UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`______________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`______________________
`
`INTEL CORPORATION
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`ALACRITECH, INC.
`Patent Owner
`________________________
`
`Case IPR. No. 2017-01392
`U.S. Patent No. 7,337,241
`Title: FAST-PATH APPARATUS FOR RECEIVING DATA CORRESPONDING
`TO A TCP CONNECTION
`________________________
`
`Corrected Petition For Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,337,241 Under
`35 U.S.C. §§ 311-319 and 37 C.F.R. §§ 42.1-.80, 42.100-.123
`
`
`
`Mail Stop “PATENT BOARD”
`Patent Trial and Appeal Board
`U.S. Patent and Trademark Office
`P.O. Box 1450
`Alexandria, VA 22313-1450
`
`

`

`1. 
`2. 
`
`3. 
`
`4. 
`
`5. 
`6. 
`7. 
`
`8. 
`9. 
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,337,241
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`Page
`
`INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................... 1 
`REQUIREMENTS FOR PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW ........ 1 
`2.1.  Grounds for Standing (37 C.F.R. § 42.104(a)) ..................................... 1 
`2.2.  Notice of Lead and Backup Counsel and Service Information ............. 1 
`2.3.  Notice of Real-Parties-in-Interest (37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(1)) .................. 2 
`2.4.  Notice of Related Matters (37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(2)) .............................. 3 
`2.5.  Fee for Inter Partes Review ................................................................ 14 
`2.6.  Proof of Service ................................................................................... 14 
`IDENTIFICATION OF CLAIMS BEING CHALLENGED
`(§ 42.104(B)) ................................................................................................. 14 
`BACKGROUND OF THE TECHNOLOGY ................................................ 15 
`4.1.  TCP/IP ................................................................................................. 16 
`4.2.  UDP/IP ................................................................................................ 20 
`4.3.  Protocol Offload .................................................................................. 20 
`OVERVIEW OF THE 241 PATENT ............................................................ 21 
`241 PATENT PROSECUTION HISTORY .................................................. 24 
`CLAIM CONSTRUCTION .......................................................................... 25 
`7.1.  Applicable Law ................................................................................... 25 
`7.2.  Construction of Claim Terms .............................................................. 25 
`7.2.1. 
`“[first/second] mechanism” ................................................. 26 
`7.2.2. 
`“without an interrupt dividing” ............................................ 34 
`PERSON HAVING ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART ............................. 35 
`DESCRIPTION OF THE PRIOR ART ........................................................ 35 
`9.1.  U.S. Patent No. 5,768,618 (“Erickson”) ............................................. 35 
`9.2.  Tanenbaum96: A. Tanenbaum, Computer Networks, 3rd ed.
`(1996) .................................................................................................. 38 
`“Gigabit Ethernet Technical Brief: Achieving End-to-End
`Performance” by Alteon Networks (Ex.1033, “Alteon”) ................... 40 
`i
`
`9.3. 
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,337,241
`
`10.1.2. 
`
`10.1.3. 
`
`9.4.  Alacritech’s expert admits that almost all of the limitations are
`found in the prior art ............................................................................ 42 
`9.5.  Motivations To Combine Erickson and Tanenbaum96 ...................... 43 
`9.6.  Motivations To Combine Erickson, Tanenbaum96, and Alteon ........ 47 
`10.  GROUND #1: CLAIMS 1-8, 18, 22, AND 23 ARE
`UNPATENTABLE AS OBVIOUS OVER ERICKSON
`IN
`COMBINATION WITH TANENBAUM96 AND ALTEON ...................... 49 
`10.1.  Claim 1
`is unpatentable as obvious over Erickson
`in
`combination with Tanenbaum96 and Alteon ...................................... 50 
`10.1.1. 
