U.S. Patent No. 7,673,072
`(072 Patent)
`
`IPR2017-1406 (Intel)
`IPR2018-0375 (Dell)
`IPR2017-1707 (Cavium)
`IPR2018-0329 (Wistron)
`
`*All citations herein are to the IPR2017-01406 case unless otherwise noted.
`
`97
`
`
`(072 Patent)
`
`IPR2017-1406 (Intel)
`IPR2018-0375 (Dell)
`IPR2017-1707 (Cavium)
`IPR2018-0329 (Wistron)
`
`*All citations herein are to the IPR2017-01406 case unless otherwise noted.
`
`97
`
`
`
`072 Patent: Instituted Grounds
`
`• Erickson in view of Tanenbaum96
`
` 072 Patent: Claims 1, 2-8, 9, 10-14 and 15, 16-
`21
`
`Ex. 1005 – U.S. Patent No. 5,768,618 (Erickson)
`Ex. 1006 – Tanenbaum, Andrew S., Computer Networks (Tanenbaum96)
`
`98
`
`
`
`072 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 1-21 of the 072 Patent
`
`3. Motion to Amend 072 Patent should be denied
`
`99
`
`
`
`072 Patent: Disputes
`
`1. A POSA would have been motivated to
`combine Tanenbaum96 with Erickson
`
` See 036 Patent, Dispute 1, slides 6-53
`
`100
`
`
`
`072 Patent: Disputes
`
`2. The combination of Erickson and Tanenbaum96
`discloses the limitations of claims 1-21 of the 072
`Patent
`a) The prior art discloses “dividing, by the interface device, the
`data into segments” (all claims)
`b) The prior art discloses “transferring status information for the
`context to the interface device during the same operation as
`transferring protocol header information to the interface device”
`(claim 2)
`c) The prior art discloses “receiving, by the interface device, receive
`packets that correspond to the [context/protocol information], and
`updating the [context/status information] by the interface device to
`account for the receive packets” (claims 7, 14, 21)
`
`101
`
`
`
`“Dividing, by the interface device, the
`data into segments”
`
`Ex. 1001 (072 Patent), Claim 1.
`
`102
`
`
`
`Tanenbaum96: TCP entity divides data
`into segments (TCP packets)
`
`Paper 1 (072 Petition) at 43;
`Paper 46 (072 Reply) at 15;
`Ex. 1003.100 (072 Horst Decl.);
`Ex. 1006.540 (Tanenbaum96).
`
`Paper 1 (072 Petition) at 43;
`Paper 46 (072 Reply ) at 15;
`Ex. 1003.100 (072 Horst Decl.);
`Ex. 1006.543 (Tanenbaum96).
`
`103
`
`
`
`Tanenbaum96: Transport entity may
`reside on network interface
`
`Paper 1 (072 Petition) at 43-44;
`Ex. 1003.100 (072 Horst Decl.);
`Ex. 1006.498 (Tanenbaum96).
`
`Paper 46 (072 Reply) at 6;
`Ex. 1006.530 (Tanenbaum96).
`
`104
`
`
`
`Erickson teaches that its interface
`device stores and transmits user data
`
`Paper 1 (072 Petition) at 33, 42-43, 44;
`Paper 46 (072 Reply) at 15;
`Ex. 1003.100-.101 (072 Horst. Decl.);
`Ex. 1005 (Erickson) at 7:39-46.
`
`105
`
`
`
`Erickson divides the data and transmits
`data using adapter
`
`Paper 1 (072 Petition) at 44-46;
`Ex. 1003.100-.101 (072 Horst Decl.); Ex. 1005 (Erickson) at 7:51-64, 8:30-35.
`
`106
`
`
`
`Erickson’s single page embodiment can
`support TCP
`• POSA would understand a typical page of virtual
`address space (4K bytes) would be greater than a
`typical MSS segment (1500 bytes)
`
`Paper 46 (072 Reply) at 16-17;
`Ex. 1003.103 (072 Horst Decl.).
`
`107
`
`
`
`I/O traffic would not be a factor in
`successfully implementing a TCP script
`
`Paper 46 (072 Reply) at 16-17;
`Ex. 1223 (072 Horst Reply Decl.) ¶ 46.
`
`.
`
`108
`
`
`
`072 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 “dividing, by the interface device, the data
`into segments” (all claims)
`b) The prior art discloses “transferring status information for the
`context to the interface device during the same operation as
`transferring protocol header information to the interface
`device” (claim 2)
`c) The prior art discloses “receiving, by the interface device, receive
`packets that correspond to the [context/protocol information], and
`updating the [context/status information] by the interface device to
`account for the receive packets” (claims 7, 14, and 21)
`
`109
`
`
`
`“transferring status information ... during the same
`operation as ... protocol header information”
`
`Ex. 1001 (072 Patent), Claim 2.
