`IPR2017-01391, -01392, -01393, -01405,
`-01406, -01409, -01410
`
`September 13, 2018
`
`Common-Interest Privileged
`
`
`
`Demonstratives: Table of Contents
`
`(1) 036 Patent (IPR2017-01391)
`1. Motivation to Combine Erickson and Tanenbaum96 Slides 9-54
`2. Prior Art Discloses 036 Limitations
`Slides 55-77
`3. Motion to Amend 036 Patent
`Slides 78-96
`(2) 072 Patent (IPR2017-01406)
`1. Motivation to Combine Erickson and Tanenbaum96
`2. Prior Art Discloses 072 Limitations
`3. Motion to Amend 072 Patent
`(3) 241 Patent (IPR2017-01392)
`1. Motivation to Combine Erickson, Tanenbaum96 (and Alteon) Slides 141-149
`2. Prior Art Discloses 241 Limitations
`Slides 150-187
`
`Slide 100
`Slides 101-118
`Slides 119-137
`
`2
`
`
`
`Demonstratives: Table of Contents
`
`(3) 241 Patent (IPR2017-01392) (Continued)
`3. Alteon is Prior Art
`4. Motion to Amend 241 Patent
`(4) 880 Patent (IPR2017-01409, -1410)
`1. Motivation to Combine Thia, Tanenbaum (and Nahum)
`2. Thia and Nahum are Enabling
`3. Prior art Discloses 880 Limitations
`4. Motions to Amend 880 Patents
`(5) 205 Patent (IRP2017-01405)
`1. Thia is Enabling Prior Art
`2. Thia Teaches Claimed Processing
`
`Slides 188-193
`Slides 194-206
`
`Slides 209-228
`Slides 229-232
`Slides 233-266
`Slides 267-288
`
`Slides 291-296
`Slides 297-318
`
`3
`
`
`
`Demonstratives: Table of Contents
`
`(5) 205 Patent (IPR2017-01405) (Continued)
`3. Prior Art Discloses Challenged Claims Slides 319-321
`4. Motivation to Combine
`Slides 322-333
`5. Supplemental Briefing (Claims 31-33)
`Slides 334-341
`6. Motions to Amend 205 Patent
`Slides 342-348
`(6) 104 Patent (IPR2017-01393)
`1. Prior Art Discloses 104 Limitations Slides 352-379
`2. Supplemental Briefing (Claim 22)
`Slides 380-390
`(7) Common Issues
`1. Secondary Considerations (IPR2017-01391, -01392,
`01393, -01405, -01406, -01409, -01410)
`
`Slides 391-394
`
`4
`
`
`
`Demonstratives: Table of Contents
`
`(7) Common Issues (Continued)
`a) Real Party in Interest (IPR2017-01391, -01392, -01393, Slides 395-399
`- 01405, -01406, -01409, -01410)
`b) Tanenbaum was Publicly Accessible (IPR2017-01391, Slides 400-413
`01392, -01406, -01409, -10410)
`
`5
`
`
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,237,036
`(036 Patent)
`
`IPR2017-1391 (Intel)
`IPR2018-0371 (Dell)
`IPR2017-1718 (Cavium)
`IPR2018-0327 (Wistron)
`
`*All citations herein are to the IPR2017-01391 case unless otherwise noted.
`
`6
`
`
`
`036 Patent: Instituted Grounds
`
`• Erickson in view of Tanenbaum96
`
` 036 Patent: Claims 1, 2-7
`
`Ex. 1005 – U.S. Patent No. 5,768,618 (Erickson)
`Ex. 1006 – Tanenbaum, Andrew S., Computer Networks (Tanenbaum96)
`
`7
`
`
`
`036 Patent: Disputes
`
`1. A POSA would have been motivated to combine
`Tanenbaum96 with Erickson
`
`2. Erickson in view of Tanenbaum96 discloses the
`limitations of claims 1-7 of the 036 Patent
`
`3. Motion to Amend 036 Patent should be denied
`
`8
`
`
`
`036 Patent: Disputes
`
`1. A POSA would have been motivated to combine
`Tanenbaum96 with Erickson
`a) A POSA would have naturally looked to Tanenbaum96
`when implementing the TCP functionality disclosed in
`Erickson
`b) Tanenbaum96 does not teach away from the invention
`c) A POSA would have a reasonable expectation of success
`using Tanenbaum96 to implement Erickson’s TCP
`functionality
`d) Dr. Horst's 2001 Article shows that "conventional wisdom"
`was to offload TCP
`
`9
`
`
`
`Erickson: Use of fast and slow
`applications
`
`Paper 2 (036 Petition) at 40; Paper 1 (072 Petition) at 35-37;
`Ex. 1003.065 (036 Horst Decl.); Ex. 1003.067, .079-.084 (072 Horst Decl.);
`Ex. 1005 (Erickson) at Fig. 3.
`
`10
`
`
`
`Erickson: Adapter offloads protocol
`processing for fast applications
`
`Paper 2 (036 Petition) at 40-41; Paper 1 (072 Petition) at 35-37; Ex. 1003.065-.066 (036 Horst Decl.); Ex. 1003.067-.068, .079-.084
`(072 Horst Decl.); Ex. 1005 (Erickson) at 4:53-5:3.
