U.S. Patent No. 8,131,880
`(880 Patent)
`
`IPR2017-01409 (Intel)
`IPR2017-01736 (Cavium)
`IPR2018-00338 (Dell)
`IPR2017-01410 (Intel)
`IPR2017-1737 (Cavium)
`IPR2018-0339 (Dell)
`
`*All citations herein are to the IPR2017-01391 case unless otherwise noted.
`
`207
`
`
`(880 Patent)
`
`IPR2017-01409 (Intel)
`IPR2017-01736 (Cavium)
`IPR2018-00338 (Dell)
`IPR2017-01410 (Intel)
`IPR2017-1737 (Cavium)
`IPR2018-0339 (Dell)
`
`*All citations herein are to the IPR2017-01391 case unless otherwise noted.
`
`207
`
`
`
`880 Patent: Instituted Grounds
`
`• 2017IPR-01409, IPR2017-01736, IPR2018-00338
`• Ground 1: Thia (Ex. 1015) in view of Tanenbaum96 (Ex.1006)
`• Claims 1, 5-10, 12, 14, 16, 17, 20-23, 27, 28, 45, and 55
`• 2017IPR-01410, IPR2017-01737, IPR2018-00339
`• Ground 1: Thia (Ex. 1015) in view of Tanenbaum96 (Ex. 1006)
`• Claims 32, 34, 35, 39, 41, 42, and 43
`• Ground 2: Thia (Ex. 1015) in view of Tanenbaum96 (Ex. 1006) and
`Nahum (Ex. 1079)
`• Claims 37 and 38
`
`Ex. 1006 – Tanenbaum, Andrew S., Computer Networks (“Tanenbaum96”)
`Ex. 1015 – Tia, Y.H., Woodside, C.M. Publication (“Thia”)
`Ex. 1079 – Nahum, Erich, Professional Issues in Parallelized Network Protocols (“Nahum”)
`
`208
`
`
`
`880 Patent: Disputes
`
`1. A POSA would have combined Thia and
`Tanenbaum96 (and Nahum)
`
`2. Thia and Nahum are enabling
`
`3. The prior art combinations disclose the limitations of the
`challenged claims of the 880 Patent
`
`4. Motions to Amend 880 Patent should be denied
`
`209
`
`
`
`880 Patent: Disputes
`
`1. A POSA would have combined Thia and Tanenbaum96 (and
`Nahum)
`a. A POSA would have understood that Thia’s teachings
`are applicable to TCP/IP
`b. The trend towards TCP/IP in the 1990s would motivate
`combining Thia’s bypass architecture with TCP/IP
`c. Tanenbaum96 does not teach away from the combination
`d.
`It would have been obvious to combine Nahum with Thia
`and Tanenbaum96
`
`210
`
`
`
`Both disclose a bypass/fast-path based
`on TCP/IP header prediction
`
`Ex. 1015 (Thia) at .002;
`See also Paper 1 (1409 Petition) at 32-31; Paper 1 (1410 Petition) at 33-34, 36-37.
`
`Ex. 1006.585 (Tanenbaum96);
`See also Paper 1 (1409 Petition) at 32-31; Paper 1 (1410 Petition) at 33-34, 36-37.
`
`211
`
`
`
`Thia’s teachings are not limited to OSI
`
`Ex. 1015.001 (Thia); See also Paper 1 (1409 Petition) at 24-25, Paper 42 (1409 Reply) at 9; Ex.1223.016-.017 (1409 Lin Reply
`Decl.) at ¶ 26; Paper 1 (1410 Petition) at 25; Paper 42 (1410 Reply) at 7-8; Ex.1223.026-.027 (1410 Lin Reply Decl.) at ¶ 37.
`
`212
`
`
`
`Thia’s standard protocol stack (SPS) is
`a “multi-layer” stack, not an “OSI” stack
`
`Ex. 1015.003 (Thia); See also Paper 1 (1409 Petition) at 25, 30, 34, 35; Paper 42 (1409 Reply) at 9-
`11; Paper 1 (1410 Petition) at 26, 31-32, 35, 40; Paper 42 (1410 Reply) at 7-9.
`
`213
`
`
`
`Thia teaches that its bypass offload is
`for more than one multi-layer stack
`
`Ex. 1015.005 (Thia); See also Paper 42 (1409 Reply) at 9;
`Paper 42 (1410 Reply) at 7.
