
`https://web.archive.org/web/19970622103538/http://www.alteon.com:
`80/whitpapr.pdf
`Request for Comments (“RFC”) 2026
`A true and correct copy of the following website as of December 27,
`2017:
`https://www.rfc-editor.org/search/rfc_search_detail.php?rfc=
`929&pubstatus%5B%5D=Any&pub_date_type=any
`A true and correct copy of the following website as of December 27,
`2017:
`https://www.rfc-
`editor.org/search/rfc_search_detail.php?rfc=793&pubstatus%5B%5D
`=Any&pub_date_type=any
`1208-1209 Numbers Not Used
`Declaration of Robert Horst, Ph. D. In Support of Petitioner’s
`Response in Opposition to Patent Owner’s Contingent Motion to
`Amend (April 4, 2018)
`1211-1214 Numbers Not Used
`
`1206
`
`1207
`
`1210
`
`1215
`
`Second Affidavit of Christopher Butler (March 16, 2018)
`
`1216
`
`Number Not Used
`
`1217
`
`The Memory-Integrated Network Interface by Ron Minnich, et al.
`(February 1995)
`
`1218
`
`Number Not Used
`
`1219
`
`Budding Alteon to Offer Gigabit Ethernet Switch, InfoWorld, (August
`26, 1996)
`
`1220
`
`IBM, Alteon Strike Gigabit Ethernet deal, InfoWorld (May 12, 1997)
`
`1221
`
`Internet pages directed to Technical Brief on Alteon Ethernet Gigabit
`NIC (Printed Mar. 15, 1997)
`
`xiii
`
`

`

`Case IPR2017-01392
`U.S. Patent No. 7,337,241
`
`1222
`
`The design of Nectar : a network backplane for heterogeneous
`multicomputers by E. Arnould, et al. (1989)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`xiv
`
`

`

`Case IPR2017-01392
`U.S. Patent No. 7,337,241
`
`
`INTRODUCTION
`The Board should deny Patent Owner’s Contingent Motion to Amend
`
`I.
`
`(“Motion,” Paper No. 25) all 24 claims of U.S. Patent No. 7,337,241 (“241
`
`Patent”). Patent Owner has not met its burden to show it is entitled to the
`
`substitute claims because it has failed to show support in the original disclosure.
`
`Furthermore, even if Patent Owner had met its burden, all of the substitute claims
`
`are obvious over the prior art in the Petition for Inter Partes Review (“Petition,”
`
`Paper No. 2).
`
`Patent Owner has used string citations to broad swaths of pages and figures
`
`in the disclosures (in fact, some of the exact same pages and figures in the
`
`original disclosures and priority application are cited for each limitation of the
`
`three independent claims) without any attempt to explain how the substitute claims
`
`are supported by those disclosures. It is not Petitioner’s or the Board’s job to sift
`
`through these repetitive string citations to piece together Patent Owner’s claim of
`
`support.
`
`Additionally, the substitute claims are all obvious in view of the prior art
`
`cited in the Petition. Substitute claim 25 would amend claim 1 (dependent
`
`substitute claims 26-32 are identical to dependent claims 2-8), to add limitations
`
`that require only that certain packet headers are not sent with the data to a
`
`destination memory or a host protocol stack running on a host computer,
`
`1
`
`

`

`
`limitations already met by the cited prior art combination. Substitute claims 33
`
`Case IPR2017-01392
`U.S. Patent No. 7,337,241
`
`and 41 would amend claims 9 and 17 (dependent substitute claims 34-40 and 42-48
`
`are identical to claims 10-16 and 18-25, respectively) to add limitations that require
`
`only avoiding an interrupt from a second processor to a first processor during the
`
`dividing, prepending, and transmitting processes. The Board has already found in
`
`its institution decision that the host processor would not need to be interrupted
`
`since these processes occur on the second processor, as disclosed by the
`
`combination of prior art cited in the Petition. Paper 11, Institution Decision at 19.
`
`II.
`
`PATENT OWNER HAS NOT MET ITS BURDEN TO SHOW IT IS
`ENTITLED TO AMEND ITS CLAIMS
`“There is no disagreement that the patent owner bears a burden of
`
`production in accordance 35 U.S.C. § 316(d).” Aqua Products, Inc. v. Matal, 872
`
`F.3d 1290, 1340–41 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (en banc); see also, e.g., id. at 1305–06
`
`(explaining that “patent owner must satisfy the Board that the statutory criteria in §
`
`316(d)(1)(a)–(b) and § 316(d)(3) are met and that any reasonable procedural
`
`obligations imposed by the Director are satisfied”); Motion at 1. As part of that
`
`production, the patent owner must show that there is sufficient written description
`
`support. 35 U.S.C. § 316(d)(3); 37 C.F.R. § 42.121(a)(2)(ii). Here, Patent Owner
`
`does not show written description support for any of its claims.
`
`2
`
`