`
`11
`
`
`
`Erickson: Fast receive and transmit
`
`Paper 2 (036 Petition) at 44-45; Paper 1 (072 Petition) at 35-37;
`Ex. 1003.077, .079-.084 (072 Horst Decl.); Ex. 1005 (Erickson) at 5:6-14, Fig. 4.
`
`12
`
`
`
`Erickson: Adapter stores protocol scripts
`and data for moving data
`
`Paper 2 (036 Petition) at 41-42; Paper 1 (072 Petition) at 37;
`Ex. 1005 (Erickson) at 5:61-67.
`
`13
`
`
`
`Erickson: Adapter executes the scripts
`
`Paper 2 (036 Petition) at 65; Paper 41 (036 Reply) at 15;
`Paper 1 (072 Petition) at 40-41; Ex. 1003.094 (072 Horst Decl.); Ex. 1005 (Erickson) at 4:18-23.
`
`14
`
`
`
`Erickson: A pre-negotiated template
`passed to the script on the adapter
`
`Paper 2 (036 Petition) at 45, 56, 65-66; Paper 1 (072 Petition) at 41-42, 53; Ex. 1005 (Erickson) at 7:65-8:9, Fig. 7;
`Ex. 1003.096-.097, .111 (072 Horst Decl.); Ex. 1003.093-.094, .104 -.105 (036 Horst Decl.).
`
`15
`
`
`
`Erickson: “Pre-negotiated” header template
`includes “almost everything”
`
`Paper 2 (036 Petition) at 42, 56-57; Paper 1 (072 Petition) at 40, 53, 63, Ex. 1003.093, -.095 (036 Horst Decl.);
`Ex. 1003.095 -.096, .112, (072 Horst Decl.); Ex. 1005 (Erickson) at 6:57-7:4, Figure 6.
`
`16
`
`
`
`Erickson: Adapter uses scripts for
`multiple protocols including TCP/IP
`
`Paper 2 (036 Petition) at 43, 46, 58; Paper 41 (036 Reply) at 2; Paper 1 (072 Petition) at 42, 44, 47, 53; Paper 46 (072 Reply) at 2;
`Ex. 1003.095, .107, .120 (036 Horst Decl.); Ex. 1003.093, .096, .101 (072 Horst Decl.); Ex. 1005 (Erickson) at 5:41-51.
`
`17
`
`
`
`Erickson: Identifies Tanenbaum as a
`reference for TCP
`
`A POSA following Erickson’s suggestion would consult the
`then-current (1996) edition of Tanenbaum to implement
`Erickson’s TCP script
`
`Paper 2 (036 Petition) at 46;
`Paper 1 (072 Petition) at 34;
`Ex. 1005 (Erickson) at 4:37-44.
`
`Paper 2 (036 Petition) at 46; Paper 41 (036 Reply) at 5;
`Paper 1 (072 Petition) at 35; Paper 46 (072 Reply) at 5;
`Ex. 1003.077 (036 Horst Decl.) ¶ 139;
`Ex. 1003.079 (072 Horst Decl.) ¶ 138.
`
`18
`
`
`
`PO’s expert taught Tanenbaum96 before
`alleged priority date Oct. 1997
`
`A.
`
`Q. Dr. Almeroth, do you recognize Exhibit
`21?
`It looks like the front page for the first
`course at UCSB that I taught.
`Q. And the textbook was the Tanenbaum
`’96, right, that’s the basis for several of
`the grounds that we’ve been talking
`about today and yesterday, right?
`A. Yes. It was
`
`Paper 41 (036 Reply) at 10; Paper 46 (072 Reply) at 10; Paper 60 (036 Opp. to Motion to Exclude) at 5-6; Paper 64 (072
`Opp. to Motion to Exclude) at 5-6; Ex. 1234 (Almeroth Dep., Ex. 21); Ex. 1225.219 (Almeroth Depo.) at 474:21-475:2.
`
`19
`
`
`
`PO patents describe Tanenbaum96 as a
`college-level textbook
`
`Paper 60 (036 Opp. to Mot. to Exclude) at 13;
`Paper 64 (072 Opp. to Mot. to Exclude) at 13;
`Ex. 1001 (036 Patent) at 4:47-50;
`Ex. 1001 (072 Patent) at 4:57-60;
`See also Paper 2 (036 Petition) at 34; Paper 41 (036 Reply) at 10;
`Paper 1 (072 Petition) at 28; Paper 46 (072 Reply) at 10.
`
`20
`
`
`
`Tanenbaum96: “Fast path” processing
`using a prototype header
`
`Paper 2 (036 Petition) at 35, 47-49; Ex.1003.059, .079-.083 (036 Horst Decl.);
`Paper 1 (072 Petition) at 28-29,35-38; Ex. 1003.061,.079-.084 (072 Horst Decl.);
`Ex. 1006.583 (Tanenbaum96).
`
`Paper 2 (036 Petition) at 37, 47-49; Ex.1003.062, -079-.083 (036 Horst Decl.);
`Paper 1 (072 Petition) at 30,35-38; Ex. 1003.064,-.079-.084 (072 Horst Decl.);
`Ex. 1006.585 (Tanenbaum96).
