`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`________________
`
`INTEL CORP. and
`CAVIUM, INC.,
`
`Petitioners,
`
`v.
`
`ALACRITECH INC.,
`
`Patent Owner.
`________________
`
`Case IPR2017-014061
`U.S. Patent 7,673,072
`________________
`
`
`
`PATENT OWNER’S EXHIBIT 2026
`
`DECLARATION OF KEVIN ALMEROTH, PH.D.
`
`
`
`
`1 Cavium, who filed a Petition in Case IPR2017-01707, has been joined as a
`
`petitioner in this proceeding.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Alacritech Exhibit 2026
`
`
`
`
`
`1.
`
`I have been retained on behalf of Alacritech, Inc. (“Alacritech” or
`
`“Patent Owner”) for the above-captioned inter partes review (IPR) proceeding. I
`
`understand that this proceeding was filed by Intel Corporation (“Intel”) (and joined
`
`by Cavium, Inc. (“Cavium”)) and involves U.S. Patent No. 7,673,072 (“the ’072
`
`Patent”), titled “Fast-path apparatus for transmitting data corresponding to a TCP
`
`connection.”
`
`2.
`
`The ’072 Patent is currently assigned to Alacritech. I have been
`
`retained to provide my opinions in support of Alacritech’s Patent Owner (“PO”)
`
`Response Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 313 and 37 C.F.R. § 42.107 pursuant to the legal
`
`standards set forth below. I am being compensated for my time at the rate of $600
`
`per hour. I have no interest in the outcome of this proceeding.
`
`3.
`
`In preparing this declaration, I have reviewed and am familiar with the
`
`following prior art references:
`
`Erickson (Ex. 1005) is U.S. Patent No. 5,768,618, which
`issued on June 16, 1998 and is assigned to NCR
`Corporation.
`
`
`
`Tanenbaum (Ex. 1006) is the 3rd edition of a textbook
`entitled Computer Networks by Andrew S. Tanenbaum.
`
`
`
`4.
`
`I have also considered all other materials cited and discussed herein,
`
`including all other materials cited and discussed in Intel’s Petition for Inter Partes
`
`Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,673,072 (Case IPR2017-01391).
`
`
`
`
`Alacritech Exhibit 2026, Page 1
`
`
`
`
`
`5.
`
`The statements made herein are based on my own knowledge and
`
`opinion. This Declaration represents only the opinions I have formed to date. I
`
`may consider additional documents as they become available or other documents
`
`that are necessary to form my opinions. I reserve the right to revise, supplement,
`
`or amend my opinions based on new information and on my continuing analysis.
`
`II. QUALIFICATIONS
`
`6. My qualifications can be found in my Curriculum Vitae, which
`
`includes a complete list of my publications. (Ex. 2027).
`
`7.
`
`I am currently a Professor in the Department of Computer Science at
`
`the University of California, Santa Barbara. I also hold an appointment and am a
`
`founding member of the Computer Engineering (CE) Program at UCSB. I am also
`
`a founding member of the Media Arts and Technology (MAT) Program, and the
`
`Technology Management Program (TMP) at UCSB. I also served as the Associate
`
`Director of the Center for Information Technology and Society (CITS) at UCSB
`
`from 1999 to 2012. I have been a faculty member at UCSB since July 1997.
`
`8.
`
`I hold three degrees from the Georgia Institute of Technology: (1) a
`
`Bachelor of Science degree in Information and Computer Science (with minors in
`
`Economics, Technical Communication, and American Literature) earned in June,
`
`1992; (2) a Master of Science degree in Computer Science (with specialization in
`
`Networking and Systems) earned in June, 1994; and (3) a Doctor of Philosophy
`
`
`
`
`Alacritech Exhibit 2026, Page 2
`
`
`
`
`
`(Ph.D.) degree in Computer Science (Dissertation Title: Networking and System
`
`Support for the Efficient, Scalable Delivery of Services in Interactive Multimedia
`
`System), minor in Telecommunications Public Policy, earned in June, 1997.
`
`9.