`
`110
`
`
`
`072 patent: “Status information” can be
`“basic frame header” information
`
`Paper 1 (072 Petition) 51;
`Ex. 1001 (072 Patent) at claim 3.
`
`Paper 1 (072 Petition) 51;
`Ex. 1001 (072 Patent) at 32:56-59.
`
`111
`
`
`
`Erickson teaches “almost everything”
`about datagram is “pre-negotiated”
`
`Paper 1 (072 Petition) at 53;
`Ex. 1005 (Erickson) at 6:57-6:62.
`.
`
`112
`
`
`
`Erickson’s datagram template is a basic
`frame header including status information
`
`Paper 1 (072 Petition) at 53;
`Ex.1003.111 (072 Horst Decl.);
`Ex. 1005 (Erickson) at 8:2-4.
`.
`
`113
`
`
`
`“Same operation” because protocol
`header includes status information
`
`Paper 1 (072 Petition) at 40, 53;
`Ex. 1003.074, .112 (072 Horst Decl.);
`Ex.1005 (Erickson) at 6:63-7:4.
`.
`
`114
`
`
`
`072 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 “dividing, by the interface device, the data
`into segments” (all claims)
`b) The prior art discloses “transferring status information for the
`context to the interface device during the same operation as
`transferring protocol header information to the interface device”
`(claim 2)
`c) The prior art discloses “receiving, by the interface device,
`receive packets that correspond to the [context/protocol
`information], and updating the [context/status information] by
`the interface device to account for the receive packets”
`(claims 7, 14, and 21)
`
`115
`
`
`
`“Receiving .... and updating ... by the
`interface device”
`
`Ex. 1001 (072 Patent), Claims 7, 14, 21.
`
`116
`
`
`
`PO ignores the teaching of the
`combination
`• Patent Owner argues about each reference separately:
`
`• But Petitioner relies on Erickson in view of Tanenbaum96:
`
`Paper 34 (072
`Response) at 34.
`
`Paper 1 (072
`Petition) at 62.
`
`117
`
`
`
`Obvious to use Tanenbaum96’s fast-path
`connection records with Erickson’s adapter
`
`......
`
`Paper 1 (072 Petition) at 61-62, 70-71;
`Ex. 1003.110, .121-.122 (072 Horst Decl.);
`Ex. 1006.584-.585 (Tanenbaum96).
`
`118
`
`
`
`072 Patent: Disputes
`
`3. Motion to Amend 072 Patent should be denied
`
`a) Patent Owner has improperly expanded the scope of
`claims 22-29
`
`b) Patent Owner does not show adequate written description
`support
`
`c) Substitute claims 22-29 are indefinite
`
`d) Substitute claims are obvious
`
`119
`
`
`
`“Protocol header information” untied to any
`other information in substitute claim 22
`
`Paper 54 (072 Sur-Reply for Opp. to Motion to Amend) at 3.
`
`120
`
`
`
`“Protocol header information” untied to “context”
`would infringe claim 22, but not claim 1
`
`Paper 40 (072 Opp. to Motion to Amend) at 7.
`
`121
`
`
`
`072 Patent: Disputes
`
`3. Motion to Amend 072 Patent should be denied
`
`a) Patent Owner has improperly expanded the scope of claims
`22-29
`
`b) Patent Owner does not show adequate written
`description support
`
`c) Substitute claims 22-29 are indefinite
`
`d) Substitute claims are obvious
`
`122
`
`
`
`PO must supply written description support
`after Aqua Products
`
`Paper 54 (072 Sur-Reply for Opp. to Motion to Amend) at 5;
`Nov. 21, 2017 USPTO Memo
`
`123
`
`
`
`PO identifies same 10 pages and 12 figures for
`every independent claim limitation
`
`Same written
`description support
`as 036 Patent
`
`Paper 40 (072 Opp. to
`Motion to Amend) at 4-5;
`Paper 62 (072 Corrected
`Exhibits for Motion to
`Amend), Appx. A.
`
`124
`
`
`
`Too late to provide written description
`support in Reply
`
`• PO provides alleged “exemplary” written description support for
`the first time in its Reply
`
`Paper 47 (072 Reply ISO Motion to Amend) at 6;
`Ex. 2305 (Almeroth Decl. ISO Reply) at 25.
`
`125
`
`
`
`Written description support provided by PO
`is insufficient
`
`• Patent Owner cites to written description support not included
`in its original motion
`
`• Patent Owner has not identified any written description support
`for:
`“Transferring the context information to an interface device”
`•
`• Creating a “template header” from any “protocol header information”
`
`Paper 54 (072 Sur-Reply for Motion to Amend) at 7-8.