`
`21
`
`
`
`Tanenbaum96: Protocol processing is
`“straightforward” for the “normal case”
`
`Paper 2 (036 Petition) at 15, 49, 58, 62; Paper 41 (036 Reply) at 7-8;
`Paper 1 (072 Petition) at 14-15, 28-29, 37-39; Paper (072 Reply) at 7-8;
`Ex.1003.033, .082, .096, .100 (036 Horst Decl.);
`Ex. 1003.034, .084 (072 Horst Decl.);
`Ex. 1006.583 (Tanenbaum96).
`
`22
`
`
`
`Tanenbaum96: Transport entity may
`reside on network interface
`
`Paper 2 (036 Petition) at 35-36, 47; Paper 41 (036 Reply) at 6;
`Paper 1 (072 Petition) at 44; Paper 46 (072 Reply) at 6;
`Ex. 1003.059, .064 (036 Horst Decl.); Ex. 1003.062, .066, (072 Horst Decl.);
`Ex. 1006.498 (Tanenbaum96).
`
`Paper 41 (036 Reply) at 6;
`Paper 46 (072 Reply) at 6;
`Ex. 1006.530 (Tanenbaum96).
`
`23
`
`
`
`Fast path transmit reuses the prototype
`header
`
`Paper 2 (036 Petition) at 36, 47-49; Paper 1 (072 Petition) at 29, 35-37;
`Ex. 1003.061, .077-082 (036 Horst Decl.); Ex. 1003.063, .080-.085 (072 Horst Decl.);
`Ex. 1006.584 (Tanenbaum96).
`
`24
`
`
`
`Tanenbaum96 teaches how to modify
`Erickson’s template header for TCP
`
`Paper 2 (036 Petition) at 36, 47-49, 54-63; Paper 1 (072 Petition) at 29, 35-37, 51-55;
`Ex. 1003.061, .077-082, .091-.101 (036 Horst Decl.);
`Ex. 1003.063, .080-.085, .112-.113 (072 Horst Decl.);
`Ex. 1006.584 (Tanenbaum96);
`Ex. 1005 (Erickson) Fig. 6.
`
`25
`
`
`
`Fast path receive updates a connection
`record and copies data to user memory
`
`Paper 2 (036 Petition) at 37-39, 48-49, 54-63; Paper 1 (072 Petition) at 30-31, 35-37, 70-71;
`Ex. 1003.060, .078-082 (036 Horst Decl.); Ex. 1003.064, .080-.085 (072 Horst Decl.);
`Ex. 1006.585 (Tanenbaum96).
`
`26
`
`
`
`The connection record stores TCP state
`information
`
`Paper 2 (036 Petition) at 38, 48-49, 54-63;
`Paper 1 (072 Petition) at 30, 35-37;
`Ex. 1003.065, .078-082, .091-.101 (036 Horst Decl.);
`Ex. 1003.065, .080-.085 (072 Horst Decl.);
`Ex. 1006.549 (Tanenbaum96).
`
`27
`
`
`
`The connection record is looked up
`using the IP addresses and TCP ports
`
`Paper 2 (036 Petition) at 37-38, 47-49, 54-63;
`Paper 1 (072 Petition) at 30, 35-37;
`Ex. 1003.064-.065, .078-082, .091-.101 (036 Horst Decl.);
`Ex. 1003.064-.065, .080-.085 (072 Horst Decl.);
`Ex. 1006.585 (Tanenbaum96).
`
`28
`
`
`
`Tanenbaum96 teaches how to modify
`Erickson’s endpoint table for TCP
`
`Paper 2 (036 Petition) at 41-42, 47-49; Paper 1 (072 Petition) at 34-37; Ex. 1003.067-.068, .079-.082 (036 Horst Decl.);
`Ex. 1003.069-.070, .081-.084 (072 Horst Decl.); Ex. 1005 (Erickson) at 5:53-67, Fig. 5.
`
`29
`
`
`
`Connection record in Tanenbaum96
`corresponds to endpoint data in Erickson
`Tanenbaum96
`
`Paper 2 (036 Petition) at 37-38, 47-49, 54-63; Paper 1 (072 Petition) at 30, 35-37;
`Ex. 1003.064-.065, .078-082, .091-.101 (036 Horst Decl.);
`Ex. 1003.064-.065, .080-.085 (072 Horst Decl.); Ex. 1006.585 (Tanenbaum96).
`
`Erickson
`
`Paper 2 (036 Petition) at 41-42, 47-49; Paper 1 (072 Petition) at 34-37;
`Ex. 1003.067-.068, .079-.082 (036 Horst Decl.); Ex. 1003.069-.070, .081-
`.084 (072 Horst Decl.); Ex. 1005 (Erickson) at 5:53-67, Fig. 5.
`
`30
`
`
`
`TCP and UDP are alternative protocols
`for the TCP/IP protocol suite
`
`Paper 2 (036 Petition) at 21; Paper 41 (036 Reply) at 2;
`Paper 1 (072 Petition) at 39; Paper 46 (072 Reply) at 2;
`Ex. 1003.060 (072 Horst Decl.); Ex. 1003.057 (036 Horst Decl.);
`Ex. 1006.055 (Tanenbaum96).