`
`One of the major themes of my research has been the delivery of
`
`multimedia content and data between computing devices and users. In my research
`
`I have looked at large-scale content delivery systems and the use of servers located
`
`in a variety of geographic locations to provide scalable delivery to hundreds, or
`
`even thousands, of users simultaneously. I have also looked at smaller-scale
`
`content delivery systems in which content, including interactive communication
`
`like voice and video data, is exchanged between computers and portable
`
`computing devices. As a broad theme, my work has examined how to exchange
`
`content more efficiently across computer networks, including the devices that
`
`switch and route data traffic. More specific topics of my work include the scalable
`
`delivery of content to many users, mobile computing, satellite networking,
`
`delivering content to mobile devices, and network support for data delivery in
`
`wireless and sensor networks.
`
`10. Beginning in 1992, at the time I started graduate school, the initial
`
`focus of my research was the provision of interactive functions (e.g., VCR-style
`
`functions like pause, rewind, and fast-forward) for near video-on-demand systems
`
`in cable systems, in particular, how to aggregate requests for movies at a cable
`
`
`
`
`Alacritech Exhibit 2026, Page 3
`
`
`
`
`
`head-end and then how to satisfy a multitude of requests using one audio/video
`
`stream to broadcast to multiple receivers simultaneously. Continued evolution of
`
`this research has resulted in the development of new techniques to scalably deliver
`
`on-demand content, including audio, video, web documents, and other types of
`
`data, through the Internet and over other types of networks, including over cable
`
`systems, broadband telephone lines, and satellite links.
`
`11. An important component of my research from the very beginning has
`
`been investigating the challenges of communicating multimedia content between
`
`computers and across networks. Although the early Internet was designed mostly
`
`for text-based non-real time applications, the interest in sharing multimedia content
`
`quickly developed. Multimedia-based applications ranged from downloading
`
`content to a device for streaming multimedia content to be instantly used. One of
`
`the challenges was that multimedia content is typically larger than text-only
`
`content, but there are also opportunities to use different delivery techniques
`
`because multimedia content is more resilient to errors. I have worked on a variety
`
`of research problems and used a number of systems that were developed to deliver
`
`multimedia content to users.
`
`12.
`
`In 1994, I began to research issues associated with the development
`
`and deployment of a one-to-many communication facility (called “multicast”) in
`
`the Internet (first deployed as the Multicast Backbone, a virtual overlay network
`
`
`
`
`Alacritech Exhibit 2026, Page 4
`
`
`
`
`
`supporting one-to-many communication). Some of my more recent research
`
`endeavors have looked at how to use the scalability offered by multicast to provide
`
`streaming media support for complex applications like distance learning,
`
`distributed collaboration, distributed games, and large-scale wireless
`
`communication. Multicast has also been used as the delivery mechanism in
`
`systems that perform local filtering (i.e., sending the same content to a large
`
`number of users and allowing them to filter locally content in which they are not
`
`interested).
`
`13. Starting in 1997, I worked on a project to integrate the streaming
`
`media capabilities of the Internet together with the interactivity of the web. I
`
`developed a project called the Interactive Multimedia Jukebox (IMJ). Users would
`
`visit a web page and select content to view. The content would then be scheduled
`
`on one of a number of channels, including delivery to students in Georgia Tech
`
`dorms delivered via the campus cable plant. The content of each channel was
`
`delivered using multicast communication.
`
`14.
`
`In the IMJ, the number of channels varied depending on the
`
`capabilities of the server including the available bandwidth of its connection to the
`
`Internet. If one of the channels was idle, the requesting user would be able to
`
`watch their selection immediately. If all channels were streaming previously
`
`selected content, the user’s selection would be queued on the channel with the
`
`
`
`
`Alacritech Exhibit 2026, Page 5
`
`
`
`
`
`shortest wait time. In the meantime, the user would see what content was currently
`
`playing on other channels, and because of the use of multicast, would be able to
`
`join one of the existing channels and watch the content at the point it was currently
`
`being transmitted.
`
`15. The IMJ service combined the interactivity of the web with the
`
`streaming capabilities of the Internet to create a jukebox-like service. It supported
`
`true Video-on-Demand when capacity allowed, but scaled to any number of users
`
`based on queuing requested programs. As part of the project, we obtained
`
`permission from Turner Broadcasting to transmit cartoons and other short-subject
`
`content. We also attempted to connect the IMJ into the Georgia Tech campus
`
`cable television network so that students in their dorms could use the web to
`
`request content and then view that content on one of the campus’s public access
`
`channels.