`
`214
`
`
`
`TCP/IP and OSI were widely understood
`to be very similar
`
`Ex. 1003.011 (IPR2017-1409 Lin Decl.); See also Paper 1 (1409 Petition) at 30-35; Ex.1003.068-.074 (1409 Lin
`Decl.); Paper 1 (1410 Petition) at 31-40; Ex.1003.069-.080 (1410 Lin Decl.).
`
`215
`
`
`
`Layered protocols mean TCP/IP can be
`substituted for OSI
`
`Ex. 1006.045-.046 (Tanenbaum96);
`See also Paper 1 (1409 Petition) at 16, 34-35;
`Paper 1 (1410 Petition) at 16-17, 35-36, 39-40.
`
`216
`
`
`
`880 Patent: Disputes
`
`1. A POSA would have combined Thia and Tanenbaum96 (and
`Nahum)
`a. A POSA would have understood that Thia’s teachings are
`applicable to TCP/IP
`b. The trend towards TCP/IP in the 1990s would motivate
`combining Thia’s bypass architecture with TCP/IP
`c. Tanenbaum96 does not teach away from the combination
`d.
`It would have been obvious to combine Nahum with Thia
`and Tanenbaum96
`
`217
`
`
`
`By 1996 OSI protocol use vanished and
`TCP/IP became dominant
`
`Ex. 1006.016 (Tanenbaum96);
`See also Paper 1 (1409 Petition) at 28, 32-33; Paper 1 (1410 Petition) at 28, 34-35.
`
`218
`
`
`
`Thia’s hardware offload provides
`advantages over software alone
`
`Ex. 1015.013 (Thia);
`See also Paper 1 (1409 Petition) at 33-34, 41;
`Ex.1003.060, .072-.073 (1409 Lin Decl.);
`Paper 1 (1410 Petition) 34-35, 37-38, 61-62;
`Ex.1003.059-.060, .072-.074, .077-.078 (1410 Lin Decl.).
`
`219
`
`
`
`880 Patent: Disputes
`
`1. A POSA would have combined Thia and Tanenbaum96 (and
`Nahum)
`a. A POSA would have understood that Thia’s teachings are
`applicable to TCP/IP
`b. The trend towards TCP/IP in the 1990s would motivate
`combining Thia’s bypass architecture with TCP/IP
`c. Tanenbaum96 does not teach away from the
`combination
`It would have been obvious to combine Nahum with Thia
`and Tanenbaum96
`
`d.
`
`220
`
`
`
`Tanenbaum96 does not teach away
`from a combination with Thia
`Instead, it describes design
`preferences and tradeoffs
`
`Ex. 1006.588-.599 (Tanenbaum96);
`See also Paper 42 (1409 Reply) at 7-8; Ex. 1223.013-.016 (1409 Lin Reply Decl.);
`Paper 42 (1410 Reply) at 5-6; Ex. 1223.023-.025 (1410 Lin Reply Decl.).
`
`221
`
`
`
`Tanenbaum96 does not discourage
`offloading simple protocols
`
`Ex. 1006.588 (Tanenbaum96);
`See also Paper 42 (1409 Reply) at 7; Ex. 1223.014-.015 (1409 Lin Reply Decl.);
`Paper 42 (1410 Reply) at 5-6; Ex. 1223.024-.025 (1410 Lin Reply Decl.).
`
`222
`
`
`
`Tanenbaum96: Transport processing is
`“straightforward” in the “normal case”
`
`Ex. 1006.583 (Tanenbaum96);
`See also Paper 42 (1409 Reply) at 7; Ex. 1223.014-.015 (1409 Lin Reply Decl.);
`Paper 42 (1410 Reply) at 5-6; Ex. 1223.024-.025 (1410 Lin Reply Decl.).
`.
`
`Ex. 1006.585 (Tanenbaum96);
`See also Paper 42 (1409 Reply) at 7; Ex. 1223.014-.015 (1409 Lin Reply Decl.);
`Paper 42 (1410 Reply) at 5-6; Ex. 1223.024-.025 (1410 Lin Reply Decl.).
`
`223
`
`
`
`Thia also recognizes the difficulty of
`offloading a complex protocol stack
`
`Ex. 1015.002 (Thia);
`See also Paper 42 (1409 Reply) at 8;
`Ex. 1223.015-.016 (1409 Lin Reply Decl.); Paper 42 (1410 Reply) at 6;
`Ex. 1223.025 (1410 Lin Reply Decl.).