`
`31
`
`
`
`TCP and UDP: “Two main protocols” for
`IP
`
`Paper 2 (036 Petition) at 21; Paper 41 (036 Reply) at 3;
`Paper 1 (072 Petition) at 18-19; Paper 46 (072 Reply) at 3;
`Ex. 1003.057 (036 Horst Decl.);
`Ex. 1003.060 (072 Horst Decl.);
`Ex. 1006.539 (Tanenbaum96).
`
`32
`
`
`
`036 Patent: Disputes
`
`1. A POSA would have been motivated to combine
`Tanenbaum96 with Erickson
`a) A POSA would have naturally looked to Tanenbaum96 when
`implementing Erickson’s TCP functionality
`b) Tanenbaum96 does not teach away from the invention
`c) A POSA would have a reasonable expectation of success using
`Tanenbaum96 to implement Erickson’s TCP functionality
`d) Dr. Horst's 2001 Article shows that "conventional wisdom" was to
`offload TCP
`
`33
`
`
`
`Tanenbaum96 does not teach away
`from invention
`PO relies on following passage:
`
`Paper 30 (036 Response) at 24-25;
`Paper 34 (072 Response) at 36-37.
`
`34
`
`
`
`Tanenbaum96 does not teach away
`from invention
`Instead, it describes design preferences and tradeoffs
`
`Paper 42 (036 Reply ISO Motion to Amend) at 6-7;
`Paper 46 (072 Reply) at 6-7;
`Ex. 1006.588-.589 (Tanenbaum96).
`
`35
`
`
`
`Tanenbaum96: Fast processing is
`straightforward in the “normal case”
`
`Paper 2 (036 Petition) at 15, 49, 58, 62; Paper 41 (036 Reply) at 7-8;
`Paper 1 (072 Petition) at 14-15, 28-29, 37-39; Paper (072 Reply) at 7-8;
`Ex.1003.033, .082, .096, .100 (036 Horst Decl.);
`Ex. 1003.034, .084 (072 Horst Decl.);
`Ex. 1006.583 (Tanenbaum96).
`
`36
`
`
`
`PO mischaracterizes the base reference
`in the combination
`PO argues:
`
`But Petitioner is relying on modification of Erickson:
`
`Paper 30 (036 Response) at 26;
`Paper 34 (072 Response) at 38.
`
`Paper 2 (036 Petition) at 50; Paper 41 (036 Reply) at 6;
`see also Paper 1 (072 Petition) at 38; Paper 46 (072 Reply) at 6.
`.
`
`37
`
`
`
`Tanenbaum96 also teaches offloading
`transport layer to interface card
`
`Paper 2 (036 Petition) at 35-36, 47; Paper 41 (036 Reply) at 6;
`Paper 1 (072 Petition) at 44; Paper 46 (072 Reply) at 6;
`Ex. 1003.059, .064 (036 Horst Decl.); Ex. 1003.062, .066, (072 Horst Decl.);
`Ex. 1006.498 (Tanenbaum96).
`
`Paper 41 (036 Reply) at 6;
`Paper 46 (072 Reply) at 6;
`Ex. 1006.530 (Tanenbaum96).
`
`38
`
`
`
`Dr. Horst: Tanenbaum96 does not teach
`away from the combination
`
`Q. But you wouldn’t consider TCP to be an
`exceedingly simple protocol, would you?
`
`A. The fast path of TCP that’s only
`transferring data is not that complicated. Even
`the full TCP, there are plenty of examples of
`people that have solved the problems
`Tanenbaum is talking about and have done all
`kinds of different
`levels of off-loading as I
`described in my introductory section of
`the
`report.
`
`Paper 41 (036 Reply) at 8; Paper 46 (072 Reply) at 7-8;
`Ex. 2028 (Horst Dep.) at 135:17-24.
`
`39
`
`
`
`Erickson’s benefits apply equally to TCP
`
`Paper 41 (036 Reply) at 8; Paper 46 (072 Reply) at 8;
`Ex. 1005 (Erickson) at 3:1-22.
`
`40
`
`
`
`036 Patent: Disputes
`
`1. A POSA would have been motivated to combine
`Tanenbaum96 with Erickson
`a) A POSA would have naturally looked to Tanenbaum96 when
`implementing Erickson’s TCP functionality
`b) Tanenbaum96 does not teach away from the invention
`c) A POSA would have a reasonable expectation of success
`using Tanenbaum96 to implement Erickson’s TCP
`functionality
`d) Dr. Horst's 2001 Article shows that "conventional wisdom" was to
`offload TCP
`
`41
`
`
`
`Tanenbaum96 identified freely available
`TCP/IP source code: Berkeley (BSD) UNIX
`
`Tanenbaum96 (1996)
`
`Paper 2 (036 Petition) at 15; Paper 41 (036 Reply) at 10;
`Paper 1 (072 Petition) at 18; Paper 46 (072 Reply) at 10;
`Ex. 1003.013, .020-.021 (036 Horst Decl.) ¶¶ 26, 34; Ex. 1223.011-.014 (036 Horst Reply Decl.) ¶¶ 26-29.
