Filed: April 4, 2018
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`______________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`______________________
`
`INTEL CORP. and CAVIUM, INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`ALACRITECH, INC.,
`Patent Owner.
`______________________
`
`Case IPR2017-01406
`U.S. Patent No. 7,673,0721
`Title: FAST-PATH APPARATUS FOR TRANSMITTING DATA
`CORRESPONDING A TCP CONNECTION
`________________________
`
`PETITIONER’S RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION TO PATENT OWNER’S
`CONTINGENT MOTION TO AMEND UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.121
`
`Mail Stop “PATENT BOARD”
`Patent Trial and Appeal Board
`U.S. Patent and Trademark Office
`P.O. Box 1450
`Alexandria, VA 22313-1450
`
`
`1 Cavium, Inc., which filed a Petition in Case IPR2017-01707, has been joined as a
`
`petitioner in this proceeding.
`
`
`
`

`

`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`Case IPR2017-01406
`U.S. Patent No. 7,673,072
`
`Page
`
`I.
`II.
`
`INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................... 1
`ENTITLED TO AMEND ITS CLAIMS ......................................................... 3
`A.
`Support .................................................................................................. 3
`B.
`Claims .................................................................................................... 5
`1.
`Substitute Claim 22 Broadens The Scope Of Claim 1 ............... 5
`2.
`2-8 ............................................................................................... 8
`SUBSTITUTE CLAIMS 22-29 AND 36-42 ARE INDEFINITE .................. 8
`III.
`Substitute Claims 22-29 Are Indefinite ................................................. 8
`A.
`Substitute Claims 36-42 Are Indefinite ............................................... 10
`B.
`IV. SUBSTITUTE CLAIMS 22-42 ARE OBVIOUS OVER ERICKSON
`IN VIEW OF TANENBAUM96 ................................................................... 10
`A.
`Tanenbaum96 ...................................................................................... 11
`1.
`[22.P] A method comprising: .................................................... 11
`2.
`
`PATENT OWNER HAS NOT MET ITS BURDEN TO SHOW IT IS
`
`Patent Owner Does Not Show Adequate Written Description
`
`Patent Owner Has Improperly Expanded The Scope Of The
`
`Substitute Claims 23-29 Broaden The Scope Of Claims
`
`Substitute Claim 22 Is Obvious Over Erickson in view of
`
`[22.1] establishing, at a host computer, a transport layer
`connection, including creating a context that includes a
`media access control (MAC) layer address, an Internet
`Protocol (IP) address and Transmission Control Protocol
`
`(TCP) state information for the connection; ............................. 11
`device; ....................................................................................... 13
`
`[22.2] transferring the context information to an interface
`
`3.
`
`i
`
`

`

`B.
`
`Case IPR2017-01406
`U.S. Patent No. 7,673,072
`
`[22.3] transferring data from the network host to the
`interface device,
`after
`transferring
`the
`context
`
`[22.4] dividing, by the interface device, the data into
`
`[22.5] creating headers for the segments, by the interface
`device, from a template header containing protocol
`header information including IP address and TCP state
`
`[22.6] prepending the headers to the segments to form
`
`4.
`information to the interface device; .......................................... 14
`5.
`segments: ................................................................................... 15
`6.
`information; and ........................................................................ 15
`7.
`transmit packets. ........................................................................ 16
`Tanenbaum96 ...................................................................................... 16
`1.
`protocol header information to the interface device. ................ 16
`2.
`the template header. .................................................................. 16
`3.
`
`Substitute Claims 23-29 Are Obvious Over Erickson in View of
`
`[23] The method of claim 22, further comprising
`transferring status information for the context to the
`interface device during the same operation as transferring
`
`[24] The method of claim 22, wherein creating headers
`for the segments includes adding status information to
`
`4.
`
`[25] The method of claim 22, wherein the protocol
`header
`information
`includes Internet Protocol (IP)
`addresses and Transmission Control Protocol (TCP) ports
`for the connection, and creating headers for the segments
`includes forming headers containing the IP addresses and
`
`TCP ports. ................................................................................. 16
`
`[26] The method of claim 22, wherein the protocol
`header information includes a Media Access Control
`(MAC) layer address, and creating headers for the
`segments includes forming headers containing the MAC
`
`layer address. ............................................................................. 17
`
`ii
`
`