`
`224
`
`224
`
`
`
`Thia’s solution: “Fast path” offload
`based on header prediction
`
`Ex. 1015.002 (Thia);
`See also Paper 42 (1409 Reply) at 8; Ex. 1223.015-.016 (1409 Lin Reply Decl.);
`Paper 42 (1410 Reply) at 6; Ex. 1223.025 (1410 Lin Reply Decl.).
`
`225
`
`
`
`Both disclose a bypass/fast-path based
`on TCP/IP header prediction
`
`Ex. 1015 (Thia) at .002;
`See also Paper 1 (1409 Petition) at 32-31; Paper 1 (1410 Petition) at 33-34, 36-37.
`
`Ex. 1006.585 (Tanenbaum96);
`See also Paper 1 (1409 Petition) at 32-31; Paper 1 (1410 Petition) at 33-34, 36-37.
`
`226
`
`
`
`880 Patent: Disputes
`
`1. A POSA would have combined Thia and Tanenbaum96 (and
`Nahum)
`a. A POSA would have understood that Thia’s teachings are
`applicable to TCP/IP
`b. The trend towards TCP/IP in the 1990s would motivate
`combining Thia’s bypass architecture with TCP/IP
`c. Tanenbaum96 does not teach away from the combination
`d.
`It would have been obvious to combine Nahum with
`Thia and Tanenbaum96
`
`227
`
`
`
`PO makes no additional arguments
`regarding a combination with Nahum
`
`Paper 32 (1410 Corrected Response) at 57-58 ;
`See also Paper 42 (1410 Reply) at 5.
`
`228
`
`
`
`880 Patent: Disputes
`
`1. A POSA would have combined Thia and Tanenbaum96
`(and Nahum)
`
`2. Thia and Nahum are enabling
`
`3. The prior art combinations disclose the limitations of the
`challenged claims of the 880 Patent
`
`4. Motions to Amend 880 Patent should be denied
`
`229
`
`
`
`PO fails to identify why Thia and Nahum
`are allegedly not enabling
`
`• Patent Owner contends that Thia is an “inoperable device” and is
`therefore a non-enabling reference
`Paper 32 (1409 Corrected Response) at 20-21; Paper 32 (1410 Corrected Response) at 16.
`• Patent Owner’s only support that Thia and Nahum are not enabling is
`Dr. Almeroth’s conclusory declaration
`
`See Paper 42 (1409 Reply) at 3-4; Paper 42 (1410 Reply) at 2-3.
`• But a non-enabling reference can be prior art “for all that it teaches”
`Id. (citing Beckman Instruments v. LKB Produkter AB, 892 F.2d 1547, 1551 (Fed. Cir. 1989)).
`
`230
`
`
`
`Thia is not a theoretical device
`
`Ex. 1015.008 (Thia).
`
`Ex. 1223.004-.005 (1409 Lin Reply Decl.) at ¶ 8; see also Ex. 1223.004-.005 (1410 Lin Reply Decl.) at ¶ 8;
`See also Paper 42 (1409 Reply) at 3-4; Paper 42 (1410 Reply) at 2-3.
`
`231
`
`
`
`Nahum Is enabling
`
`Ex. 1079.002 (Nahum);
`See also Paper 42 (1410 Reply) at 5.
`
`232
`
`
`
`880 Patent: Disputes
`
`1. A POSA would have combined Thia and Tanenbaum96
`(and Nahum)
`
`2. Thia and Nahum are enabling
`
`3. The prior art combinations disclose the limitations of
`the challenged claims of the 880 Patent
`
`4. Motions to Amend 880 Patents should be denied
`
`233
`
`
`
`880 Patent: Disputes
`
`3. The prior art combinations disclose the limitations of the
`challenged claims of the 880 Patent
`a. The prior art combination renders obvious “an
`operation code” (claims 1, 17, 32, 34, 45)
`b. Thia discloses a “re-assembler” on, or “re-assembly” by, a
`network interface (claims 32, 41, 43)
`c. A “flow key” that includes a “first hop medium access control
`(MAC) layer address” would have been obvious (claim 32)
`d. The prior art combination discloses storing the “header
`portion in a header buffer” if the “header conforms to the
`TCP protocol” (claim 32)
`e. The prior art combination discloses a “processor” for TCP
`processing (claims 1, 32, 41, 43)
`
`234
`
`
`
`880 Patent: Claims 1, 17, 32, 34, and 45
`
`Ex. 1001 (880 Patent), Claims 1, 17, 32, 34, 45.