`Ex. 1003.014 (072 Horst Decl.) ¶ 26 ; Ex. 1223.011-.014 (072 Horst Reply Decl.) ¶¶ 26-29; Ex. 1006.061 (Tanenbaum96).
`
`42
`
`
`
`Tanenbaum96: Fast path/header prediction
`is widely used
`
`Paper 41 (036 Reply) at 10; Paper 46 (072 Reply) at 10;
`Ex. 1003.039 (036 Horst Decl.) ¶ 70; Ex. 1003.040 (072 Horst Decl.) ¶ 70;
`Ex. 1006.585 (Tanenbaum96).
`
`43
`
`
`
`Berkeley TCP included fast-path header
`prediction code
`
`Paper 41 (036 Reply) at 10;
`Paper 46 (072 Reply) at 10;
`Ex. 1003.037-.038 (036 Horst Decl.) ¶ 67;
`Ex. 1003.038-.039 (072 Horst Decl.) ¶ 67.
`
`44
`
`
`
`Other college textbooks documented
`Berkeley TCP/IP
`
`Stevens Vol. 2 (1995)
`
`Paper 2 (036 Petition) at 15; Paper 1 (072 Petition) at 18;
`Paper 41 (036 Reply) at 10); Paper 46 (072 Reply) at 10;
`Ex. 1003.013 (036 Horst Decl.) ¶ 26; Ex. 1003.014-.015 (072 Horst Decl.) ¶ 26;
`Ex. 1223.011-.014 (036 Horst Reply Decl.) ¶¶ 26-29; Ex. 1223.011-.014 (072 Horst Reply Decl.) ¶¶ 26-29; Ex.1013.023 (Stevens2).
`
`45
`
`
`
`Stevens2 documented the BSD header
`prediction code
`
`Stevens Vol. 2 (1995)
`
`Paper 41 (036 Reply) at 10;
`Paper 46 (072 Reply) at 10;
`Ex.1003.038-.039 (036 Horst Decl.) ¶ 68;
`Ex. 1003.039-.040 (072 Horst Decl.) ¶ 68.
`
`46
`
`
`
`User data does not need to span page
`boundaries to support TCP
`• PO claims:
`
`• But data does not need to span page boundaries for TCP:
`
`Paper 30 (036 Response) at 29;
`Paper 34 (072 Response) at 41.
`
`Paper 41 (036 Reply) at 12;
`Paper 46 (072 Reply) at 11-12);
`Ex. 1223.019-.020 (036 Horst
`Reply Decl.) ¶ 40;
`Ex. 1223.019-.020 (072 Horst
`Reply Decl.) ¶ 40.
`
`47
`
`
`
`Spanning page boundaries would have
`been straightforward design choice
`• Would merely require multiple calls to “vtophys” function
`disclosed in Erickson
`
`• Erickson contemplates spanning page boundaries
`
`Paper 41 (036 Reply) at 12; Paper 46 (072 Reply) at 12;
`Ex. 1005 (Erickson) at 8:14-16.
`
`Paper 41 (036 Reply) at 12; Paper 46 (072 Reply) at 12;
`Ex. 1003.032-.033, .046, .049-.050 (036 Horst Decl.) ¶¶ 54,88, 93-94; Ex. 1003.033.034, .047-.048, .051-.052 (072
`Horst Decl.) ¶¶ 54,88, 94-95;
`Ex. 1223.020 (036 Horst Reply Decl.) ¶¶ 41-43; Ex. 1223.020 (072 Horst Reply Decl.) ¶¶ 41-43;
`Ex. 1005 (Erickson) at 8:22-24.
`
`48
`
`
`
`Need design details before you can
`predict speed
`
`Patent Owner argues:
`
`v
`But speed is unpredictable without design parameters:
`A. Just looking at the code, you couldn’t tell.
`You also need to have information on the
`compiler,
`the processor used,
`the caches.
`There’s all kinds of things that influence the
`performance of code.
`Paper 30 (036 Response) at 40; Paper 34 (072 Response) at 52;
`Ex. 2029 (Horst Dep.) at 81:23-82:9;
`Paper 41 (036 Reply) at 13; Paper 46 (072 Reply) at 12-13.
`
`49
`
`
`
`Combination does not have to be
`predictably “faster”
`
`Paper 41 (036 Reply) at 13; Paper 46 (072 Reply) at 12-13;
`Ex. 1223.021-.022 (036 Horst Reply Decl.) ¶ 44; Ex. 1223.021-.022 (072 Horst Reply Decl.) ¶ 44.
`
`50
`
`
`
`Definition of POSA does not matter for
`obviousness determination
`Petitioner:
`
`Patent Owner:
`
`Ex. 1210.005-.006 (036 Horst Decl. ISO Opp. to Motion to Amend) ¶ 9;
`Ex. 1210.005 (072 Horst Decl. ISO Opp. to Motion to Amend) ¶ 9;
`Ex. 1223.009 (036 Horst Reply Decl.) ¶ 21;
`Ex. 1223.009 (072 Horst Reply Decl.) ¶ 21.