`
`16. More recently, I have also studied issues concerning how users choose
`
`content, especially when considering the price of that content. My research has
`
`examined how dynamic content pricing can be used to control system load. By
`
`raising prices when systems start to become overloaded (i.e., when all available
`
`resources are fully utilized) and reducing prices when system capacity is readily
`
`available, users’ capacity to pay as well as their willingness can be used as factors
`
`
`
`
`Alacritech Exhibit 2026, Page 6
`
`
`
`
`
`in stabilizing the response time of a system. This capability is particularly useful
`
`in systems where content is downloaded or streamed on-demand to users.
`
`17. As a parallel research theme, starting in 1997, I began researching
`
`issues related to wireless devices and sensors. In particular, I was interested in
`
`showing how to provide greater communication capability to “lightweight
`
`devices,” i.e., small form-factor, resource-constrained (e.g., CPU, memory,
`
`networking, and power) devices. Starting by at least 2004, I researched techniques
`
`to wirelessly disseminate information, for example, advertisements between users
`
`using ad hoc networks. In the system, called Coupons, an incentive scheme is used
`
`to encourage users to relay information, including advertisements, to other nearby
`
`users.
`
`18. Starting in 1998, I published several papers on my work to develop a
`
`flexible, lightweight, battery-aware network protocol stack. The lightweight
`
`protocols we envisioned were similar in nature to protocols like Universal Plug and
`
`Play (UPnP) and Digital Living Network Alliance (DLNA).
`
`19. From this initial work, I have made wireless networking—including
`
`ad hoc, mesh networks and wireless devices—one of the major themes of my
`
`research. One topic includes developing applications for mobile devices, for
`
`example, virally exchanging and tracking “coupons” through “opportunistic
`
`contact” (i.e., communication with other devices coming into communication
`
`
`
`
`Alacritech Exhibit 2026, Page 7
`
`
`
`
`
`range with a user). Other topics include building network communication among a
`
`set of mobile devices unaided by any other kind of network infrastructure. Yet
`
`another theme is monitoring wireless networks, in particular different variants of
`
`IEEE 802.11 compliant networks, to (1) understand the operation of the various
`
`protocols used in real-world deployments, (2) use these measurements to
`
`characterize use of the networks and identify protocol limitations and weaknesses,
`
`and (3) propose and evaluate solutions to these problems.
`
`20. Protecting networks, including their operation and content, has been
`
`an underlying theme of my research almost since the beginning. Starting in 2000, I
`
`have also been involved in several projects that specifically address security,
`
`network protection, and firewalls. After significant background work, a team on
`
`which I was a member successfully submitted a $4.3M grant proposal to the Army
`
`Research Office (ARO) at the Department of Defense to propose and develop a
`
`high-speed intrusion detection system. Once the grant was awarded, we spent
`
`several years developing and meeting the milestones of the project. I have also
`
`used firewalls in developing techniques for the classroom to ensure that students
`
`are not distracted by online content.
`
`21. As an important component of my research program, I have been
`
`involved in the development of academic research into available technology in the
`
`market place. One aspect of this work is my involvement in the Internet
`
`
`
`
`Alacritech Exhibit 2026, Page 8
`
`
`
`
`
`Engineering Task Force (IETF) including many content delivery-related working
`
`groups like the Audio Video Transport (AVT) group, the MBone Deployment
`
`(MBONED) group, Source Specific Multicast (SSM) group, the Inter-Domain
`
`Multicast Routing (IDMR) group, the Reliable Multicast Transport (RMT) group,
`
`the Protocol Independent Multicast (PIM) group, etc. I have also served as a
`
`member of the Multicast Directorate (MADDOGS), which oversaw the
`
`standardization of all things related to multicast in the IETF. Finally, I was the
`
`Chair of the Internet2 Multicast Working Group for seven years.
`
`22.
`
`I am an author or co-author of approximately 200 technical papers,
`
`published software systems, IETF Internet Drafts and IETF Request for Comments
`
`(RFCs). A list of these papers is included in my CV, which is attached as Exhibit
`
`2027.