`

`
`
`Case IPR2017-01392
`U.S. Patent No. 7,337,241
`
`A.
`
`Patent Owner Does Not Show Adequate Written Description
`Support
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.121(b), Patent Owner bears the burden in the
`
`Motion to Amend to set forth “[t]he support in the original disclosure of the patent
`
`for each claim that is added or amended,” and “[t]he support in an earlier-filed
`
`disclosure for each claim for which benefit of the filing date of the earlier filed
`
`disclosure is sought.” Here, Patent Owner does nothing more than include string
`
`citations to large groups of figures and lengthy blocks of text in Appendix A and
`
`B. Despite having almost five additional pages available but unused in its briefing,
`
`Patent Owner provides no explanation for how the numerous pages and figures in
`
`its string citations support the various limitations for which they are cited. This
`
`merely shifts the burden on the Board, Petitioner, and the public to sift through
`
`these myriad citations and cull out Patent Owner’s support, which does not satisfy
`
`Patent Owner’s burden. Respironics, Inc. v. Zoll Med. Corp., No. IPR2013-00322,
`
`2014 WL 4715644, at *13 (P.T.A.B. Sept. 17, 2014) (“Zoll’s string citations
`
`amount to little more than an invitation to us (and to Respironics, and to the public)
`
`to peruse the cited evidence and piece together a coherent argument for them. This
`
`we will not do; it is the province of advocacy.”), vacated and remanded on other
`
`grounds, No. 2015-1485, 656 F. App’x 1 (Fed. Cir. July 29, 2016); see also Office
`
`Patent Trial Practice Guide, 77 Fed. Reg. 48756, 48767 (Aug. 14, 2012) (“If the
`
`3
`
`

`

`
`Board is unable to determine how the specification and drawings support the
`
`Case IPR2017-01392
`U.S. Patent No. 7,337,241
`
`proposed substitute claims, the motion to amend may be denied.”).
`
`For example, for the three independent claims (the only substitute claims
`
`with new limitations), Patent Owner cites to the exact same five figures in the
`
`original disclosure (along with other large sections) for every limitation. Patent
`
`Owner provides no explanation for how these five figures support either the
`
`original limitations or the modified limitations. For the application, Patent Owner
`
`cites to entire sections to support the claim limitations, again with no explanation.
`
`Accordingly, Patent Owner has not met its burden to show sufficient written
`
`description support. See, e.g., B.E. Tech., L.L.C. v. Google, Inc., Nos. 2015-1827,
`
`2015-1828, 2015-1829, 2015-1879, 2016 U.S. App. LEXIS 20591, at *21-24 (Fed.
`
`Cir. Nov. 17, 2016) (finding Board did not err when it found that Patent Owner did
`
`not meet its burden where it “only provided a string citation to eighteen different
`
`pages .... without explaining how those various pages supported each of the
`
`proposed substitute limitations”).
`
`Additionally, the portions of the priority application cited by Patent Owner
`
`for support of the “transmitting the [outbound] packets to the network, wherein the
`
`dividing, prepending, and transmitting occur without the second mechanism
`
`generating an interrupt to the first mechanism” (substituted claims 33 and 41,
`
`emphasis added) do not support the claimed limitation. Motion, App’x B at x, xii
`
`4
`
`

`

`
`(Paper No. 25). For example, in § 2.4.3, the priority application discloses that a
`
`Case IPR2017-01392
`U.S. Patent No. 7,337,241
`
`“Fast-path 400 byte send” with the INIC “will result in one interrupt.” Ex. 2019 at
`
`.016. However, it does not disclose when the interrupt occurs or whether it occurs
`
`before, after, or during a dividing step. Id.; Ex.1210 at ¶ 35, Horst Opp. Decl.
`
`III. SUBSTITUTE CLAIMS 25-48 ARE OBVIOUS OVER ERICKSON IN
`VIEW OF TANENBAUM96 AND ALTEON
`The claim amendments fail to render any of the claims patentable over the
`
`art in the Petition: Erickson, Tanenbaum96, and Alteon. Each of these references
`
`qualifies as prior art to the 241 Patent under at least 35 U.S.C. § 102(e). As shown
`
`in the Petition, Tanenbaum96 was published in 1996 and is therefore prior art to
`
`the October 14, 1997 provisional application to which the 241 Patent claims
`
`priority. See Petition at 38 n.5. Erickson was filed on December 21, 1995 and
`
`issued on June 16, 1998 and is also prior art to the 241 Patent. See Petition at 31
`
`n.4.
`
`Alteon is dated September 1996 and was publicly available on Alteon
`
`Networks’ website as of at least June 22, 1997. Ex. 1215, Second Butler
`
`Declaration; Ex.1210 at ¶¶ 20-32, Horst Opp. Decl. Alteon Networks’ website was
`
`public and was well known to those interested in the relevant art. Id. at ¶ 15.
`
`During the prior art period, Alteon could be located through a series of links from
`
`Alteon Networks’ home page. Id. at ¶¶ 21-29. Further, Alteon was available to be
`
`indexed, and was indexed and archived by the Internet Archive by at least January
`5
`
`

`

`
`13, 1997. Ex. 1087, First Butler Declaration. Thus, Alteon is also prior art to the
`
`Case IPR2017-01392
`U.S. Patent No. 7,337,241
`
`241 patent.
`
`Alteon was also disclosed explicitly in the 241 Patent itself. Ex. 1001 at
`
`.003. It was disclosed by Patent Owner on July 11, 2003 to the Patent Office as
`
`part of the prosecution of the 241 Patent. Ex. 1002 at .260. Further, also during
`
`the prosecution of the 241 Patent, Patent Owner cited “Internet pages directed to
`
`Technical Brief on Alteon Ethernet Gigabit NIC technology, www.alteon.com, 14
`
`pages, printed Mar. 15, 1997.” (emphasis added). Ex. 1001 at .003; Ex. 1221 at
`
`.001- .015. While this is not the same document as Alteon, it is from the same
`
`website (Alteon.com) and contains much of the same text and figures as Alteon.
`
`Based on Patent Owner’s representation that this information was “printed Mar.
`
`15, 1997” from www.alteon.com, this further shows that a person of ordinary skill
`
`in the art (“P