`
`126
`
`
`
`072 Patent: Disputes
`
`3. Motion to Amend 072 Patent should be denied
`
`a) Patent Owner has improperly expanded the scope of claims
`22-29
`
`b) Patent Owner does not show adequate written description
`support
`
`c) Substitute claims 22-29 are indefinite
`
`d) Substitute claims are obvious
`
`127
`
`
`
`Claim 22 is indefinite
`
`Paper 40 (072 Opp. to Motion to Amend) at 8-10;
`Ex. 1210 (072 Horst Decl. ISO Opp. to Motion to Amend) ¶ 18.
`
`128
`
`
`
`072 Patent: Disputes
`
`3. Motion to Amend 072 Patent should be denied
`
`d) Substitute claims are obvious
`
`i. Prior art discloses “creating a context that includes a MAC layer
`address, an IP address, and TCP state information for the
`connection” (limitation 22.1)
`
`ii. Prior art discloses “transferring the context information to an interface
`device” (limitation 22.2)
`
`iii. Prior art discloses “transferring data ... after transferring the context
`information to the interface device” (limitation 22.3)
`
`iv. Prior art discloses “creating headers for the segments, by the interface
`device, from a template header” containing “TCP state information”
`(limitation 22.5)
`
`129
`
`
`
`Erickson: “Pre-negotiated” header that
`includes “almost everything” for UDP
`
`Paper 40 (072 Opp. to Motion to Amend) at 11-12;
`Ex. 1005 (Erickson) at 6:58-7:3, Fig. 6.
`
`130
`
`
`
`POSA would have replaced UDP header
`with TCP header
`
`Paper 40 (072 Opp. to Motion to Amend) at 12;
`Ex. 1006 (Tanenbaum96) at .584, Fig. 6-50.
`
`131
`
`
`
`072 Patent: Disputes
`
`3. Motion to Amend 072 Patent should be denied
`
`d) Substitute claims are obvious
`
`i. Prior art discloses “creating a context that includes a MAC layer
`address, an IP address, and TCP state information for the connection”
`(limitation 22.1)
`
`ii. Prior art discloses “transferring the context information to an
`interface device” (limitation 22.2)
`
`iii. Prior art discloses “transferring data ... after transferring the context
`information to the interface device” (limitation 22.3)
`
`iv. Prior art discloses “creating headers for the segments, by the interface
`device, from a template header” containing “TCP state information”
`(limitation 22.5)
`
`132
`
`
`
`Erickson discloses transferring
`“datagram template” to I/O adapter
`
`Paper 1 (072 Petition) at 42;
`Paper 40 (072 Opp. to Motion to Amend) at 13.
`Ex. 1005 (Erickson) at 7:65-8:9.
`
`133
`
`
`
`072 Patent: Disputes
`
`3. Motion to Amend 072 Patent should be denied
`
`d) Substitute claims are obvious
`
`i. Prior art discloses “creating a context that includes a MAC layer
`address, an IP address, and TCP state information for the connection”
`(limitation 22.1)
`
`ii. Prior art discloses “transferring the context information to an interface
`device” (limitation 22.2)
`
`iii. Prior art discloses “transferring data ... after transferring the
`context information to the interface device” (limitation 22.3)
`
`iv. Prior art discloses “creating headers for the segments, by the interface
`device, from a template header” containing “TCP state information”
`(limitation 22.5)
`
`134
`
`
`
`Data is transferred after the context
`information
`
`Paper 1 (072 Petition) at 42-43;
`Paper 40 (072 Opp. to Motion to Amend) at 14;
`Ex. 1210.024 (072 Horst Decl. ISO Opp. to Motion to Amend);
`Ex. 1005 (Erickson) at 7:39-48, Fig. 7.
`
`135
`
`
`
`072 Patent: Disputes
`
`3. Motion to Amend 072 Patent should be denied
`
`d) Substitute claims are obvious
`
`i. Prior art discloses “creating a context that includes a MAC layer
`address, an IP address, and TCP state information for the connection”
`(limitation 22.1)
`
`ii. Prior art discloses “transferring the context information to an interface
`device” (limitation 22.2)
`
`iii. Prior art discloses “transferring data ... after transferring the context
`information to the interface device” (limitation 22.3)
`
`iv. Prior art discloses “creating headers for the segments, by the
`interface device, from a template header” containing “TCP state
`information” (limitation 22.5)
`
`136
`
`
`
`POSA would have replaced UDP header
`with TCP header
`
`Paper 40 (072 Opp. to Motion to Amend) at 12;
`Ex. 1006 (Tanenbaum96) at .584, Fig. 6-50.
`
`137
`
`
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,337,241
`(241 Patent)
`
`IPR2017-1392 (Intel)
`IPR2018-0372 (Dell)
`IPR2017-1728 (Cavium)
`IPR2018-0328 (Wistron)
`
`All citations herein are to the IPR2017-01405 case unless otherwise noted.