`
`23. My involvement in the research community extends to leadership
`
`positions for several journals and conferences. I am the co-chair of the Steering
`
`Committee for the ACM Network and System Support for Digital Audio and
`
`Video (NOSSDAV) workshop and on the Steering Committees for the
`
`International Conference on Network Protocols (ICNP), ACM Sigcomm
`
`Workshop on Challenged Networks (CHANTS), and IEEE Global Internet (GI)
`
`Symposium. I have served or am serving on the editorial boards of IEEE/ACM
`
`Transactions on Networking, IEEE Transactions on Mobile Computing, IEEE
`
`
`
`
`Alacritech Exhibit 2026, Page 9
`
`
`
`
`
`Transactions on Networks and System Management, IEEE Network, ACM
`
`Computers in Entertainment, AACE Journal of Interactive Learning Research
`
`(JILR), and ACM Computer Communications Review.
`
`24. Furthermore, in the courses I teach, the class spends significant time
`
`covering all aspects of the Internet including each of the layers of the Open System
`
`Interconnect (OSI) protocol stack commonly used in the Internet. These layers
`
`include the physical and data link layers and their handling of signal modulation,
`
`error control, and data transmission. I also teach DOCSIS, DSL, and other
`
`standardized protocols for communicating across a variety of physical media
`
`including cable systems, telephone lines, wireless, and high-speed Local Area
`
`Networks (LANs). I teach the configuration and operation of switches, routers, and
`
`gateways including routing and forwarding and the numerous respective protocols
`
`as they are standardized and used throughout the Internet. Topics include a wide
`
`variety of standardized Internet protocols at the Network Layer (Layer 3),
`
`Transport Layer (Layer 4), and above.
`
`25.
`
`In addition, I co-founded a technology company called Santa Barbara
`
`Labs that was working under a sub-contract from the U.S. Air Force to develop
`
`very accurate emulation systems for the military’s next generation internetwork.
`
`Santa Barbara Labs’ focus was in developing an emulation platform to test the
`
`performance characteristics of the network architecture in the variety of
`
`
`
`
`Alacritech Exhibit 2026, Page 10
`
`
`
`
`
`environments in which it was expected to operate, and in particular, for network
`
`services including IPv6, multicast, Quality of Service (QoS), satellite-based
`
`communication, and security. Applications for this emulation program included
`
`communication of a variety of multimedia-based services.
`
`26.
`
`In addition to having co-founded a technology company myself, I
`
`have worked for, consulted with, and collaborated with companies such as IBM,
`
`Hitachi Telecom, Digital Fountain, RealNetworks, Intel Research, Cisco Systems,
`
`and Lockheed Martin.
`
`27.
`
`I am a Member of the Association of Computing Machinery (ACM)
`
`and a Fellow of the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE).
`
`28. Additional details about my employment history, fields of expertise,
`
`and publications are further included in my curriculum vitae, attached as Exhibit
`
`2027.
`
`29. From my education, teaching, and consulting experience, I am
`
`familiar with networking protocols in general and in particular the TCP/IP
`
`protocol. I am also familiar with TCP offload engines (sometime referred to as
`
`TOE) that offload the processing of the entire TCP/IP stack to the network
`
`controller. I am also familiar with the technologies sometimes referred to as Large
`
`Segmentation Offload (LSO) and Receive Side Coalescing (RSC).
`
`III. LEGAL UNDERSTANDING
`
`
`
`
`Alacritech Exhibit 2026, Page 11
`
`
`
`
`
`A. The Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art
`
`30.
`
`I understand that a person of ordinary skill in the relevant art (also
`
`referred to herein as “POSITA”) is presumed to be aware of all pertinent art, thinks
`
`along conventional wisdom in the art, and is a person of ordinary creativity—not
`
`an automaton.
`
`31.
`
`I have been asked to consider the level of ordinary skill in the field
`
`that someone would have had at the time the claimed invention was made. In
`
`deciding the level of ordinary skill, I considered the following:
`
`• the levels of education and experience of persons working in the
`
`field;
`
`• the types of problems encountered in the field; and
`
`• the sophistication of the technology.
`
`32. My opinion below explains how a person of ordinary skill in the art
`
`would have understood the technology described in the references I have identified
`
`herein around the October 1997 timeframe. I have been advised that the earliest
`
`possible effective filing date of the ’072 Patent is October 14, 1997.
`
`33.
`
`In my opinion, a POSITA at that time would be a person with a
`
`Bachelor's degree in Computer Science, Computer Engineering, or the equivalent,
`
`and several years’ experience in the fields of computer networking and/or
`
`networking protocols.