`
`Paper 30 (036 Response) at 22; Paper 34 (072 Response) at 23.
`
`51
`
`
`
`036 Patent: Disputes
`
`1. A POSA would have been motivated to combine
`Tanenbaum96 with Erickson
`a) A POSA would have naturally looked to Tanenbaum96 when
`implementing Erickson’s TCP functionality
`b) Tanenbaum96 does not teach away from the invention
`c) A POSA would have a reasonable expectation of success using
`Tanenbaum96 to implement Erickson’s TCP functionality
`d) Dr. Horst's 2001 Article shows that "conventional wisdom"
`was to offload TCP
`
`52
`
`
`
`Industry actively working on offloading
`TCP/IP
`
`Paper 41 (036 Reply) at 14; Paper 46 (072 Reply) at 13-14;
`Ex. 2300 (IP Storage and the CPU Consumption Myth) at 1.
`
`53
`
`
`
`Dr. Horst’s article was focused on
`networked storage, not other markets
`
`Paper 41 (036 Reply) at 14-15; Paper 46 (072 Reply) at 14;
`Ex. 2300 (IP Storage and the CPU Consumption Myth) at 1.
`
`54
`
`
`
`036 Patent: Disputes
`
`2. The combination of Erickson and Tanenbaum96 discloses the limitations of
`claims 1-7 of the 036 Patent
`a) The prior art: “said communication processing mechanism
`containing a second processor” (all claims)
`b) The prior art discloses “[second processor] running instructions to process
`a message packet such that the context is employed to transfer data
`contained in said packet to the first apparatus memory” (all claims)
`c) The prior art discloses “the TCP state information is updated by said
`second processor” (all claims)
`d) The prior art discloses a “receive sequencer with directions to classify said
`packet” on “said communication processing mechanism” (claim 2)
`e) The prior art discloses a “receive sequencer with directions to generate a
`summary” on “said communication processing mechanism (claim 3)
`
`55
`
`
`
`“Said communication processing
`mechanism containing a second processor”
`
`Ex. 1001 (036 Patent), Claims 1-7.
`
`56
`
`
`
`Erickson discloses a second processor
`
`Paper 2 (036 Petition) at 65;
`Paper 41 (036 Reply) at 15;
`Ex. 1005 (Erickson) at 4:18-23.
`
`57
`
`
`
`Erickson shows second processor on
`adapter executes scripts
`
`Paper 41 (036 Reply) at 16;
`Ex. 1005 (Erickson) at 5:37-40.
`
`Paper 41 (036 Reply) at 16;
`Ex. 1005 (Erickson) at 7:41-44.
`
`Paper 41 (036 Reply) at 16;
`Ex. 1005 (Erickson) at 8:54-57.
`
`58
`
`
`
`036 Patent: Disputes
`
`2. The combination of Erickson and Tanenbaum96 discloses the
`limitations of claims 1-7 of the 036 Patent
`a) The prior art discloses “said communication processing mechanism
`containing a second processor” (all claims)
`b) The prior art discloses “[second processor] running instructions to
`process a message packet such that the context is employed to
`transfer data contained in said packet to the first apparatus memory”
`(all claims)
`c) The prior art discloses “the TCP state information is updated by said
`second processor” (all claims)
`d) The prior art discloses a “receive sequencer with directions to classify said
`packet” on “said communication processing mechanism” (claim 2)
`e) The prior art discloses a “receive sequencer with directions to generate a
`summary” on “said communication processing mechanism (claim 3)
`
`59
`
`
`
`“[Second processor] running instructions
`to process a message packet...”
`
`Ex. 1001 (036 Patent), Claim 1.
`
`60
`
`
`
`PO does not address prior art
`combination petitioner relies on
`
`Paper 2 (036 Petition) at 66-68;
`Paper 41 (036 Reply ) at 17;
`Ex. 1003.109 (036 Horst Decl.).
`
`61
`
`
`
`Erickson’s adapter stores protocol
`information for moving data to the host
`
`Paper 2 (036 Petition) at 67;
`Ex. 1005 (Erickson) at 5:61-67.
`
`62
`
`
`
`It would be obvious to use Tanenbaum96’s
`fast-path connection records with Erickson
`
`......
`
`Paper 2 (036 Petition) at 60-61;
`Paper 41 (036 Reply) at 17;
`Ex. 1003.098-.099 (036 Horst Decl.) at A-12 –A-13;
`Ex. 1006.584-.585 (Tanenbaum96).
`
`63
`
`
`
`036 Patent: Disputes
`
`2. The combination of Erickson and Tanenbaum96 discloses the
`limitations of claims 1-7 of the 036 Patent
`a) The prior art discloses “said communication processing mechanism
`containing a second processor” (all claims)
`b) The prior art discloses “[second processor] running instructions to process
`a message packet such that the context is employed to transfer data
`contained in said packet to the first apparatus memory” (all claims)
`c) The prior art discloses “the TCP state information is updated by said
`second processor” (all claims)
`d) The prior art discloses a “receive sequencer with directions to classify said
`packet” on “said communication processing mechanism” (claim 2)
`e) The prior art discloses a “receive sequencer with directions to generate a
`summary” on “said communication processing mechanism (claim 3)
`
`64
`
`
`
`“The TCP state information is updated
`by said second processor”
`
`Ex. 1001 (036 Patent), Claim 1.