`[1.P] A method for network communication, the
`method comprising: ............................................................. 50 
`[1.1] 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 header; ......................................................... 50 
`[1.2] 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; ................................. 53 
`[1.3] sorting
`the packets, dependent upon
`the
`processing, into first and second types of packets, so
`that the packets of the first type each contain data; ............. 55 
`[1.4] sending, by the first mechanism, the data from
`each packet of the first type to a destination in
`memory allocated to an application without sending
`any of the media access control layer headers,
`network layer headers or transport layer headers to the
`destination. ........................................................................... 56 
`10.2.  Claim 2
`is unpatentable as obvious over Erickson
`in
`combination with Tanenbaum96 and Alteon ...................................... 58 
`
`10.1.4. 
`
`10.1.5. 
`
`
`
`ii
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,337,241
`
`10.2.1. 
`
`[2.1] The method of claim 1, 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. .............................................. 58 
`10.3.  Claim 3
`is unpatentable as obvious over Erickson
`in
`combination with Tanenbaum96 and Alteon ...................................... 59 
`10.3.1. 
`[3.1] The method of claim 1, 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. ..................................................................................... 59 
`10.4.  Claim 4
`is unpatentable as obvious over Erickson
`in
`combination with Tanenbaum96 and Alteon ...................................... 61 
`10.4.1. 
`[4.1] The method of claim 1, further comprising:
`processing an upper layer header of at least one of the
`packets of the second type by a second mechanism,
`thereby determining the destination. .................................... 61 
`10.5.  Claim 5
`is unpatentable as obvious over Erickson
`in
`combination with Tanenbaum96 and Alteon ...................................... 61 
`10.5.1. 
`[5.1] The method of claim 1, 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. ......................... 61 
`10.6.  Claim 6
`is unpatentable as obvious over Erickson
`in
`combination with Tanenbaum96 and Alteon ...................................... 63 
`10.6.1. 
`[6.1] The method of claim 1, wherein sorting the
`packets includes classifying each of the packets of the
`first type as having an Internet Protocol (IP) header
`and a Transmission Control Protocol (TCP). ...................... 63 
`
`
`
`iii
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,337,241
`
`10.7.2. 
`
`10.7.3. 
`
`10.7.  Claim 7
`in
`is unpatentable as obvious over Erickson
`combination with Tanenbaum96 and Alteon ...................................... 64 
`10.7.1. 
`[7.1.1] The method of claim 1, further comprising:
`transmitting a second plurality of packets to the
`network, ............................................................................... 64 
`[7.1.2] each of the second plurality of packets
`containing a media access control layer header, a
`network layer header and a transport layer header, ............. 65 
`[7.1.3] 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 one time as a packet header. ..................... 67 
`10.8.  Claim 8
`is unpatentable as obvious over Erickson
`in
`combination with Tanenbaum96 and Alteon ...................................... 71 
`10.8.1. 
`[8.1] The method of claim 1, wherein the first
`mechanism is a sequencer running microcode. ................... 71 
`11.  GROUND #2: CLAIMS 9-24 ARE UNPATENTABLE AS
`OBVIOUS OVER ERICKSON
`IN COMBINATION WITH
`TANENBAUM96 .......................................................................................... 71 
`11.1.  Claim 9
`is unpatentable as obvious over Erickson
`in
`combination with Tanenbaum96 ......................................................... 72 
`11.1.1. 
`[9.P] A method for communicating information over a
`network, the method comprising: ........................................ 72 
`[9.1] obtaining data from a source in memory
`allocated by a first processor; .............................................. 72 
`[9.2] dividing the data into multiple segments; ................... 73 
`[9.3.1] prepending a packet header to each of the
`segments by a second processor, thereby forming a
`packet corresponding to each segment, ............................... 73 
`
`11.1.2. 
`
`11.1.3. 
`11.1.4. 
`
`
`
`iv
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,337,241
`
`11.1.5. 
`
`11.1.6. 