`

`Case IPR2017-01406
`U.S. Patent No. 7,673,072
`
`[27] The method of claim 22, further comprising adding
`to the context a descriptor for a buffer, in a memory of
`
`C.
`
`[29] The method of claim 22, further comprising
`
`Substitute Claim 30 Is Obvious Over Erickson in view of
`
`[28] The method of claim 22, further comprising
`receiving, by the interface device, receive packets that
`correspond to the context, and updating the context by
`
`5.
`the computer, that has been allocated for application data. ...... 17
`6.
`the interface device to account for the receive packets. ........... 17
`7.
`transmitting the transmit packets on a network. ....................... 17
`Tanenbaum96 ...................................................................................... 18
`1.
`[30.P] A method comprising: .................................................... 18
`2.
`
`[30.1] creating, at a computer, a context including
`protocol information and status information for a network
`connection,
`the protocol
`information providing a
`template header for the network connection and including
`a media access control (MAC) layer address, an Internet
`Protocol (IP) address and Transmission Control Protocol
`
`(TCP) state information; ........................................................... 18
`information to an interface device; ........................................... 19
`device; ....................................................................................... 19
`segments; ................................................................................... 19
`device, from the template header; ............................................. 20
`packets; and ............................................................................... 20
`
`[30.2] transferring the protocol information and status
`
`[30.3] transferring data from the computer to the
`interface device,
`after
`transferring
`the protocol
`information and status information to the interface
`
`[30.4] dividing, by the interface device, the data into
`
`[30.5] creating headers for the segments, by the interface
`
`[30.6] prepending the headers to the segments to form
`
`iii
`
`3.
`4.
`5.
`6.
`7.
`
`

`

`D.
`
`E.
`
`Case IPR2017-01406
`U.S. Patent No. 7,673,072
`
`Substitute Claims 31-35 Are Obvious Over Erickson in View of
`
`[30.7] transmitting the packets on a network. ........................... 20
`8.
`Tanenbaum96 ...................................................................................... 20
`1.
`
`[31] The method of claim 30, wherein creating headers
`for
`the segments
`includes adding current status
`information to the template header, the current status
`information being different than the status information
`
`that was transferred to the interface device. ............................. 20
`
`[32] The method of claim 30, wherein the protocol
`header
`information
`includes Internet Protocol (IP)
`addresses and Transmission Control Protocol (TCP) ports
`for the connection, and creating headers for the segments
`includes forming headers containing the IP addresses and
`
`TCP ports. ................................................................................. 21
`
`[33] The method of claim 30, wherein the protocol
`header information includes a Media Access Control
`(MAC) layer address, and creating headers for the
`segments includes forming headers containing the MAC
`
`layer address. ............................................................................. 21
`
`[34] The method of claim 30, further comprising
`transferring to the interface device a descriptor for a
`buffer, in a memory of the computer, that has been
`allocated for application data that is transferred according
`
`to the protocol information. ...................................................... 21
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`4.
`
`5.
`
`[35] The method of claim 30, further comprising
`receiving, by the interface device, receive packets that
`correspond to the protocol information, and updating the
`status information by the interface device to account for
`
`the receive packets. ................................................................... 21
`Tanenbaum96 ...................................................................................... 22
`[36.P] A method comprising: .................................................... 22
`1.
`
`Substitute Claim 36 Is Obvious Over Erickson in view of
`
`iv
`
`

`

`2.
`
`Case IPR2017-01406
`U.S. Patent No. 7,673,072
`
`[36.1] establishing, at a computer, a Transmission
`Control Protocol (TCP) connection corresponding to a
`context that includes status information and Internet
`Protocol (IP) addresses and TCP ports a media access
`
`control (MAC) layer address for the connection; ..................... 22
`3.
`[36.2] transferring the context to an interface device; .............. 23
`4.
`interface device; ........................................................................ 23
`5.
`segments; ................................................................................... 23
`6.
`addresses and TCP ports; .......................................................... 23
`7.
`transmit packets. ........................................................................ 23
`Tanenbaum96 ...................................................................................... 24
`1.
`the data to the interface device.................................................. 24
`2.
`
`[36.3] transferring data from the network host to the
`interface device, after transferring the context to the
`
`[36.4] dividing, by the interface device, the data into
`
`[36.5] creating headers for the segments, by the interface
`device, from a template header that includes the IP
`
`[36.6] prepending the headers to the segments to form
`
`Substitute Claims 37-42 Are Obvious Over Erickson in View of
`
`[37] The method of claim 36, wherein transferring the
`context to the interface device occurs prior to transferring
`
`3.
`
`[38] The method of claim 30, wherein the protocol
`header
`information
`includes Internet Protocol (IP)
`addresses and Transmission Control Protocol (TCP) ports
`for the connection, and creating headers for the segments
`includes forming headers containing the IP addresses and
`
`TCP ports. ................................................................................. 24
`
`[39] The method of claim 30, wherein the protocol
`header information includes a Media Access Control
`(MAC) layer address, and creating headers for the
`segments includes forming headers containing the MAC
`
`layer address. ............................................................................. 24
`
`v
`
`F.
`
`