`
`65
`
`
`
`It would be obvious to use Tanenbaum96’s
`fast-path connection records with Erickson
`
`......
`
`Paper 2 (036 Petition) at 68-69;
`Ex. 1003.110 (036 Horst Decl.);
`Ex. 1006.584-.585 (Tanenbaum96).
`
`66
`
`
`
`Tanenbaum96: TCP state information is
`stored in a connection record
`
`Paper 2 (036 Petition) at 68-69;
`Ex. 1003.110-.111 (036 Horst Decl.)
`Ex. 1006.549 (Tanenbaum96).
`
`67
`
`
`
`036 Patent: Disputes
`
`2. The combination of Erickson and Tanenbaum96 discloses the
`limitations of claims 1-7 of the 036 Patent
`a) The prior art discloses “said communication processing mechanism
`containing a second processor” (all claims)
`b) The prior art discloses “[second processor] running instructions to process
`a message packet such that the context is employed to transfer data
`contained in said packet to the first apparatus memory” (all claims)
`c) The prior art discloses “the TCP state information is updated by said
`second processor” (all claims)
`d) The prior art discloses a “receive sequencer with directions to
`classify said packet” on “said communication processing
`mechanism” (claim 2)
`e) The prior art discloses a “receive sequencer with directions to generate a
`summary” on “said communication processing mechanism (claim 3)
`
`68
`
`
`
`“Receive sequencer with directions to
`classify said packet”
`
`Ex. 1001 (036 Patent), Claim 2.
`
`69
`
`
`
`Erickson’s adapter classifies received
`packets by application and protocol
`
`Paper 2 (036 Petition) at 70; Paper 41 (036 Reply) at 18-19;
`Ex. 1003.112 (036 Horst Decl.); Ex. 1005 (Erickson) at 5:41-51.
`
`70
`
`
`
`Tanenbaum96: Receive sequencer receives
`and classifies packets
`
`Paper 2 (036 Petition) at 70-71; Paper 41 (036 Reply) at 18-19;
`Ex. 1003.112-.114 (036 Horst Decl.); Ex. 1006.584-.585 (Tanenbaum96).
`
`71
`
`
`
`Tanenbaum96: TCP packet contains
`control information
`
`Paper 2 (036 Petition) at 72; Paper 41 (036 Reply) at 18-19;
`Ex. 1003.114-.115 (036 Horst Decl.); Ex. 1006.584 (Tanenbaum96).
`
`72
`
`
`
`036 Patent: Disputes
`
`2. The combination of Erickson and Tanenbaum96 discloses the
`limitations of claims 1-7 of the 036 Patent
`a) The prior art discloses “said communication processing mechanism
`containing a second processor” (all claims)
`b) The prior art discloses “[second processor] running instructions to process
`a message packet such that the context is employed to transfer data
`contained in said packet to the first apparatus memory” (all claims)
`c) The prior art discloses “the TCP state information is updated by said
`second processor” (all claims)
`d) The prior art discloses a “receive sequencer with directions to classify said
`packet” on “said communication processing mechanism” (claim 2)
`e) The prior art discloses a “receive sequencer with directions to
`generate a summary” on “said communication processing
`mechanism (claim 3)
`
`73
`
`
`
`“Receive sequencer with directions to
`generate a summary”
`
`Ex. 1001 (036 Patent), Claim 3.
`
`74
`
`
`
`Tanenbaum96: Summary (IP addresses and
`ports) compared against context
`
`Paper 2 (036 Petition) at 73-74; Paper 41 (036 Reply) at 18-19;
`Ex. 1003.117 (036 Horst Decl.); Ex. 1006.584-.585 (Tanenbaum96).
`
`75
`
`
`
`Tanenbaum96: TCP packet contains
`control information
`
`Paper 2 (036 Petition) at 74; Paper 41 (036 Reply) at 18-19;
`Ex. 1003.118 (036 Horst Decl.); Ex. 1006.584 (Tanenbaum96).
`
`76
`
`
`
`Tanenbaum96: Comparison of summary to
`context verifies packet is candidate for fast-path
`
`Paper 2 (036 Petition) at 73-75; Paper 41 (036 Reply) at 18-19;
`Ex. 1003.117-119 (036 Horst Decl.); Ex. 1006.584-.585 (Tanenbaum96).
`
`77
`
`
`
`036 Patent: Disputes
`
`3. Motion to Amend 036 Patent should be denied
`
`a) Patent Owner has improperly expanded the scope of the
`claims
`
`b) Patent Owner does not show adequate written description
`support
`
`c) Substitute claims are indefinite
`
`d) Substitute claims are obvious
`
`78
`
`
`
`Substitute claim 23 adds an alternative to a
`recited step in claim 1
`
`Requires
`“fast-path”
`
`Requires either
`“fast path” or
`“slow path”
`
`Paper 36 (036 Opp. to Motion to Amend) at 6.
