Intel Corp. v. Alacritech, Inc.
`IPR2017-01391, -01392, -01393, -01405,
`-01406, -01409, -01410
`
`September 13, 2018
`
`Common-Interest Privileged
`
`
`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
`
`
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