`
`[9.3.2] 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 ........... 74 
`[9.3.3] 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 .......................... 74 
`[9.4] transmitting the packets to the network. ..................... 74 
`11.1.7. 
`11.2.  Claim 10 is unpatentable as obvious over Erickson in
`combination with Tanenbaum96 ......................................................... 75 
`11.2.1. 
`[10.1] The method of claim 9, wherein each packet
`header is formed based upon a block of information
`created by the first processor. .............................................. 75 
`11.3.  Claim 11 is unpatentable as obvious over Erickson in
`combination with Tanenbaum96 ......................................................... 76 
`11.3.1. 
`[11.1] The method of claim 9, 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 .............................................................. 76 
`[11.2] determining, by the second processor, whether
`the other packet corresponds to the same TCP
`connection as the transmitted packets.................................. 77 
`11.4.  Claim 12 is unpatentable as obvious over Erickson in
`combination with Tanenbaum96 ......................................................... 78 
`11.4.1. 
`[12.1] The method of claim 9, 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
`segments by the second processor. ...................................... 78 
`11.5.  Claim 13 is unpatentable as obvious over Erickson in
`combination with Tanenbaum96 ......................................................... 81 
`
`11.3.2. 
`
`
`
`v
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,337,241
`
`11.5.1. 
`
`11.8.2. 
`
`[13.1] The method of claim 9, further comprising
`creating a template header and forming each packet
`header based upon the template header. .............................. 81 
`11.6.  Claim 14 is unpatentable as obvious over Erickson in
`combination with Tanenbaum96 ......................................................... 81 
`11.6.1. 
`[14.1] The method of claim 9, wherein obtaining data
`from the source in memory allocated by the first
`processor is performed by a Direct Memory Access
`(DMA) unit controlled by the second processor. ................ 81 
`11.7.  Claim 15 is unpatentable as obvious over Erickson in
`combination with Tanenbaum96 ......................................................... 82 
`11.7.1. 
`[15.1] The method of claim 9, further comprising
`prepending an upper layer header to the data, prior to
`dividing the data into multiple segments. ............................ 82 
`11.8.  Claim 16 is unpatentable as obvious over Erickson in
`combination with Tanenbaum96 ......................................................... 83 
`11.8.1. 
`[16.1] The method of claim 9, 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 .............................................................. 83 
`[16.2] selecting whether to process the other packet by
`the first processor or by the second processor. .................... 84 
`11.9.  Claim 17 is unpatentable as obvious over Erickson in
`combination with Tanenbaum96 ......................................................... 84 
`11.9.1. 
`[17.P] A method for communicating information over
`a network, the method comprising: ..................................... 84 
`[17.1] providing, by a first mechanism, a block of data
`and a Transmission Control Protocol
`(TCP)
`connection; ........................................................................... 84 
`[17.2] dividing, by a second mechanism, the block of
`data into multiple segments; ................................................ 86 
`
`11.9.2. 
`
`11.9.3. 
`
`
`
`vi
`
`

`

`11.9.5. 
`
`11.9.6. 
`
`11.9.7. 
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,337,241
`
`11.9.4. 