`
`
`
`241 Patent: Instituted Grounds
`
`• Erickson in view of Tanenbaum96 and
`Alteon
` Claims 1, 2-8, 18, 22, and 23
`• Erickson in view of Tanenbaum96
`(Common to 036 and 072 Patents)*
` Claims 9, 10-16, 17, 19-21, and 24
`
`* This combination is discussed on slides 6-53 (regarding 036 and 072 patents)
`
`Ex. 1005 – U.S. Patent No. 5,768,618 (“Erickson”)
`Ex. 1006 – Tanenbaum, Andrew S., Computer Networks (“Tanenbaum96”)
`Ex. 1033 – “Gigabit Ethernet Technical Brief (“Alteon”)
`
`139
`
`
`
`241 Patent: Disputes
`
`1. A POSA would be motivated to combine
`a. Erickson and Tannenbaum96
`b. Alteon with Erickson and Tannenbaum96
`2. The prior art discloses all of the disputed
`limitations of the 241 Patent
`3. Alteon is Prior Art
`4. Motion to Amend 241 Patent
`
`140
`
`
`
`241 Patent: Disputes
`
`1. A POSA would be motivated to combine
`a. Erickson and Tannenbaum96
`
` See 036 Patent, Dispute 1, slides 6-53
`
`141
`
`
`
`241 Patent: Disputes
`
`1. A POSA would be motivated to combine
`a. Erickson and Tannenbaum96
`b. Alteon with Erickson and Tannenbaum96
`i.
`A POSA would have been motivated to apply Alteon’s
`interrupt reductions to Erickson and Tanenbaum96
`Tanenbaum96 does not teach away from the combination
`(see slides 33-40)
`iii. Erickson and Alteon are compatible
`
`ii.
`
`Ex. 1005 – U.S. Patent No. 5,768,618 (“Erickson”)
`Ex. 1006 – Tanenbaum, Andrew S., Computer Networks (“Tanenbaum96”)
`Ex. 1033 – “Gigabit Ethernet Technical Brief (“Alteon”)
`
`142
`
`
`
`PO has admitted that using fewer than
`one interrupt per packet was known
`
`44 – 33 = At least 11 segments with no interrupts
`
`Paper 45 (241 Reply) at 6;
`Ex. 1031.006 (1997 Provisional).
`
`143
`
`
`
`Erickson sought to avoid operating
`system intervention
`
`Ex. 1003.101 (Horst Decl.) at ¶ 169.
`
`Ex. 1005.010 (Erickson) at 3:1-10.
`
`144
`
`
`
`Alteon shows that sending fewer
`interrupts was known and desirable
`
`Paper 4 (241 Petition) at 47-48;
`Paper 45 (241 Reply) at 5;
`Ex. 1033.022-.023 (Alteon).
`
`145
`
`
`
`241 Patent: Disputes
`
`1. A POSA would be motivated to combine
`a. Erickson and Tannenbaum96
`b. Alteon with Erickson and Tannenbaum96
`i.
`A POSA would have been motivated to apply Alteon’s interrupt
`reductions to Erickson and Tanenbaum96
`ii. Tanenbaum96 does not teach away from the combination
`(see slides 33-40)
`iii. Erickson and Alteon are compatible
`
`146
`
`
`
`241 Patent: Disputes
`
`1. A POSA would be motivated to combine
`a. Erickson and Tannenbaum96
`b. Alteon with Erickson and Tannenbaum96
`i.
`A POSA would have been motivated to apply Alteon’s interrupt
`reductions to Erickson and Tanenbaum96
`Tanenbaum96 does not teach away from the combination
`(see slides 33-40)
`iii. Erickson and Alteon are compatible
`
`ii.
`
`147
`
`
`
`Erickson is not limited to a single page
`architecture
`
`Ex. 1005.012 (Erickson) at 8:16-24;
`Ex. 1223.024 (Horst Reply Decl.) at ¶¶ 47-49;
`Paper 45 (241 Reply) at 11-12.
`
`148
`
`
`
`A single page is sufficient to hold
`multiple TCP segments
`
`Ex. 1223.023-.024 (Horst Reply Decl.) at ¶ 46;
`Paper 45 (241 Reply) at 11-12.
`
`149
`
`
`
`241 Patent: Disputes
`
`2. The prior art discloses all of the disputed limitations of the
`241 Patent
`a) Erickson in view of Tanenbaum96 and Alteon discloses the
`limitations of claims 1, 2-8, 18, 22, and 23 of the 241 Patent
`(receive claims)
`b) Erickson in view of Tanenbaum96 discloses the limitations of
`claims 9, 10-16, 17, 19-21, and 21 of the 241 Patent
`(transmit claims)
`
`150
`
`
`
`241 Patent: Disputes (Receive Claims)
`
`ii.
`
`iii.
`
`a) Erickson in view of Tanenbaum96 and Alteon discloses the
`limitations of claims 1, 2-8, 18, 22, and 23 of the 241 Patent
`i.