`
`
`
`
`Alacritech Exhibit 2026, Page 12
`
`
`
`
`
`34.
`
`I am well-qualified to determine the level of ordinary skill in the art
`
`and am personally familiar with the technology of the ’072 Patent in the October
`
`1997 timeframe. By 1997, I had completed my formal education and had been
`
`working in the relevant field as a professor, researcher, or consultant for more than
`
`15 years. I have supervised, recruited, advised, and taught individuals at all levels
`
`of training in the relevant field. I have also worked with individuals in the industry
`
`at all levels of training in the relevant field.
`
`35.
`
`I was a person of at least ordinary skill in the art at this timeframe.
`
`Regardless if I do not explicitly state that my statements below are based on this
`
`timeframe, all of my statements are to be understood as a POSITA would have
`
`understood something as of the alleged effective filing date of the ’072 Patent.
`
`B. My Understanding of Obviousness Law
`
`36.
`
`I am not a lawyer and will not provide any legal opinions. Though I
`
`am not a lawyer, I have been advised that certain legal standards are to be applied
`
`by technical experts in forming opinions regarding the meaning and validity of
`
`patent claims.
`
`37.
`
`I understand that a patent claim is invalid if the claimed invention
`
`would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the field at the time the
`
`application was filed. This means that even if all of the requirements of the claim
`
`
`
`
`Alacritech Exhibit 2026, Page 13
`
`
`
`
`
`cannot be found in a single prior art reference that would anticipate the claim, the
`
`claim can still be invalid.
`
`38. To obtain a patent, a claimed invention must have, as of the priority
`
`date, been nonobvious in view of the prior art in the field. I understand that an
`
`invention is obvious when the differences between the subject matter sought to be
`
`patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have
`
`been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill
`
`in the art.
`
`39.
`
`I understand that to prove that prior art, or a combination of prior art,
`
`renders a patent obvious, it is necessary to: (1) identify the particular references
`
`that singly, or in combination, make the patent obvious; (2) specifically identify
`
`which elements of the patent claim appear in each of the asserted references; and
`
`(3) explain how the prior art references could have been combined to create the
`
`inventions claimed in the asserted claim.
`
`40.
`
`I understand that certain objective indicia can be important evidence
`
`regarding whether a patent is obvious or nonobvious. Such indicia include: (1)
`
`commercial success of products covered by the patent claims; (2) a long-felt need
`
`for the invention; (3) failed attempts by others to make the invention; (4) copying
`
`of the invention by others in the field; (5) unexpected results achieved by the
`
`invention as compared to the closest prior art; (6) praise of the invention by the
`
`
`
`
`Alacritech Exhibit 2026, Page 14
`
`
`
`
`
`infringer or others in the field; (7) the taking of licenses under the patent by others;
`
`(8) expressions of surprise by experts and those skilled in the art at the making of
`
`the invention; and (9) the patentee proceeded contrary to the accepted wisdom of
`
`the prior art.
`
`41.
`
`I understand that in evaluating the validity of the ’072 Patent claims,
`
`the content of a patent or printed publication prior art should be interpreted the way
`
`a person of ordinary skill in the art would have interpreted the prior art as of the
`
`effective filing date (October 1997) of the challenged patent. My full analysis
`
`below is based upon these understandings.
`
`C. My Understanding of Claim Construction
`
`42.
`
`I have been instructed by counsel on the law regarding claim
`
`construction and patent claims, and understand that a patent may include two types
`
`of claims––independent claims and dependent claims. An independent claim
`
`stands alone and includes only the features it recites. A dependent claim can
`
`depend from an independent claim or another dependent claim. I understand that a
`
`dependent claim includes all the features that it recites in addition to all of the
`
`features recited in the claim from which it depends.
`
`43.
`
`I understand that in this inter partes review the claims must be given
`
`their broadest reasonable interpretation, but that interpretation must be consistent
`
`with the patent specification.
`
`
`
`
`Alacritech Exhibit 2026, Page 15
`
`
`
`
`
`44.
`
`I understand that claim terms are given their plain and ordinary
`
`meaning as would be understood by a person of ordinary skill in the art, unless the
`
`inventor provides a special meaning for a term.
`
`45.