`
`[17.3.1] prepending, by the second mechanism, an
`outbound packet header to each of the segments,
`thereby forming an outbound packet corresponding to
`each segment, ....................................................................... 86 
`[17.3.2] the outbound packet header containing an
`outbound media access control layer header, an
`outbound Internet Protocol (IP) header and an
`outbound TCP header, ......................................................... 86 
`[17.3.3] 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 .................................................. 87 
`[17.4] transmitting the outbound packets to the
`network. ............................................................................... 87 
`11.10. Claim 19 is unpatentable as obvious over Erickson in
`combination with Tanenbaum96 ......................................................... 87 
`11.10.1.  [19.1] The method of claim 17, further comprising
`creating a template header and using the template
`header to form each outbound packet header. ..................... 87 
`11.11. Claim 20 is unpatentable as obvious over Erickson in
`combination with Tanenbaum96 ......................................................... 88 
`11.11.1.  [20.1] The method of claim 17, wherein the TCP
`connection is passed from the first mechanism to the
`second mechanism. .............................................................. 88 
`11.12. Claim 21 is unpatentable as obvious over Erickson in
`combination with Tanenbaum96 ......................................................... 88 
`11.12.1.  [21.1] The method of claim 20, further comprising
`prepending an upper layer header to the block of data,
`prior to dividing the block of data into multiple
`segments. .............................................................................. 88 
`11.13. Claim 24 is unpatentable as obvious over Erickson in
`combination with Tanenbaum96 ......................................................... 88 
`
`
`
`vii
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,337,241
`
`11.13.1.  [24.1] The method of claim 17, 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. ................................................................................. 88 
`12.  GROUND #3: CLAIMS 18, 22, 23 ARE UNPATENTABLE AS
`OBVIOUS OVER ERICKSON
`IN COMBINATION WITH
`TANENBAUM96 .......................................................................................... 89 
`12.1.  Claim 18 is unpatentable as obvious over Erickson in
`combination with Tanenbaum96 and Alteon ...................................... 90 
`12.1.1. 
`[18.1] The method of claim 17, 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; .................................... 90 
`[18.2] 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; ..................................... 90 
`[18.3] wherein the processing the inbound packets is
`performed simultaneously with the prepending the
`outbound packet header to each of the segments. ............... 90 
`12.2.  Claim 22 is unpatentable as obvious over Erickson in
`combination with Tanenbaum96 and Alteon ...................................... 91 
`12.2.1. 
`[22.1] The method of claim 17, 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; .................................... 91 
`[22.2] 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............................... 91 
`viii
`
`12.2.2. 
`
`
`
`12.1.2. 
`
`12.1.3. 
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,337,241
`
`12.2.3. 
`
`[22.3] 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 headers or TCP headers to the destination. ....... 91 
`12.3.  Claim 23 is unpatentable as obvious over Erickson in
`combination with Tanenbaum96 and Alteon ...................................... 92 
`12.3.1. 
`[23.1] The method of claim 22, 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. ..................................................................... 92 
`13.  CONCLUSION .............................................................................................. 92 
`
`
`
`
`ix
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,337,241
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`Page(s)
`
`Cases 
`Alacritech, Inc. v. CenturyLink, Inc.,
`2:16-cv-00693-JRG-RSP (E.D. Tex.) .................................................................... 3
`Alacritech, Inc. v. Dell Inc.,
`2:16-cv-00695-RWS-RSP (E.D. Tex.) ................................................................... 3
`Alacritech, Inc. v. Microsoft Corp.,
`3-04-cv-03284, (N.D. Cal) ..................................................................................... 3
`Alacritech, Inc. v. Wistron Corp.,
`2:16-cv-00692-JRG-RSP (E.D. Tex.) .................................................................... 3
`Flex-Rest, LLC v. Steelcase, Inc.,
`455 F.3d 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2006) ............................................................................ 28
`Media Rights Techs., Inc. v. Capital One Fin. Corp.,
`800 F.3d 1366, 2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 15767 (Fed. Cir. 2015) ......................... 30
`Phillips v. AWH Corp.,
`415 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005) ............................................................................ 25
`Uniloc USA, Inc. v. Autodesk, Inc.,
`No. 2:15-cv-1187-JRG-RSP, 2016 WL 3647977 (E.D. Tex. July 7, 2016) ........ 30
`Warner-Jenkinson Co., Inc. v. Hilton Davis Chem. Co.,
`520 U.S. 17 (1997) ............................................................................................... 28
`Williamson v. Citrix Online, LLC,
`792 F.3d 1339 (Fed. Cir. 2015) ............................................................................ 29
`
`Statutes 
`35 U.S.C. § 102(b) ............................................................................................ 38, 40