`The prior art discloses validation of network and transport layer
`headers “without an interrupt dividing the processing” (claim 1)
`The prior art discloses sending the data from each packet to a destination
`in memory without sending any of the headers (claim 1)
`The prior art discloses processing MAC layer headers without an interrupt
`(claim 2)
`The prior art discloses processing an upper layer header by a second
`mechanism (claim 3)
`The prior art discloses sorting the packets by classifying each as having
`IP and TCP headers (claim 6)
`
`iv.
`
`v.
`
`151
`
`
`
`241 Patent: Claim 1
`
`Ex. 1001.142 (241 Patent), Claim 1.
`
`152
`
`
`
`The prior art combination teaches
`header validation on the adapter
`
`Ex. 1005.007 (Erickson) at 7:21-33;
`Paper 45 (241 Reply) at 5-6;
`Ex. 1003.115 (Horst Decl.) at A-5;
`Paper 4 (241 Petition) at 53-54.
`
`153
`
`
`
`The prior art combination teaches
`header validation on the adapter
`
`Ex. 1006.589 (Tanenbaum96);
`Ex. 1003.059-.060 (Horst Decl.) at ¶ 100;
`Paper 45 (241 Reply) at 6.
`
`154
`
`
`
`There is “no reason to interrupt the
`processing of the host computer”
`
`Paper 11 (Institution Decision) at 19;
`Paper 41 (241 Reply) at 17;
`Ex. 1003.095-.096 (Horst Decl.) at ¶ 159.
`
`155
`
`
`
`Priority application admits using fewer
`than 1 interrupt per packet was known
`
`44 – 33 = At least 11 segments with no interrupts
`
`Ex. 1031.006 (1997 Provisional);
`Paper 45 (241 Reply) at 6-7.
`.
`
`156
`
`
`
`Alteon teaches using fewer than one
`interrupt per packet
`
`Ex. 1033.022-.023 (Alteon);
`Paper 45 (241 Reply) at 5.
`
`157
`
`
`
`Erickson teaches transfer without
`interrupts using polling and snooping
`
`“Incoming data is then written
`to the virtual memory and
`detected by polling or
`"snooping" hardware.”
`
`Ex. 1005.003, -.012 (Erickson) at Fig. 2, 8:50-52;
`Ex. 1223.025-.026 (Horst Reply Decl.) at ¶¶ 50-52;
`Paper 45 (241 Reply) at 6.
`
`158
`
`
`
`Dr. Horst explains that snooping and
`polling do not involve interrupts
`
`Ex. 1223.025 (Horst Reply Decl.) at ¶ 50;
`Ex. 1005.012 (Erickson) at 6:25-31;
`Paper 45 (241 Reply) at 6.
`
`159
`
`
`
`241 Patent: Disputes (Receive Claims)
`
`i.
`
`ii.
`
`iii.
`
`a) The combination of Erickson, Tanenbaum96 and Alteon
`discloses the limitations of claims 1, 2-8, 18, 22, and 23 of the
`241 Patent
`The prior art discloses validation of network and transport layer headers
`“without an interrupt dividing the processing” (claim 1)
`The prior art discloses sending the data from each packet to a
`destination in memory without sending any of the headers (claim 1)
`The prior art discloses processing MAC layer headers without an interrupt
`(claim 2)
`The prior art discloses processing an upper layer header by a second
`mechanism (claim 3)
`The prior art discloses sorting the packets by classifying each as having
`IP and TCP headers (claim 6)
`
`iv.
`
`v.
`
`160
`
`
`
`241 Patent: Claim 1
`
`Ex. 1001.142 (241 Patent), Claim 1.
`
`161
`
`
`
`Erickson transfers data to applications in
`the host directly without headers
`
`Ex. 1005.005, -.010 (Erickson) at Fig. 4, 5:6-14;
`Ex. 1003.119 (Horst Decl.) at A-9-10;
`Paper 4 (241 Petition) at 56-57 56-58;
`Paper 45 (241 Reply) at 7;
`Ex. 1223.014-.015 (Horst Reply Decl.) at ¶ 29.
`
`162
`
`.
`
`
`
`Alteon transfers data to applications in
`the host without headers
`
`Paper 4 (241 Petition) at 57;
`Ex. 1003.124 (Horst Decl.) at A-15;
`Ex. 1033.021 (Alteon).
`
`163
`
`
`
`241 Patent: Disputes (Receive Claims)
`
`i.
`
`ii.
`
`a. The combination of Erickson, Tanenbaum96 and Alteon
`discloses the limitations of claims 1, 2-8, 18, 22, and 23 of the
`241 Patent
`The prior art discloses validation of network and transport layer headers
`“without an interrupt dividing the processing” (claim 1)
`The prior art discloses sending the data from each packet to a destination
`in memory without sending any of the headers (claim 1)
`iii. The prior art discloses processing MAC layer headers without an
`interrupt (claim 2)
`The prior art discloses processing an upper layer header by a second
`mechanism (claim 3)
`The prior art discloses sorting the packets by classifying each as having
`IP and TCP headers (claim 6)
`
`iv.
