`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`______________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`______________________
`
`INTEL CORP., CAVIUM, INC., WISTRON, INC., and DELL INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`ALACRITECH, INC.,
`Patent Owner.
`______________________
`
`Case IPR2017-013921
`U.S. Patent No. 7,337,241
`Title: FAST-PATH APPARATUS FOR RECEIVING DATA CORRESPONDING
`TO A TCP CONNECTION
`______________________
`
`DECLARATION OF ROBERT HORST IN SUPPORT OF PETITIONER’S
`SUR-REPLY IN OPPOSITION TO PATENT OWNER’S MOTION
`TO AMEND FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW OF
`U.S. PATENT NO. 7,337,241
`
`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, Wistron, Inc., which
`
`filed a Petition in Case IPR2018-00328, and Dell Inc., which filed a Petition in
`
`Case IPR2018-00372, have been joined as petitioners in this proceeding.
`
`
`
`INTEL EX. 1255.001
`
`
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,337,241
`Ex. 1255 (“Horst Sur-Reply Decl.”)
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`Page
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................... 1
`
`II.
`
`PATENT OWNER AND DR. ALMEROTH FAIL TO IDENTIFY
`SUPPORT FOR THE NEW LIMITATIONS ............................................. 1
`
`III. ERICKSON DOES NOT DISCLOSE SENDING INTERRUPTS
`TO THE HOST DURING EXECUTION OF THE UDPSCRIPT
`PROCEDURE ................................................................................................ 4
`
`
`
`
`
`i
`
`INTEL EX. 1255.002
`
`
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,337,241
`Ex. 1255 (“Horst Sur-Reply Decl.”)
`
`
`I, Robert Horst, hereby declare as follows:
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`1. My name is Robert Horst. I have been retained on behalf of Petitioner
`
`Intel Corporation (“Intel”) to provide this Declaration concerning technical subject
`
`matter relevant to the petition for inter partes review (“Petition”) concerning U.S.
`
`Patent No. 7,337,241 (Ex. 1001, the “241 Patent”). I reserve the right to
`
`supplement this Declaration in response to additional evidence that may come to
`
`light.
`
`2.
`
`I am over 18 years of age. I have personal knowledge of the facts
`
`stated in this Declaration and could testify competently to them if asked to do so.
`
`3.
`
`I am being compensated for my time at the rate of $550 per hour. My
`
`compensation is not based on the resolution of this matter. My findings are based
`
`on my education, experience, and background in the fields discussed below.
`
`4.
`
`I am an independent consultant with more than 30 years of expertise
`
`in the design and architecture of computer systems. My current curriculum vitae is
`
`submitted as Ex. 1236.
`
`5.
`
`I incorporate my declaration Ex. 1210 herein.
`
`II. PATENT OWNER AND DR. ALMEROTH FAIL TO IDENTIFY
`SUPPORT FOR THE NEW LIMITATIONS
`
`6.
`
`The amended portion of substitute claim 25, on which substitute
`
`claims 26-32 depend, is reproduced below:
`
`1
`
`INTEL EX. 1255.003
`
`
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,337,241
`Ex. 1255 (“Horst Sur-Reply Decl.”)
`
`
`
`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.
`
`Paper 25 at Appendix A (emphasis in original).
`
`
`7.
`
`It is my opinion that Patent Owner and Dr. Almeroth do not identify
`
`sufficient support for these additional limitations in the original disclosure of the
`
`241 Patent, U.S. Application No. 10/260,878 (“241 Patent Application”). For
`
`example, Dr. Almeroth identifies the communication processing device (CPD) 30
`
`in Figs. 3 and 4 that “sends ‘application data’ from each packet of a first type [] to”
`
`“storage 35.” While the 241 Patent Application discloses that storage 35 is located
`
`on the host and that application data is sent to it, there is no discussion or
`
`indication in the cited portions that storage 35 or any portion of storage 35 is
`
`allocated to an application. See Ex. 2021 at Abstract, Figs. 3 and 4, [0055]-[0064].
`
`Thus, sending packet data “to a destination in memory allocated to an application
`
`running on a host computer” is unsupported.
`
`8.
`
`The amended portion of substitute claim 33, on which substitute
`
`claims 34-40 depend, is reproduced below:
`
`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
`
`2
`
`INTEL EX. 1255.004
`
`
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,337,241
`Ex. 1255 (“Horst Sur-Reply Decl.”)