`
`235
`
`
`
`PO told the patent office that a single bit
`can be an operation code
`
`Ex. 1002 (880 Patent File History) at .249;
`See also Paper 1 (1409 Petition) at 49 n.11;
`Paper 1 (1410 Petition) at 53 n.10.
`
`The term “operation code” does
`not appear in the 880 Patent
`outside the claims
`
`236
`
`
`
`Result of the receive bypass test
`indicates if the packet is bypassable
`
`Ex. 1003.097 (1409 Lin Decl.);
`See also Paper 1 (1409 Petition) at 48; Paper 1 (1410 Petition) at 53; Ex. 1003.102 (1410 Lin Decl.).
`
`237
`
`
`
`A POSA would know that the receive
`bypass test results in an op code
`
`Ex. 1003.098-.099 (1409 Lin Decl.);
`See also Paper 1 (1409 Petition) at 49-50;
`Paper 1 (1410 Petition) at 53-54; Ex. 1003.103-.104 (1410 Lin Decl.).
`
`238
`
`
`
`Thia’s operation code: Flag used by the
`“no-in-transit PDU” test
`
` Thia’s flag indicates the status of the most
`recently-received packet – i.e. whether it
`will be processed on the bypass fast-path
`
`Ex.1015.004 (Thia); See also Paper 1 (1409 Petition) at 49-50; Ex. 1003.098-.099 (1409 Lin Decl.); Paper 42 (1409 Reply) at
`15-16; Paper 1 (1410 Petition) at 53-54; Ex. 1003.103-.104 (1410 Lin Decl.); Paper 42 (1410 Reply) at 15.
`
`239
`
`
`
`880 Patent: Disputes
`
`3. The prior art combinations disclose the limitations of the
`challenged claims of the 880 Patent
`a. The prior art combination renders obvious “an operation code” (claims 1,
`17, 32, 34, 45)
`b. Thia discloses a “re-assembler” on, or “re-assembly” by, a network
`interface (claims 32, 41, 43)
`c. A “flow key” that includes a “first hop medium access control (MAC) layer
`address” would have been obvious (claim 32)
`d. The prior art combination discloses storing the “header portion in a header
`buffer” if the “header conforms to the TCP protocol” (claim 32)
`e. The prior art combination discloses a “processor” for TCP processing
`(claims 1, 32, 41, 43)
`
`240
`
`
`
`880 Patent: Claim 32
`
`Ex. 1001 (880 Patent), Claim 32.
`
`241
`
`
`
`880 Patent: Claims 41 and 43
`
`Ex. 1001 (880 Patent), Claims 41, 43.
`
`242
`
`
`
`Unrebutted evidence that TCP
`reassembles segments into streams
`
`Ex. 1006.540-.541 (Tanenbaum96);
`See also Paper 1 (1410 Petition) at 57-58;
`Ex. 1003.109-.110 (1410 Lin Decl.).
`
`243
`
`
`
`Unrebutted evidence of re-assembler /
`re-assembly in Thia
`
`Ex. 1015.005 (Thia); See also Paper 1 (1410 Petition) at 77;
`Ex. 1003.138-.139 (1410 Lin Decl.).
`
`244
`
`
`
`“Segmentation/reassembly” refers to
`lower-layer fragmentation
`
`Ex. 1015.014 (Thia).
`
`Thia’s disclosure is discussing fragmentation
`and re-assembling those fragments at lower-
`layer protocols.
`See Ex. 1223.017-.020 (1410 Lin Reply) at ¶¶ 24-28; see also Paper 42 (1410
`Reply) at 17-18.
`
`245
`
`
`
`Network layer: “Segmentation” is
`“fragmentation”
`
`Ex. 1006.426 (Tanenbaum96);
`See also Ex. 1223.020 (1410 Lin Reply Decl.).
`
`246
`
`
`
`Thia teaches lower-layer
`segmentation/reassembly on the NIA
`
`No bypass –
`Host processes
`the packet
`
`Bypass –
`ROPE
`processes the
`packet and
`stores the data
`in host
`memory
`
`A packet is
`received at the
`NIA via
`Transmission
`Medium
`
`Ex. 1223.019-.020 (1410 Lin Reply) at ¶ 28 (excerpting and annotating Figure 2 from Ex. 1015.007 (Thia) with red, green,
`blue annotations and red shading); see also Paper 42 (1410 Reply) at 17-18.