`
`v.
`
`164
`
`
`
`241 Patent: Claim 2
`
`Ex. 1001.142 (241 Patent), Claim 2.
`
`165
`
`
`
`Erickson teaches that the MAC layer
`header is processed on the adapter
`
`Ex. 1005.007 (Erickson), Fig. 6.
`
`166
`
`
`
`241 Patent: Disputes (Receive Claims)
`
`i.
`
`ii.
`
`a) The combination of Erickson, Tanenbaum96 and Alteon
`discloses the limitations of claims 1, 2-8, 18, 22, and 23 of the
`241 Patent
`The prior art discloses validation of network and transport layer headers
`“without an interrupt dividing the processing” (claim 1)
`The prior art discloses sending the data from each packet to a destination
`in memory without sending any of the headers (claim 1)
`The prior art discloses processing MAC layer headers without an interrupt
`(claim 2)
`iv. The prior art discloses processing an upper layer header by a
`second mechanism (claim 3)
`The prior art discloses sorting the packets by classifying each as having
`IP and TCP headers (claim 6)
`
`iii.
`
`v.
`
`167
`
`
`
`241 Patent: Claim 3
`
`Ex. 1001.142 (241 Patent), Claim 3.
`
`168
`
`
`
`Tanenbaum96: The processing of
`application headers
`
`Paper 45 (241 Reply) at 8;
`Paper 4 (241 Petition) at 60;
`Ex. 1006.055 (Tanenbaum96).
`
`169
`
`
`
`241 Patent: Disputes (Receive Claims)
`
`i.
`
`ii.
`
`iii.
`
`a) The combination of Erickson, Tanenbaum96 and Alteon
`discloses the limitations of claims 1, 2-8, 18, 22, and 23 of the
`241 Patent
`The prior art discloses validation of network and transport layer headers
`“without an interrupt dividing the processing” (claim 1)
`The prior art discloses sending the data from each packet to a destination
`in memory without sending any of the headers (claim 1)
`The prior art discloses processing MAC layer headers without an interrupt
`(claim 2)
`The prior art discloses processing an upper layer header by a second
`mechanism (claim 3)
`The prior art discloses sorting the packets by classifying each as
`having IP and TCP headers (claim 6)
`
`iv.
`
`v.
`
`170
`
`
`
`241 Patent: Claim 6
`
`Ex. 1001.143 (241 Patent), Claim 6.
`
`171
`
`
`
`Tanenbaum96: Parsing the header to
`determine packet’s protocol
`
`Paper 4 (241 Petition) at 63-64;
`Ex. 1006.433 (Tanenbaum96).
`
`172
`
`
`
`241 Patent: Disputes (Transmit Claims)
`
`i.
`
`b) Erickson in view of Tanenbaum96 discloses the limitations of
`claims 9, 10-16, 17, 19-21, and 21 of the 241 Patent
`The prior art discloses “prepending the MAC, network, and
`transport layer headers at one time as a sequence of bits ”
`(claim 9)
`The prior art discloses prepending each packet header without an
`interrupt dividing the prepending of the MAC, IP, and TCP headers
`(claim 17)
`iii. The prior art discloses dividing the data into multiple segments
`and prepending a packet header to each of the segments by a
`second processor/mechanism (claims 9 and 17)
`
`ii.
`
`173
`
`
`
`241 Patent: Claim 19
`
`Ex. 1001.143 (241 Patent), Claim 19.
`
`174
`
`
`
`Erickson teaches the use of a template
`to create headers
`
`It would have been
`obvious to prepend the
`populated header to the
`data at one time
`
`Ex. 1005.007, .011 (Erickson) at Fig. 6, 6:57-62
`Paper 45 (241 Reply) at 13-14;
`Paper 4 (241 Petition) at 73-74;
`Ex. 1003.075-79,.136-.141 (Horst Decl.) at ¶¶ 131-136, A-16 – A-31.
`
`175
`
`
`
`Dr. Almeroth’s interpretation would result in
`an invalid packet
`
`3
`
`2
`
`1
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`Ex. 2026.068 (Almeroth) at ¶ 134;
`Ex. 1005.007 (Erickson) Fig. 6, 7:50-64;
`Paper 45 (241 Reply) at 13-14.
`
`176
`
`
`
`Erickson teaches the use of a template
`to create headers
`
`Paper 11 (Institution Decision) at 17-18.
`
`177
`
`
`
`241 Patent: Disputes (Transmit Claims)
`
`i.