`

`V.
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-01406
`U.S. Patent No. 7,673,072
`
`[40] The method of claim 30, further comprising
`transferring to the interface device a descriptor for a
`buffer, in a memory of the computer, that has been
`allocated for application data that is transferred according
`
`to the protocol information. ...................................................... 24
`
`[41] The method of claim 30, further comprising
`receiving, by the interface device, receive packets that
`correspond to the protocol information, and updating the
`status information by the interface device to account for
`
`the receive packets. ................................................................... 25
`
`4.
`
`5.
`
`6.
`
`[42] The method of claim 30, further comprising
`receiving, by the interface device, receive packets that
`correspond to the protocol information, and updating the
`status information by the interface device to account for
`
`the receive packets. ................................................................... 25
`CONCLUSION .............................................................................................. 25
`
`
`
`vi
`
`

`

`Case IPR2017-01406
`U.S. Patent No. 7,673,072
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`Page(s)
`
`Cases
`
`Aqua Products, Inc. v. Matal,
` 872 F.3d 1290 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (en banc) ............................................................. 3
`
`B.E. Tech., L.L.C. v. Google, Inc.,
`Nos. 2015-1827, 2015-1828, 2015-1829, 2015-1879,
`2016 U.S. App. LEXIS 20591 (Fed. Cir. Nov. 17, 2016) ...................................... 5
`In re Bennett,
`766 F.2d 524 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (en banc) ................................................................ 8
`In re Cuozzo Speed Techs., LLC,
`793 F.3d 1268 (Fed. Cir. 2015) .............................................................................. 6
`
`Nautilus, Inc. v. Biosig Instruments, Inc.,
`134 S. Ct. 2120 (2014) ......................................................................................... 10
`Respironics, Inc. v. Zoll Med. Corp.,
`No. IPR2013-00322, 2014 WL 4715644
`(P.T.A.B. Sept. 17, 2014) ....................................................................................... 4
`
`Statutes and Regulations
`
`35 U.S.C. § 102(e) ................................................................................................... 10
`35 U.S.C. § 316(d) ..................................................................................................... 3
`35 U.S.C. § 316(d)(1)(a)–(b) ..................................................................................... 3
`35 U.S.C. § 316(d)(3)................................................................................................. 3
`37 C.F.R. § 42.121(a)(2)(ii) ....................................................................................... 3
`37 C.F.R. § 42.121(b) ................................................................................................ 3
`77 Fed. Reg. 48756 (Aug. 14, 2012) ......................................................................... 4
`
`
`
`vii
`
`

`

`Case IPR2017-01406
`U.S. Patent No. 7,673,072
`
`EXHIBIT LIST
`
`Description
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,673,072
`Prosecution File History of U.S. Patent No. 7,673,072
`Declaration of Robert Horst, Ph.D. (“Horst Declaration”)
`Curriculum Vitae of Robert Horst, Ph.D.
`U.S. Patent No. 5,768,618 (“Erickson”)
`Tanenbaum, Andrew S., Computer Networks, Prentice-Hall. 1996.
`(“Tanenbaum96”)
`Transmission Control Protocol, “Darpa Internet Protocol
`Specification”, RFC: 793, Sept. 1981. (“RFC 793”) RFC 793
`Stevens, W. Richard, TCP/IP Illustrated Volume 1: The Protocols,
`Addison-Wesley (1994). (“Stevens1”)
`Lilinkamp, J., Mandell. R. and Padlipsky, M., “Proposed Host-
`Front End Protocol”, Network Working Group Request for
`Comments: 929, Dec. 1984. (“RFC 929”)
`Not Used
`Declaration from Santa Clara University regarding Tanenbaum,
`Andrew S., Computer Networks, Prentice-Hall. 1996.
`(“Tanenbaum96”)
`Not Used
`Wright, Gary R., and W. Richard Stevens. TCP/IP Illustrated.
`Vol. 2., The Implementation Addison-Wesley Professional, 1995
`(”Stevens2”)
`Touch, J., “TCP Control Block Interdependence”, Network
`Working Group Request for Comments: 2140, April 1997.
`(“RFC 2140”)
`Thia, Y. H., and C. Murray Woodside. "A Reduced Operation
`Protocol Engine (ROPE) for a multiple-layer bypass architecture."
`Protocols for High Speed Networks IV. Springer US, 1995.
`224-239. (“Thia”)
`Biersack, E. W., Rütsche E., “Demultiplexing on the ATM
`Adapter: Experiments with Internet Protocols in User Space”,
`Journal on High Speed Networks, Vol. 5, No. 2, May 1996.
`(“Biersack”)
`Rütsche, E., Kaiserswerth, M., “TCP/IP on the Parallel Protocol
`
`viii
`
`Exhibit #
`Ex. 1001
`Ex. 1002
`Ex. 1003
`Ex. 1004
`Ex. 1005
`Ex. 1006
`
`Ex. 1007
`
`Ex. 1008
`
`Ex. 1009
`
`Ex. 1010
`Ex. 1011
`
`Ex. 1012
`Ex. 1013
`
`Ex. 1014
`
`Ex. 1015
`
`Ex. 1016
`
`Ex. 1017
`
`