`
`247
`
`
`
`Explanation of network layer (IP)
`fragmentation
`
`Ex. 1006.431 (Tanenbaum96); See also Paper 42 (1410
`Reply) at 17-18; Ex.1223.017-.018 (1410 Lin Reply
`Decl.).
`
`248
`
`
`
`Disclosure for transmitting a packet fails
`to rebut disclosure of re-assembly
`
`Ex. 1015.009 (Thia).
`
`See, e.g., Paper 42 (1410 Reply) at 18; Ex.1223.020-.022 (1410 Lin Reply Decl.) at ¶¶ 29-30.
`
`249
`
`Ex. 1015.007 (Thia) (Fig. 2).
`
`
`
`880 Patent: Disputes
`
`3. The prior art combinations disclose the limitations of the
`challenged claims of the 880 Patent
`a. The prior art combination renders obvious “an operation code” (claims 1,
`17, 32, 34, 45)
`b. Thia discloses a “re-assembler” on, or “re-assembly” by, a network
`interface (claims 32, 41, 43)
`c. A “flow key” that includes a “first hop medium access control (MAC)
`layer address” would have been obvious (claim 32)
`d. The prior art combination discloses storing the “header portion in a header
`buffer” if the “header conforms to the TCP protocol” (claim 32)
`e. The prior art combination discloses a “processor” for TCP processing
`(claims 1, 32, 41, 43)
`
`250
`
`
`
`880 Patent: Claim 32
`
`Ex. 1001 (880 Patent), Claim 32.
`
`251
`
`
`
`Tanenbaum96 discloses flow key
`comprising the TCP/IP socket pair
`
`Ex. 1006.585 (Tanenbaum96);
`See Paper 1 (1410 Petition) at 47-48;
`Ex. 1003.093-.095 (1410 Lin Decl.);
`See also Petition 1 (1410 Petition) at 30, 48.
`
`252
`
`
`
`It would be obvious to include header
`information relevant to the connection
`
`Ex. 1003.095 (1410 Lin Decl.);
`See also Paper 1 (1410 Petition) at 49.
`
`253
`
`
`
`MAC layer address is relevant to the
`connection
`
`Ex. 1223.014-.015 (1410 Lin Decl.) at ¶ 18;
`See also Paper 1 (1410 Petition) at 49;
`Ex. 1003.095 (1410 Lin Decl.); Paper 42 (1410 Reply) at 10-12.
`
`254
`
`
`
`The pool of fields to include in a flow key
`is finite and small
`
`Ex. 1013.125 (Stevens2) at Fig. 4.8;
`See also Paper 42 (1410 Reply) at 10-11;
`Ex. 1223.011-.015 (1410 Lin Reply Decl.).
`
`255
`
`
`
`The pool of fields to include in a flow key
`is finite and small
`
`Ex. 1008.058 (Stevens1) at Fig. 3.1;
`See also Paper 42 (1410 Reply) at 10-11; Ex. 1223.011-.015 (1410 Lin Reply Decl.).
`
`256
`
`
`
`The pool of fields to include in a flow key
`is finite and small
`
`Ex. 1008.249 (Stevens1) at Fig. 17.2;
`See also Paper 42 (1410 Reply) at 10-11; Ex. 1223.011-.015 (1410 Lin Reply Decl.).
`
`257
`
`
`
`Dr. Almeroth opined that a MAC layer
`address is not required to infringe
`
`Ex. 1249.005 (Almeroth Infrgmnt. Rpt.) at ¶ 61; See also
`Paper 42 (1410 Reply) at 13.
`
`258
`
`
`
`880 Patent: Disputes
`
`3. The prior art combinations disclose the limitations of the
`challenged claims of the 880 Patent
`a. The prior art combination renders obvious “an operation code” (claims 1,
`17, 32, 34, 45)
`b. Thia discloses a “re-assembler” on, or “re-assembly” by, a network
`interface (claims 32, 41, 43)
`c. A “flow key” that includes a “first hop medium access control (MAC) layer
`address” would have been obvious (claim 32)
`d. The prior art combination discloses storing the “header portion in a
`header buffer” if the “header conforms to the TCP protocol” (claim
`32)
`e. The prior art combination discloses a “processor” for TCP processing
`(claims 1, 32, 41, 43)
`
`259
`
`
`
`880 Patent: Claim 32
`
`Ex. 1001 (880 Patent), Claim 32.
`
`260
`
`
`
`880 Patent: Storing said header portion
`in a header buffer
`
`Ex. 1003.111 (1410 Lin Decl.); See also Paper 1 (1410 Petition) at 58-60.