`
`I understand that if there are specific statements in the specification
`
`that define the invention, those statements are strong evidence of a definition for a
`
`term.
`
`46. Additionally, I understand and have been instructed that, when a
`
`claim’s recitation is purely functional and does not include any definite structure
`
`for performing the function claimed, the term is a “means-plus-function” claim. It
`
`is my understanding that means-plus-function claims are construed using a two-
`
`step process: first, determination of the claimed function, and second, identification
`
`of the corresponding structure. If the term is understood by a POSITA as referring
`
`to a particular structure, however, this two-step process is not followed.
`
`47.
`
`I understand and have been instructed that, where the claim uses the
`
`word “means,” there is a presumption that it is a means-plus-function claim term. I
`
`also understand and have been instructed that an applicant for a patent must
`
`disclose adequate structure in the specification to perform the recited function, and
`
`that if adequate structure is not recited, the claim is indefinite. I am further
`
`instructed that when the corresponding structure is a general purpose computer or
`
`microprocessor, the specification must disclose the algorithm or process to be
`
`
`
`
`Alacritech Exhibit 2026, Page 16
`
`
`
`
`
`performed by the general purpose computer or microprocessor, or the claim is
`
`indefinite.
`
`48.
`
`In this Declaration, I have used the broadest reasonable interpretation
`
`(“BRI”) standard when interpreting the claim terms.
`
`IV. BACKGROUND OF THE TECHNOLOGY DISCLOSED IN THE ’072
`PATENT
`
`49.
`
`I understand Petitioner has filed for Inter Partes Review of eight
`
`related Alacritech patents: U.S. Patent No. 7,124,205, 7,237,036, 7,337,241,
`
`7,673,072, 7,945,699, 8,131,880, 8,805,948, and 9,055,104 (“the Alacritech
`
`Patents”). The Alacritech Patents reflect inventions relating to offloading certain
`
`tasks traditionally performed by the CPU to a Network Interface Device.
`
`50. The transmission of data over a network usually requires multiple
`
`steps. For example, the data has to be broken up into packets of a certain size that
`
`can be sent over the network. Information needs to be added to packets that, for
`
`example, helps them get to the right recipient. Then, once the intended recipient
`
`receives the data packets, additional processing often needs to be done. For
`
`example, packets often need to be reassembled and sent to a location in memory
`
`where they can be accessed by programs that use the data.
`
`51. The steps involved in the process of data transmission are each
`
`typically performed by different software, in a particular order, and without
`
`bypassing any steps. This is what is known as a “multi-layered software
`
`
`
`
`Alacritech Exhibit 2026, Page 17
`
`
`
`
`
`architecture.” At each layer, the sending computer performs additional processing
`
`on the data received from the previous layer, for example adding new metadata,
`
`dividing the data into packets, or addressing the data. Once the data reaches the
`
`final layer, it is ready to be transmitted over the network.
`
`52. The receiving computer uses the same multi-layered software
`
`architecture to process incoming data packets. Layers are processed in the reverse
`
`order on the receive-side. So, the network interface layer or physical layer receives
`
`packets from the network medium. Then the data is reassembled and the metadata
`
`is accessed and used to ensure the data is provided to the correct destination and in
`
`the correct format. The data is stored until it is ready to be used by another
`
`program.
`
`53. Although this traditional approach for transferring data is functional
`
`and well-established, it can also be slow and inefficient. The central processor
`
`(CPU), which is responsible for the software layers, uses a lot of processing power
`
`to do this type of layer-by-layer processing. Additionally, moving from one
`
`processing layer to the next may involve making a new copy of the data, further
`
`burdening the CPU.
`
`54.
`
`In the 1990s, network traffic exploded through the advent of the
`
`Internet and related technologies. The burden of traditional layer-by-layer
`
`processing in computer networks—long a recognized but unsolved problem—
`
`
`
`
`Alacritech Exhibit 2026, Page 18
`
`
`
`
`
`became a fundamental threat to the efficient expansion of computer networking
`
`scope and volume. Overburdened host CPUs constituted a bottleneck in a variety
`
`of network computing contexts.