`
`
`
`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 transmitting the packets to the
`
`network, wherein the dividing, prepending, and transmitting occur
`
`without the second processor generating an interrupt to the first
`
`processor. \
`
`Paper 25 at Appendix A (emphasis in original).
`
`
`9.
`
`The amended portion of substitute claim 41, on which substitute
`
`claims 42-48 depend, is reproduced below:
`
`prepending 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.
`
`Paper 25 at Appendix A (emphasis in original).
`
`
`10. Dr. Almeroth argues that the priority application disclosure of a “Fast-
`
`path 400 byte send” is sufficient because it “will result in one interrupt” and that
`
`the host will “only receive [that interrupt] when the send command has been given
`
`to the INIC completes.” Ex. 2305, ¶ 28. However, this position is inconsistent with
`
`Alacritech’s in the related case, Case No. IPR2017-01393 related to patent
`
`9,055,104. There, Alacritech argued that a transmit complete interrupt was sent
`
`3
`
`INTEL EX. 1255.005
`
`
`
`
`immediately by a network interface device after data is received from the host, but
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,337,241
`Ex. 1255 (“Horst Sur-Reply Decl.”)
`
`before the network interface device completed the transmission:
`
`In this context of the transmit complete interrupt being generated “for
`
`handling by the interrupt controller in the transmit DMA module,” the
`
`“transmit complete interrupt” refers to an interrupt that all the data has
`
`been transmitted from the host computer and received by the network
`
`interface card—in contrast to data being transmitted by network
`
`interface card.
`
`IPR2017-1393, Paper No. 30 at 33-34 (Corrected Patent Owner’s Response
`
`regarding the 104 Patent). If I were to use Alacritech’s flawed logic and assumed
`
`this to be true, then the resulting interrupt from the “Fast path 400 byte send”
`
`would not disclose the lack of an interrupt during the dividing, prepending, and
`
`transmitting steps. Rather, it is likely that the prepending, dividing, and
`
`transmission steps would still be occurring when the interrupt (sent “when the send
`
`command has been given to the INIC completes”) is sent to the host. As I stated in
`
`my Declaration in support of Petitioner’s opposition to the motion to amend, the
`
`provisional application “does not disclose when the interrupt occurs or whether it
`
`occurs before, after, or during a dividing step.” Ex. 1210, ¶ 35.
`
`III. ERICKSON DOES NOT DISCLOSE SENDING INTERRUPTS TO
`THE HOST DURING EXECUTION OF THE UDPSCRIPT
`PROCEDURE
`
`11. Dr. Almeroth argues in his Declaration (Ex. 2305) that Erickson
`
`teaches and suggests reasons why the host would need to be interrupted to perform
`4
`
`INTEL EX. 1255.006
`
`
`
`
`the dividing, prepending, or transmitting steps of the substituted claims 33-48. For
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,337,241
`Ex. 1255 (“Horst Sur-Reply Decl.”)
`
`the reasons below, I disagree.
`
`12. Dr. Almeroth argues that the nextid() function of the udpscript
`
`procedure disclosed in Erickson provides a monotonically increasing 16-bit
`
`counter and that a POSA “would understand that the host processor and the
`
`network interface processor would want to maintain consistency between the
`
`count, and that to do so the network interface processer would issue interrupts to
`
`the host processor during these steps.” Ex. 2305, ¶ 39. Dr. Almeroth provides no
`
`other explanation for why the “count” would be stored on the host (if at all), why
`
`any “consistency” would need to be maintained, or why consistency (if needed)
`
`would be implemented by an undisclosed interrupt instead of the disclosed shared-
`
`memory snooping mechanism.
`
`13.
`
`If Dr. Almeroth’s theory is true, Patent Owner’s claimed “invention”
`
`of the 241 patent would need to also maintain this consistency with the host. There
`
`is no disclosure in the 241 patent regarding the storage of the IP identification on
`
`the host or maintaining consistency with the host. Thus, to the extent Erickson is
`
`subject to this theory, Alacritech’s 241 patent claimed “invention” would be as
`
`well.
`
`14. As for nextid(), there is only a very limited disclosure in Erickson
`
`regarding the function: “Within the udpscript procedure described above, the
`
`5
`
`INTEL EX. 1255.007
`
`
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,337,241
`Ex. 1255 (“Horst Sur-Reply Decl.”)