`
`Ex. 1015.011 (Thia) at Fig. 4.
`
`261
`
`
`
`Claims do not recite a “separate” header
`buffer
`
`880 Patent, Claim 32;
`See also Paper 42 (1410 Reply) at 16-17.
`
`Paper 32 (1410 Response) at 41.
`
`262
`
`
`
`880 Patent: Disputes
`
`3. The prior art combinations disclose the limitations of the challenged claims
`of the 880 Patent
`a. The prior art combination renders obvious “an operation code” (claims 1,
`17, 32, 34, 45)
`b. Thia discloses a “re-assembler” on, or “re-assembly” by, a network
`interface (claims 32, 41, 43)
`c. A “flow key” that includes a “first hop medium access control (MAC) layer
`address” would have been obvious (claim 32)
`d. The prior art combination discloses storing the “header portion in a header
`buffer” if the “header conforms to the TCP protocol” (claim 32)
`e. The prior art combination discloses a “processor” for TCP
`processing (claims 1, 32, 41, 43)
`
`263
`
`
`
`880 Patent: Claim 1
`
`Ex. 1001 (880 Patent), Claim 1.
`
`264
`
`
`
`880 Patent: Claims 41 and 43
`
`Ex. 1001 (880 Patent), Claims 41, 43.
`
`265
`
`
`
`The prior art combination renders
`obvious TCP processing
`
`Ex.1015 (Thia) at Fig. 2; See also Paper 1; (1409 Petition) 51-57; Paper 1 (1410 Petition) at 60-65.
`
`Paper 1 (1410 Petition) at 34. See also Paper 1 (1409 Petition) 32.
`
`266
`
`
`
`880 Patent: Disputes
`
`1. A POSA would have combined Thia and Tanenbaum96
`(and Nahum)
`
`2. Thia and Nahum are enabling
`
`3. The prior art combinations disclose the limitations of the
`challenged claims of the 880 Patent
`
`4. Motions to Amend 880 Patent should be denied
`
`267
`
`
`
`880 Patent: Motions to Amend
`
`• 2017IPR-01409, IPR2017-01736, IPR2018-00338: Amending
`all challenged claims except for claim 8, which is cancelled
`
`• 2017IPR-01410, IPR2017-01737, IPR2018-00339: Amending
`all challenged claims
`
`268
`
`
`
`880 Patent: Disputes
`
`4. Motions to Amend 880 Patents should be denied
`
`a) PO has not met its burden of production under 35
`U.S.C. § 316(d) due to its failure to provide
`adequate written description support
`
`b) The substitute claims are indefinite
`
`c) The prior art combinations disclose the limitations of the
`substitute claims
`
`269
`
`
`
`PO only provides string citations
`
`Paper 20 (1410 Motion to Amend) at ii.
`
`Paper 20 (1410 Motion to Amend) at vii.
`
`See Paper 38 (1409 Opp. to Motion to Amend) at 2-9; Paper 38 (1410 Opp. to Motion to Amend) at 2-8.
`
`270
`
`
`
`PO’s citations do not identify a “packet
`memory”; just general purpose RAM
`
`Ex. 2025.092 (880 App. Pub.) at ¶ [0838];
`See Paper 50 (1409 Sur-Reply to Motion to Amend) at 2-3;
`Paper 50 (1410 Sur-Reply to Motion to Amend) at 2-3.
`
`Ex. 2025.037 (880 App. Pub.) at Fig. 50.
`
`271
`
`
`
`PO’s citations do not identify a header
`buffer separate from packet memory
`
`Paper 20 (1410 Motion to Amend), App’x A at ii.
`
`Ex. 2025.059 (880 App. Pub.) at ¶ [0271].
`
`Ex. 2025.049 (880 App. Pub.) at ¶ [0115].
`
`Ex. 2025.002 (880 App. Pub.) at Fig. 2.
`See Paper 38 (1409 Opp. to Motion to Amend) at 5-6; Paper 50 (1409 Sur-Reply to Motion to Amend) at 4-5; Paper 38 (1410 Opp. to
`Motion to Amend) at 4-5; Paper 50 (1410 Sur-Reply to Motion to Amend) at 4-5.
`
`Ex. 2025 (880 App. Pub.) at cl. 33.
`
`272
`
`
`
`PO in its reply relies entirely on new
`evidence for support
`
`Paper 20 (1410 Motion to Amend), App’x A at ii.