`
`55. Engineers and scientists in both the public and private sectors worked
`
`extensively on the problem of network acceleration throughout the late 1980s and
`
`throughout the 1990s. A few academics and industry groups proposed and/or
`
`theorized that some kind of offloading procedure or architecture could improve
`
`network processing speeds, but none of these proposals was sufficiently developed
`
`or explained to actually solve the growing problem of overburdened network CPUs
`
`by the late 1990s.
`
`56.
`
`It was not enough to simply theorize that processing could be split or
`
`offloaded from the host CPU in a computer network (this is a basic premise of
`
`distributed processing architectures, after all) —there needed to be concrete
`
`solutions as to how this split or offload would be achieved. None of the proposals
`
`in the 1980s and 1990s—including proposed standards—actually solved the
`
`problem of host CPU overload. And many, many engineers and academics were
`
`working directly on this problem over this time period.
`
`57.
`
`In the late 1990s and early 2000s, Alacritech invented several
`
`improvements over the traditional approach to network data processing.
`
`Alacritech’s inventions, which are disclosed and claimed in the Alacritech Patents,
`
`
`
`
`Alacritech Exhibit 2026, Page 19
`
`
`
`
`
`went well beyond earlier theories and proposals that CPU processing could
`
`somehow be offloaded: the Alacritech Patents describe a unique, novel architecture
`
`in which critical portions of network processing are offloaded to a dedicated
`
`processor on a network interface device, rather than a general purpose CPU.
`
`58. The inventions embodied in the Alacritech Patents largely solved the
`
`tricky and growing problem of network host CPU overload, and they were greeted
`
`as paradigm-shifting advances in the industry.
`
`59. Both in 1997 and today, sending and receiving information over the
`
`Internet involves the use of many different protocols that set out the rules for how
`
`devices on the Internet can communicate with one another. Multiple conceptual
`
`models exist for characterizing the interactions between these protocols in the
`
`context of the Internet and other telecommunication or computing systems. The
`
`Open Systems Interconnection model (or “OSI model”) is one well known
`
`example, describing a seven layer stack where a particular layer serves the layer
`
`above it and is served by the layers below it. The seven layers of the OSI model
`
`are:
`
`
`
`
`Layer 7: Application Layer
`
`Layer 6: Presentation Layer
`
`Layer 5: Session Layer
`
`Layer 4: Transport Layer
`
`Alacritech Exhibit 2026, Page 20
`
`
`
`
`
`Layer 3: Network Layer
`
`Layer 2: Data Link Layer
`
`Layer 1: Physical Layer
`
`with layer 1 (the Physical Layer) being the lowest layer in the model. In the
`
`context of network communications, four of these layers are commonly discussed:
`
`the link layer (layer 2, with common examples of link-layer protocols including
`
`Ethernet and WiFi), the network layer (layer 3, with IP being the most common
`
`example of a network-layer protocol), the transport layer (layer 4, with TCP and
`
`UDP as two examples of transport-layer protocols), and the application layer (layer
`
`7, with HTTP, SMTP (email), and FTP as examples of application-layer
`
`protocols).
`
`60. The Hypertext Transfer Protocol (or “HTTP”) is an example of a
`
`well-known application (layer 7) protocol. HTTP version 1.1 was published as
`
`RFC 2068 in January 1997. As an application layer protocol, HTTP is a set of
`
`rules for carrying application-specific data between a source and a destination (for
`
`example, carrying HTTP protocol headers and world wide web data between a web
`
`browser and a web site server). Because most Internet traffic uses both IP and
`
`TCP, Internet traffic is often described as “TCP over IP” or simply “TPC/IP.”
`
`When that traffic happens to also use HTTP as the application layer protocol, it is
`
`often described as “HTTP over TCP/IP.”
`
`
`
`
`Alacritech Exhibit 2026, Page 21
`
`
`
`
`
`61. The Internet Protocol (or “IP”) is an example of a well-known
`
`network (layer 3) protocol. IPv4 was published as RFC 760 in January 1980 while
`
`its successor IPv6 was published as RFC 2460 in December 1998. The IP protocol
`
`describes a set of rules for dividing a message into multiple parts (called “IP
`
`packets”) and then transmitting those packets from an IP sender to an IP
`
`destination across multiple routers or other links in a computer network. Each
`
`packet of information includes an IP address for its destination, analogous to
`
`sending a letter through the mail by placing the letter inside an envelope that has
`
`the recipient’s postal address printed on it. Th