`
`
`nextid() function provides a monotonically increasing 16-bit counter required by
`
`the IP protocol.” Ex. 1005 at 8:10-12. It discloses that this function is executed on
`
`the adapter (where udpscript is executed) and includes no disclosure of the
`
`function storing any value on the host or any “consistency” requirement.
`
`However, Erickson does disclose a mechanism used to provide shared access,
`
`when required, through a snooping mechanism, and this mechanism allows one
`
`processor to modify memory while giving the other processor a consistent view of
`
`the modified memory locations without using interrupts.
`
`15. Erickson discloses that “incoming data is then written to the virtual
`
`memory and detected by polling or ‘snooping hardware’.” Ex. 1005 at 8:50-52.
`
`Erickson clearly shows how the snooping works to allow the adapter and host to
`
`read and write portions of each other’s memory, and this type of snooping does not
`
`involve interrupts. The snooping design allows shared memory registers to be
`
`physically located either in the host memory or adapter, but suggests locating the
`
`registers for best efficiency.
`
`It is possible to improve the performance of the present invention by
`
`implementing a read-local, write-remote strategy. With such a
`
`strategy, the present invention stores values which are likely to be
`
`read in locations which are closest to the reading entity, whereas
`
`values which are likely to be written are stored in locations which are
`
`farthest away from the writing entity.
`
`6
`
`INTEL EX. 1255.008
`
`
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,337,241
`Ex. 1255 (“Horst Sur-Reply Decl.”)
`
`
`Ex. 1005 at 6:25-31.
`
`16. The value generated by the nextid function is used in the IP header as
`
`the “Datagram ID”:
`
`Ex. 1005 at Fig. 7.
`
`
`17. As explained in Tanenbaum96, the IP Identification field is used by
`
`
`
`the destination host:
`
`7
`
`INTEL EX. 1255.009
`
`
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,337,241
`Ex. 1255 (“Horst Sur-Reply Decl.”)
`
`
`
`The Identification field is needed to allow the destination host to
`
`determine which datagram a newly arrived fragment belongs to. All
`
`the fragments of a datagram contain the same Identification value.
`
`Ex. 1006 at .432. Thus, it is not clear why Dr. Almeroth believes that this “count”
`
`would need to be synchronized or be made “consistent with the host.” As it is a
`
`monotonically increasing number, a POSA would understand that an interrupt to
`
`the host would be unnecessary since the value could be stored and calculated by
`
`the network interface device.
`
`18.
`
` Dr. Almeroth also argues multiple interrupts to the host must be
`
`triggered after each packet
`
`is
`
`transmitted
`
`in order
`
`to configure
`
`the
`
`senduserdatagram process for the next packet. Ex. 2305, ¶ 40. I disagree. As I
`
`explained in my original declaration, a POSA would have created a script that
`
`could send multiple packets. Ex. 1003.149-150. Thus, after setting up the script a
`
`single time, the steps of dividing, prepending, and transmitting could all occur
`
`multiple times without intervening interrupts to set up “pointers, memory
`
`addresses, and “virtual registers.” Further, even if senduserdatagram required
`
`multiple interrupts to setup after the transmission of a packet, there would still be
`
`no interrupts being sent during the dividing, prepending, and transmitting
`
`operations.
`
`
`
`
`
`8
`
`INTEL EX. 1255.010
`
`
`
`US. Patent No. 7,337,241
`Ex. 1255 (“Horst Sur—Reply Decl.”)
`
`Declaration
`
`19.
`
`I declare that all statements made herein on my own knowledge are
`
`true and that all statements made on information and belief are believed to be true,
`
`and further, that these statements were made with the knowledge that willful false
`
`statements and the like so made are punishable by fine or imprisonment, or both,
`
`under Section 1001 of Title 18 of the United States Code.
`
`Dated: June 1,2018
`
`or}
`r
`,
`'4
`/M 14/
`Robert Horst
`
`V
`
`INTEL EX. 1255.011
`
`INTEL EX. 1255.011
`
`
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
Still Working On It
This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.
Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.
A few More Minutes ... Still Working
It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.
Thank you for your continued patience.
This document could not be displayed.
We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
Set your membership
status to view this document.
With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll
get a whole lot more, including:
- Up-to-date information for this case.
- Email alerts whenever there is an update.
- Full text search for other cases.
- Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.
One Moment Please
The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.
Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.
Your document is on its way!
If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.
Sealed Document
We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.
If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.
Access Government Site