`
`b) Erickson in view of Tanenbaum96 discloses the limitations of
`claims 9, 10-16, 17, 19-21, and 21 of the 241 Patent
`The prior art discloses “prepending the MAC, network, and
`transport layer headers at one time as a sequence of bits ” (claim
`9)
`ii. The prior art discloses prepending each packet header
`without an interrupt dividing the prepending of the MAC, IP,
`and TCP headers (claim 17)
`iii. The prior art discloses dividing the data into multiple segments
`and prepending a packet header to each of the segments by a
`second processor/mechanism (claims 9 and 17)
`
`178
`
`
`
`241 Patent: Claim 17
`
`Ex. 1001.143 (241 Patent), Claim 17.
`
`179
`
`
`
`The MAC header is part of the
`prepopulated header template
`
`MAC
`layer
`
`Network
`layer
`
`Transport
`layer
`
`Ex. 1005.007 (Erickson) Fig. 6;
`Paper 4 (241Petition) at 50-51.
`
`180
`
`
`
`There is “no reason to interrupt the
`processing of the host computer”
`
`Paper 11 (Institution Decision) at 19;
`Paper 45 (241 Reply) at 14;
`Ex. 1223.016 (Horst Reply Decl.) at ¶ 31.
`
`181
`
`
`
`241 Patent: Disputes (Transmit Claims)
`
`i.
`
`ii.
`
`b) Erickson in view of Tanenbaum96 discloses the limitations of
`claims 9, 10-16, 17, 19-21, and 21 of the 241 Patent
`The prior art discloses “prepending the MAC, network, and
`transport layer headers at one time as a sequence of bits ” (claim
`9)
`The prior art discloses prepending each packet header without an
`interrupt dividing the prepending of the MAC, IP, and TCP headers
`(claim 17)
`iii. The prior art discloses dividing the data into multiple
`segments and prepending a packet header to each of the
`segments by a second processor/mechanism (claims 9 and
`17)
`
`182
`
`
`
`241 Patent: Claims 9, 17
`
`Ex. 1001.143 (241 Patent), Claims 9, 17.
`
`183
`
`
`
`Erickson teaches that its interface
`device stores and transmits user data
`
`Paper 4 (241 Petition) at 67;
`Paper 45 (241 Reply) at 15-16;
`Ex. 1005.012 (Erickson) at 7:39-41.
`
`184
`
`
`
`Erickson: Scripts executed by the
`adapter implement TCP/IP
`
`Paper 4 (241 Petition) at 73;
`Paper 45 (241 Reply) at 15;
`Ex. 1005.011 (Erickson) at 5:47-51.
`
`185
`
`
`
`Tanenbaum96: TCP segments data
`
`Paper 4 (241 Petition) at 73;
`Paper 45 (241 Reply) at 15-16;
`Ex. 1003.149 (Horst Decl.) at A-39;
`Ex. 1006.540 (Tanenbaum96).
`
`Paper 4 (241 Petition) at 73;
`Paper 45 (241 Reply ) at 15-16;
`Ex. 1003.149 (Horst Decl.) at A-39;
`Ex. 1006.543 (Tanenbaum96).
`
`186
`
`
`
`Tanenbaum96: Transport entity may
`reside on network interface
`
`Paper 4 (241 Petition) at 39;
`Paper 45 (241 Reply) at 10;
`Ex. 1003.150 (Horst Decl.) at A-40;
`Ex. 1006.498 (Tanenbaum96).
`
`Paper 45 (241 Reply) at 10;
`Ex. 1003.152 (Horst Decl.) at A-42;
`Ex. 1006.530 (Tanenbaum96).
`
`187
`
`
`
`241 Patent: Disputes
`
`3. Alteon is Prior Art
`a) Alteon was available on Alteon.com before
`the priority date
`
`b) Alteon and Alteon.com were known to POSAs
`
`c)Patent Owner Submitted a Substantively
`Identical version of Alteon as Prior Art
`
`188
`
`
`
`Alteon was easily accessible from
`Alteon.com
`
`Ex. 1203.001 (Alteon Website);
`Paper 45 (241 Reply) at 3;
`Ex. 1223.015 (Horst Reply Decl.) at ¶ 26.
`
`189
`
`
`
`241 Patent: Disputes
`
`3. Alteon is Prior Art
`a) Alteon was available on Alteon.com before the
`priority date
`
`b) Alteon and Alteon.com were known to
`POSAs
`
`c)Patent Owner Submitted a Substantively
`Identical version of Alteon as Prior Art
`
`190
`
`
`
`Dr. Horst: Alteon was well known to
`POSAs
`
`Ex. 1223.014 (Horst Reply Decl.) at ¶ 28;
`Ex. 1220.006 (Networking Article);
`Paper 45 (241 Reply) at 4.