`35 U.S.C. § 102(e) ................................................................................................... 35
`35 U.S.C. § 103(a) ............................................................................................ 14, 15
`35 U.S.C. § 112 ........................................................................................................ 25
`35 U.S.C. § 112(6) ................................................................................ 26, 29, 30, 32
`35 U.S.C. §§ 311-319 ................................................................................................ 1
`37 C.F.R. § 42.10(a) ................................................................................................... 1
`
`i
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,337,241
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.10(b) .................................................................................................. 2
`37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b) .............................................................................................. 25
`37 C.F.R. § 42.104(a) ................................................................................................. 1
`37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b) .............................................................................................. 14
`37 C.F.R. § 42.15(a) ................................................................................................. 14
`37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(1) ................................................................................................ 2
`37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(2) ................................................................................................ 3
`37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(3) ................................................................................................ 1
`37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(4) ................................................................................................ 1
`37 C.F.R. §§ 42.1-.80 ................................................................................................. 1
`37 C.F.R. §§ 42.100-.123 ........................................................................................... 1
`77 Fed. Reg. 48680 (Aug. 14, 2012) ....................................................................... 25
`M.P.E.P. § 2181 ....................................................................................................... 29
`
`ii
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,337,241
`
`
`
`
`
`Exhibit List
`
`Exhibit #
`
`Description
`
`Ex.1001
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,337,241 (“241 Patent”)
`
`Ex.1002
`
`Excerpts from Prosecution File History of U.S. Patent No.
`7,337,241 (“241 File History”)
`
`Ex.1003
`
`Declaration of Robert Horst
`
`Ex.1004
`
`Curriculum Vitae of Robert Horst
`
`Ex.1005
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,768,618 (“Erickson”)
`
`Ex.1006
`
`Ex.1007
`
`Ex.1008
`
`Ex.1009
`
`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”)
`
`Ex.1010 Not Used
`
`Ex.1011
`
`Librarian Declaration of Rice Mayors regarding Andrew S.
`Tanenbaum, Computer Networks (3rd ed. 1996)
`(Ex.1006,“Tanenbaum96”)
`
`Ex.1012
`
`Not Used
`
`Ex.1013
`
`Stevens, W. Richard and Gary R. Wright, TCP/IP Illustrated
`Volume 2: The Implementation, Addison-Wesley (1995).
`(“Stevens2”)
`
`iii
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,337,241
`
`Exhibit #
`
`Ex.1014
`
`Not Used
`
`Description
`
`Ex.1015
`
`Ex.1016
`
`Ex.1017
`
`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”)
`
`Ex.1018
`
`Rütsche, E., “The Architecture of a Gb/s Multimedia Protocol
`Adapter”, Computer Communication Review, 1993. (“Rütsche93”)
`
`Ex.1019
`
`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”)
`
`Ex.1020
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,619,650 (“Bach”)
`
`Ex.1021
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,915,124 (“Morris”)
`
`Ex.1022
`
`Ex.1023
`
`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”)
`
`
`
`iv
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,337,241
`
`Exhibit #
`
`Ex.1024
`
`Ex.1025
`
`Ex.1026
`
`Ex.1027
`
`Ex.1028
`
`Ex.1029
`
`Ex.1030
`
`Ex.1031
`
`Ex.1032
`
`Description
`
`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”)
`
`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”)
`
`
`
`v
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,337,241
`
`Exhibit #
`
`Ex.1033
`
`Ex.1034
`
`Ex.1035
`
`Description
`
`“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”)
`
`Ex.1036
`
`Internet Protocol, “Darpa Internet Protocol Specification”, RFC:
`791, Sept. 1981. (“RFC 791”)
`
`Ex.1037
`
`Not Used
`
`Ex.1038
`
`Ex.1039
`
`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”)
`
`Exs.1040-
`1050
`
`Not Used
`
`Ex.1051
`
`U.S. Patent No. 4,027,293
`
`Ex.1052
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,329,630
`
`Ex.1053-
`1061
`
`Ex.1062
`
`
`
`Not Used
`
`Rebuttal Declaration of Paul S. Min in Support of Plaintiff’s Claim
`Construction Brief (“Min Rebuttal Declaration”)
`
`vi
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,337,241
`
`Exhibit #
`
`Ex.1063-
`1076
`
`Not Used
`
`Description
`
`Ex.1077
`
`Deposition of Paul S. Min on March 21, 2017 (“Min Depo”)
`
`Ex.1078-
`1086
`
`Not Used
`
`Ex.1087
`
`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”)
`
`vii
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,337,241
`
`1.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. §§ 311-319 and 37 C.F.R. §§ 42.1-.80, 42.100-.123,
`
`Intel Corporation (“Petitioner” or “Intel Corporation”) hereby petitions the Patent
`
`Trial and Appeal Board to institute an inter partes review of claims 1-24 of U.S.