`
`Paper 43 (1410 Motion to Amend
`Reply) at 1-2;
`See Paper 50 (1409 Sur-Reply to
`Motion to Amend) at 4-5;
`Paper 50 (1410 Sur-Reply to Motion
`to Amend) at 4-5.
`
`273
`
`
`
`Amended limitations are not identical to
`the original, as-filed claims
`
`•
`
`•
`
`•
`
`•
`
`“wherein the header buffer is separate from the packet
`memory” (claim 61)
`“wherein the header buffer is separate from the packet
`memory” (claim 79)
`“wherein the header buffer is separate from said packet
`memory” (claim 85)
`“wherein the header buffer is separate from the memory”
`(claim 87)
`
`274
`
`
`
`880 Patent: Disputes
`
`4. Motions to Amend 880 Patents should be denied
`
`a) PO has not met its burden of production under 35
`U.S.C. § 316(d) due to its failure to provide adequate
`written description support
`
`b) The substitute claims are indefinite
`
`c) The prior art combinations disclose the limitations of the
`substitute claims
`
`275
`
`
`
`A POSA would not know what “separate
`from” means in this context
`
`•
`
`•
`
`•
`
`“… could mean that the header buffer and packet memory are
`located on the same memory device, but the physical
`location on the memory device where the header is stored is
`different from the physical location on the memory device
`whether the packets are stored”
`“… could refer to the memory device itself, such that the
`header buffer is on a different memory device than the packet
`memory”
`“… could mean that the virtual address for the header is
`separate from the virtual address for the packet”
`
`Ex. 1210.010 (1409 Lin Opp. Decl.) at ¶ 24; See also Paper 38 (1409 Opp. to Mot. to Amend) at 9-11; Paper 50 (1409 Sur-Reply to Mot. to
`Amend) at 7-8; Paper 38 (1410 Opp. to Mot. to Amend) at 8-10, Ex. 1210.010-.011 (1410 Lin Opp. Decl.) at ¶ 24, Paper 50 (1410 Sur-Reply to
`Mot. to Amend) at 7-8.
`
`276
`
`
`
`880 Patent: Disputes
`
`4. Motions to Amend 880 Patents should be denied
`
`c) The prior art combinations disclose the limitations of the
`substitute claims
`
`i.
`
`ii.
`
`“storing said header portion in a header buffer, wherein
`the header buffer is separate from the packet memory”
`(substitute claims 61, 79, 85, 87)
`
`“re-assembling [said/a/the] data portion” / “re-assembler”
`(substitute claims 61, 79, 85, 87)
`
`277
`
`
`
`Exemplary proposed claim 61
`
`Paper 20 (1409 Motion to Amend), App’x C at xix.
`
`278
`
`
`
`The “slower external memory” is a
`“packet memory” as claimed
`
`Ex. 1015.011 (Thia);
`See Paper 38 (1409 Opp. to Motion to Amend) at 13-14, 20-22;
`Ex. 1210.025, .053 (1409 Lin Opp. Decl.); Paper 50 (1409 Sur-Reply to Motion to
`Amend) at 9-10; Paper 38 (1410 Opp. to Motion to Amend) at 12, 16-17; Ex. 1210.045,
`.055 (1410 Lin Opp. Decl.); Paper 50 (1410 Sur-Reply to Motion to Amend) at 9-10.
`
`279
`
`
`
`“header buffer” in internal memory is
`separate from external “packet memory”
`Thia’s Internal Dual-Ported Memory
`Thia’s External
`Comprising Header Buffers
`Packet Memory
`Header
`portion
`
`Move for
`bypass
`processing
`
`Payload
`
`Header
`portion
`
`Payload
`
`Ex. 1210.052-.053 (1409 Lin Opp. Decl.) (excerpting Ex. 1015 (Thia) at .011);
`See also Paper 38 (1409 Opp. to Motion to Amend) at 22-23; Paper 50 (1409 Sur-Reply to Motion to Amend) at 10-11; Paper 38 (1410 Opp. to
`Motion to Amend) at 17; Ex. 1210.054-.055 (1410 Lin Opp. Decl.); Paper 50 (1410 Sur-Reply to Motion to Amend) at 10-11.
`
`280
`
`
`
`PO’s (and Its expert’s) rebuttal of
`petitioner’s obviousness argument is
`based on a incorrect premise
`
`Paper 43 (1410 Motion to Amend Reply) at 8;
`See Paper 50 (1409 Sur-Reply to Motion to Amend) at 9-11; Paper 50 (1410
`Sur-Reply to Motion to Amend) at 9-11.