`
`191
`
`
`
`241 Patent: Disputes
`
`3. Alteon is Prior Art
`a) Alteon was available on Alteon.com before the
`priority date
`
`b) Alteon and Alteon.com were known to POSAs
`
`c)Patent Owner Submitted a Substantively
`Identical version of Alteon as Prior Art
`
`192
`
`
`
`PO submitted a substantively identical
`version of Alteon as prior art
`
`Ex. 1033.017 (Alteon); Ex. 1221.002 (PO Submission);
`Ex. 1239.017 (Comparison); Ex. 1223.013-.014 (Horst Reply Decl.) at ¶ 27; Paper 45 (241 Reply) at 3-4.
`
`193
`
`
`
`241 Patent: Disputes
`
`4. Motion to Amend 241 Patent should be denied
`a) Patent Owner does not show adequate
`written description support
`
`b) Substitute claims 25-32 (Receive) are obvious
`over Erickson in view of Tanenbaum96 and
`Alteon
`
`c) Substitute claims 33-48 (Transmit) are obvious
`over Erickson in view of Tanenbaum96
`
`194
`
`
`
`PO must supply written description support
`after Aqua Products
`
`Paper 54 (Sur-reply for Motion to Amend) at 2.
`
`195
`
`
`
`PO identifies same disclosure for every
`element without explanation
`
`Paper 25 (Motion to Amend) at
`Appendix A, p. i (emphasis added);
`Paper 40 (Opp. Motion to Amend) at 3.
`
`196
`
`
`
`Too late to provide written description
`support in reply
`
`• Patent Owner provides alleged “exemplary” written description
`support for the first time in its Reply
`
`Paper 46 (Reply ISO Motion to Amend) at 6;
`Ex. 2305.006 (Almeroth Decl. ISO Reply) at 6.
`
`197
`
`
`
`Written description support inadequate
`
`• Patent Owner’s identified
`support for sending data to
`a “destination in memory
`allocated to an application
`running on the host
`computer” is insufficient
`• The cited portions of the 878
`Application (Ex. 2021)
`contains no reference to the
`destination being allocated to
`an application
`
`Ex. 2021 (241 Application) at Fig. 3;
`Paper 54 (SurReply ISO Opp Motion to Amend) at 4-5;
`Paper 42 (Reply ISO Motion to Amend) at 3.
`
`198
`
`
`
`241 Patent: Disputes
`
`4. Motion to Amend 241 Patent should be denied
`a) Patent Owner does not show adequate written
`description support
`
`b) Substitute claims 25-32 (Receive) are
`obvious over Erickson in view of
`Tanenbaum96 and Alteon
`
`c) Substitute claims 33-48 (Transmit) are obvious
`over Erickson in view of Tanenbaum96
`
`199
`
`
`
`New limitation requires that the headers are
`not sent to a host protocol stack
`
`Paper 25 (Motion to Amend) at
`Appendix A, p. i (emphasis added).
`
`200
`
`
`
`Erickson: Transfer of data without headers to
`the application
`
`Ex. 1005.005, .011 (Erickson) at Fig. 4; 5:6-14;
`Paper 4 (Petition) at 57.
`
`201
`
`
`
`241 Patent: Disputes
`
`4. Motion to Amend 241 Patent should be denied
`a) Patent Owner does not show adequate written
`description support
`
`b) Substitute claims 25-32 (Receive) are obvious
`over Erickson in view of Tanenbaum96 and
`Alteon
`
`c) Substitute claims 33-48 (Transmit) are
`obvious over Erickson in view of
`Tanenbaum96
`
`202
`
`
`
`New limitation requires dividing, prepending,
`and transmitting without an interrupt
`
`Paper 25 (Motion to Amend) at Appendix A, p. x, xii (emphasis added).
`
`203
`
`
`
`There is “no reason to interrupt the
`processing of the host computer”
`
`Paper 11 (Institution Decision) at 19;
`Paper 45 (241 Reply) at 14;
`Ex. 1223.016 (Horst Reply Decl.) at ¶ 31.
`
`204
`
`
`
`The nextid() function does not require
`interrupts
`
`Ex. 1005.012 (Erickson) at 7:50-65, 8:10-12;
`Ex. 1255 (Horst Amend SurReply Decl.) at ¶¶ 12-14;
`Paper 54 (SurReply Motion to Amend) at 10-11.
`
`205
`
`
`
`Erickson teaches the transfer to data
`without interrupts via polling
`
`“Incoming data is then written
`to the virtual memory and
`detected by polling or
`"snooping" hardware. The
`snooping hardware, after
`detecting the write to virtual
`registers, generates an
`exception for the system bus
`controller.”
`
`Ex. 1005.012 (Erickson) at 8:56-57;
`Ex. 1223.025-.026 (Horst Reply Decl.) at ¶¶ 50-52;
`Paper 45 (241 Reply) at 6;
`Paper 54 (SurReply ISO Mtn. to Amend) at 11.
`
`206
`
`
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