`
`Patent No. 7,337,241,
`
`titled “Fast-Path Apparatus
`
`for Receiving Data
`
`Corresponding to a TCP connection” (Ex.1001, the “241 Patent”), and cancel those
`
`claims as unpatentable.
`
`2.
`
`REQUIREMENTS FOR PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW
`2.1. Grounds for Standing (37 C.F.R. § 42.104(a))
`Petitioner certifies that the 241 Patent is available for inter partes review and
`
`that Petitioner is not barred or estopped from requesting inter partes review of the
`
`challenged claims of the 241 Patent on the grounds identified herein.
`
`2.2. Notice of Lead and Backup Counsel and Service Information
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. §§ 42.8(b)(3), 42.8(b)(4), and 42.10(a), Petitioner
`
`provides the following designation of Lead and Back-Up counsel.
`
`Lead Counsel
`Garland T. Stephens
`Registration No. 37,242
`(garland.stephens@weil.com)
`
`Postal & Hand-Delivery Address:
`Weil, Gotshal & Manges LLP
`700 Louisiana St., Suite 1700
`Houston, TX 77002
`T: 713-546-5011; F: 713-224-9511
`Attorney for Intel Corporation
`
`Back-Up Counsel
`Jeremy Jason Lang
`Registration No. 73,604
`(jason.lang@weil.com)
`
`Postal & Hand-Delivery Address:
`Weil, Gotshal & Manges LLP
`201 Redwood Shores Parkway
`Redwood Shores, CA 94065
`T: 650-802-3237; F: 650-802-3100
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,337,241
`
`Lead Counsel
`
`
`
`Back-Up Counsel
`Anne Cappella
`Registration No. 43,217
`(anne.cappella@weil.com)
`
`Postal & Hand-Delivery Address:
`Weil, Gotshal & Manges LLP
`201 Redwood Shores Parkway
`Redwood Shores, CA 94065
`T: 650-802-3141; F: 650-802-3100
`
`Adrian Percer
`Registration No. 46,986
`(adrian.percer@weil.com)
`
`Postal & Hand-Delivery Address:
`Weil, Gotshal & Manges LLP
`201 Redwood Shores Parkway
`Redwood Shores, CA 94065
`T: 650-802-3124; F: 650-802-3100
`
`Attorneys for Intel Corporation
`
`Petitioner consents to service by electronic mail at the following address:
`
`Intel.Alacritech.IPR@weil.com. Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.10(b), a Power of
`
`Attorney for Petitioner is attached.
`
`2.3. Notice of Real-Parties-in-Interest (37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(1))
`Petitioner, Intel Corporation, is the real-party-in-interest. No other parties
`
`exercised or could have exercised control over this petition; no other parties funded
`
`or directed this Petition. See Office Patent Trial Practice Guide, 77 Fed. Reg.
`
`48759-60.
`
`
`
`2
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,337,241
`
`2.4. Notice of Rel