`
`281
`
`
`
`A “window” refers to the number of
`bytes, not the size of packets, that can
`be received
`
`Ex. 1006.545 (Tanenbaum96);
`See Paper 50 (1409 Sur-reply to Motion to Amend) at 9-11;
`Ex. 1210.056-.057 (1409 Lin Opp. Decl.);
`Paper 50 (1410 Sur-reply to Motion to Amend) at 9-11;
`Ex. 1210.058-.059 (1410 Lin Opp. Decl.).
`
`282
`
`
`
`PO’s expert agrees that a window does
`not refer to size of packets
`
`Q. Does – is the window referencing a TCP window?
`A. No.
`Q. What is it referencing?
`A. Within the GO-back-N retransmission strategy,
`there is a window size. And so it’s referencing that
`window size. And in that instance, it’s referencing
`how much data can be buffered on the receive
`side….
`
`Ex. 1254 (Almeroth Depo.) at 100:15-22;
`See Paper 50 (1409 Sur-reply to Motion to Amend) at 9-10;
`Paper 50 (1410 Sur-reply to Motion to Amend) at 9-10.
`
`283
`
`
`
`PO’s expert disagrees that Thia’s
`external memory is only for packets that
`are too large for internal memory
`
`Q.
`
`A.
`
`Is it your understanding that slower external
`memory could only be needed if the packets were
`larger than the on-chip buffer?
`I don’t
`think I would agree with the “only”
`characterization. As the first part of the sentence
`says,
`it says, “The on-chip buffer may not be
`sufficient
`to hold the unacknowledged data
`packets for
`retransmission.”
`I
`think there’s a
`variety of scenarios under which that might be the
`case….
`
`Ex. 1254 (Almeroth, Depo.) at 105:24-106:8;
`See Paper 50 (1409 Sur-reply to Motion to Amend) at 9-10;
`Paper 50 (1410 Sur-reply to Motion to Amend) at 9-10.
`
`284
`
`
`
`PO’s rebuttal is based on a faulty
`premise contradicted by its expert
`
`Q.
`
`A.
`
`So if you had a situation where the large window
`encompassed, let’s just say ten packets, for example, if you
`had a case where the large window encompassed ten
`packets, and together, those ten packets were bigger than
`the on-chip buffer,
`that would be another circumstance
`where the slower external memory would be needed, right?
`If your hypothetical asks me to assume that the ten packets
`are larger than what can be stored in the on-chip buffer, then
`I would agree that the slower external memory would be
`needed.
`I
`think that pretty much reads straight
`from the
`sentences we have been looking at on Page 11.
`And just to be clear, that’s not the individual packets are too
`large to store, but together, the ten packets are too large to
`store, right?
`[objection omitted]
`A.
`If that’s part of your hypothetical, then I think that’s fine.
`Ex. 1254 (Almeroth Depo.) at 107:14-108:8;
`See Paper 50 (1409 Sur-reply to Motion to Amend) at 9-10; Paper
`50 (1410 Sur-reply to Motion to Amend) at 9-10.
`
`Q.
`
`285
`
`
`
`880 Patent: Disputes
`
`4. Motions to Amend 880 Patents should be denied
`
`c) The prior art combinations disclose the limitations of the
`substitute claims
`
`i.
`
`“storing said header portion in a header buffer, wherein the
`header buffer is separate from the packet memory” (substitute
`claims 61, 79, 85, 87)
`
`ii. “re-assembling [said/a/the] data portion” / “re-assembler”
`(substitute claims 61, 79, 85, 87)
`
`286
`
`
`
`PO’s arguments on re-assembly/re-
`assembler are not new and are similarly
`wrong
`
`Paper 43 (1410 Motion to Amend Reply) at 10.
`
`Ex. 2305.012 (Almeroth Decl. ISO Reply) at ¶¶ 28-29.
`
`See Paper 50 (1409 Sur-reply to Motion to Amend) at 11-12;
`Paper 50 (1410 Sur-reply to Motion to Amend) at 11-12.
`
`287
`
`
`
`The evidence PO and its expert rely on
`is for transmitting, not receiving
`
`See Paper 50 (1409 Sur-reply to Motion to Amend) at 11-12;
`Paper 50 (1410 Sur-reply to Motion to Amend) at 11-12.
`
`Ex. 1015.009 (Thia).
`
`288
`
`
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