`
`79
`
`
`
`036 Patent: Disputes
`
`3. Motion to Amend 036 Patent should be denied
`
`a) Patent Owner has improperly expanded the scope of the
`claims
`
`b) Patent Owner does not show adequate written
`description support
`
`c) Substitute claims are indefinite
`
`d) Substitute claims are obvious
`
`80
`
`
`
`PO must supply written description support
`after Aqua Products
`
`Paper 50 (036 Sur-Reply for Motion to Amend) at 3;
`Nov. 21, 2017 USPTO Memo
`
`81
`
`
`
`PO identifies same 10 pages and 12 figures
`from original disclosure
`
`Same written
`description support
`as 072 Patent
`
`Paper 21 (036 Motion to Amend) Appendix A at i-ii.
`
`82
`
`
`
`Too late to provide written description
`support in Reply
`
`• PO provides alleged “exemplary” written description support for
`the first time in its Reply
`
`Paper 42 (036 Reply ISO Motion to Amend) at 6;
`Ex. 2305 (Almeroth Decl. ISO Reply) at 22.
`
`83
`
`
`
`Written description support provided by PO
`is insufficient
`
`• Patent Owner cites to written description support not included
`in its original motion (e.g., pages 18-21 of Ex. 2020)
`
`•
`
`• Patent Owner has not identified any written description support
`for:
`“running instructions on the second processor, wherein the second
`processor determining...”
`“such that the context [including a MAC layer address] is employed to
`transfer data”
`
`•
`
`Paper 50 (036 Sur-Reply for Motion to Amend) at 5-6.
`
`84
`
`
`
`036 Patent: Disputes
`
`3. Motion to Amend 036 Patent should be denied
`
`a) Patent Owner has improperly expanded the scope of the
`claims
`
`b) Patent Owner does not show adequate written description
`support
`
`c) Substitute claims are indefinite
`
`d) Substitute claims are obvious
`
`85
`
`
`
`Substitute claim 23 requires processing to
`determine whether to continue processing
`
`Paper 36 (036 Opp. to Motion to Amend) at 10-11.
`
`86
`
`
`
`036 Patent: Disputes
`
`3. Motion to Amend 036 Patent should be denied
`
`c)
`
`Substitute claims are obvious
`
`i. Prior art discloses “the second processor determining
`whether an incoming message packet should be
`processed by second processor” (limitation 23.3)
`
`ii. Prior art discloses “processing the incoming message packet
`[by the second processor]” (limitation 23.4)
`
`iii. Prior art discloses “passing the incoming message packet to
`the first processor for further processing” (limitation 23.5)
`
`87
`
`
`
`Erickson discloses a second processor
`
`Paper 36 (036 Opp. to Motion to Amend ) at 13;
`Ex. 1005 (Erickson) at 4:18-23.
`
`88
`
`
`
`Slow and fast applications can be used
`simultaneously
`
`“Determination” must be made
`between two applications
`
`Paper 36 (036 Opp. to Motion to Amend) at 14;
`Ex. 1005 (Erickson) at 8:65-9:7.
`
`89
`
`
`
`POSA would place header prediction on
`Erickson’s adapter
`
`Paper 36 (036 Opp. to Motion to Amend) at 14-15;
`Ex. 1006.585 (Tanenbaum96).
`
`90
`
`
`
`036 Patent: Disputes
`
`3. Motion to Amend 036 Patent should be denied
`
`c)
`
`Substitute claims are obvious
`
`i. Prior art discloses “the second processor determining
`whether an incoming message packet should be processed
`by second processor” (limitation 23.3)
`
`ii. Prior art discloses “processing the incoming message
`packet [by the second processor]” (limitation 23.4)
`
`iii. Prior art discloses “passing the incoming message packet to
`the first processor for further processing” (limitation 23.5)
`
`91
`
`
`
`Second processor in Erickson copies
`data from I/O adapter to host
`
`Paper 36 (036 Opp. to Motion to Amend ) at 17;
`Ex. 1005 (Erickson) at 5:52-67.
`
`92
`
`
`
`Erickson discloses fast receive and
`transmit
`
`Paper 36 (036 Opp. to Motion to Amend) at 17;
`Ex. 1005 (Erickson) at 5:6-14, Fig. 4.
`
`93
`
`
`
`036 Patent: Disputes
`
`3. Motion to Amend 036 Patent should be denied
`
`c)
`
`Substitute claims are obvious
`
`i. Prior art discloses “the second processor determining
`whether an incoming message packet should be processed
`by second processor” (limitation 23.3)
`
`ii. Prior art discloses “processing the incoming message packet
`[by the second processor]” (limitation 23.4)
`
`iii. Prior art discloses “passing the incoming message
`packet to the first processor for further processing”
`(limitation 23.5)
`
`94
`
`
`
`Erickson discloses use of fast and slow
`applications
`
`Paper 36 (036 Opp. to Motion to Amend) at 20;
`Ex. 1003.065 (036 Horst Decl.); Ex. 1005 (Erickson) at Fig. 3.
`
`95
`
`
`
`Slow path used after determination
`
`Paper 36 (036 Opp. to Motion to Amend) at 21-22;
`Ex. 1006.583 -.584 (Tanenbaum96), Fig. 6-49.
`
`96
`
`