`

`Case IPR2017-01406
`U.S. Patent No. 7,673,072
`
`Engine”, Proceedings, IFIP Conference on High Performance
`Networking, Liege (Belgium), Dec. 1992. (“Rütsche92”)
`Rütsche, E., “The Architecture of a Gb/s Multimedia Protocol
`Adapter”, Computer Communication Review, 1993. (“Rütsche93”)
`Padlipsky, M. A., “A Proposed Protocol for Connecting Host
`Computers to Arpa-Like Networks Via Directly-Connected Front
`End Processors”, Network Working Group RFC #647, Nov. 1974.
`(“RFC 647”)
`U.S. Patent No. 5,619,650 (“Bach”)
`U.S. Patent No. 5,915,124 (“Morris”)
`Cooper, E.C., et al., “Protocol Implementation on the Nectar
`Communication Processor”, School of Computer Science, Carnegie
`Mellon University, Sept. 1990. (“Cooper”)
`Kung, H.T., et al., “A Host Interface Architecture for High-Speed
`Networks”, School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon
`University and Network Systems Corporation. (“Kung”)
`Exhibit D to Declaration of Dr. Gregory L. Chesson in Support of
`Microsoft’s Opposition to Alacritech’s Motion for Preliminary
`Injunction: “Protocol Engine Handbook”, Protocol Engines
`Incorporated, Oct. 1990. (“Chesson”)
`Kanakia, H., Cheriton, D.R., “The VMP Network Adapter Board
`(NAB): High-Performance Network Communication for
`Multiprocessors”, Communications Architectures & Protocols,
`Stanford University, Aug. 1988. (“Kanakia”)
`Kung, H.T., Cooper, E.C., et al., “Network-Based Multicomputers:
`An Emerging Parallel Architectures”, School of Computer Science,
`Carnegie Mellon University. (“Kung and Cooper”)
`Dalton, C., et al., “Afterburner: Architectural Support for High-
`Performance Protocols”, Networks & Communications
`Laboratories, HP Laboratories Bristol, July 1993. (“Dalton”)
`Murphy, E., Hayes, S., Enders, M., TCP/IP Tutorial and Technical
`Overview Fifth Edition, Prentice-Hall, Inc. New Jersey, (1995).
`(“Murphy”)
`MacLean, A.R., Barvick, S. E., “An Outboard Processor for High
`Performance Implementation of Transport Layer Protocols”,
`IEEE Globecom ’91, Phoenix, AZ, Dec. 1991. (“MacLean”)
`Clark, D.D., et al., “An Analysis of TCP Processing Overhead”,
`IEEE Communications Magazine, June 1989. (“Clark”)
`Provisional Application 60-061,809 (“Alacritech 1997 Provisional
`ix
`
`Ex. 1018
`
`Ex. 1019
`
`Ex. 1020
`Ex. 1021
`Ex. 1022
`
`Ex. 1023
`
`Ex. 1024
`
`Ex. 1025
`
`Ex. 1026
`
`Ex. 1027
`
`Ex. 1028
`
`Ex. 1029
`
`Ex. 1030
`
`Ex. 1031
`
`

`

`Case IPR2017-01406
`U.S. Patent No. 7,673,072
`
`Application”)
`Culler, E.C., et al., “Parallel Computing on the Berkeley NOW”,
`Computer Science Division, University of California, Berkeley.
`(“Culler”)
`“Gigabit Ethernet Technical Brief: Achieving End-to-End
`Performance”, Alteon Networks, Inc. First Edition, Sept. 1996.
`(“Alteon”)
`Smith, J.A., Primmer, M., “Tachyon: A Gigabit Fibre Channel
`Protocol Chip”, Hewlett-Packard Journal, Article 12, Oct. 1996.
`(“Smith”)
`Patterson, D.A., Hennessy, J.L., Computer Architecture:
`A Quantitative Approach, Morgan Kaufmann Publishers, Inc.,
`San Mateo, CA (1990). (“Patterson”)
`Internet Protocol, “Darpa Internet Protocol Specification”,
`RFC: 791, Sept. 1981. (“RFC 791”)
`Not Used
`
`Alacritech’s Opening Claim Construction Brief (Alacritech, Inc. v.
`Dell Inc, Intel Corporation, et al.)
`Not Used
`
`Alacritech’s Infringement Contentions For Intel Ex. 2 - 072 (Intel)
`LR 3-1 Infringement Chart
`Not Used
`
`Request for Comments (“RFC”) 2026
`Website:
` https://www.rfc-editor.org/search/rfc_search_
`detail.php?rfc=929&pubstatus%5B%5D=Any&pub_date_type=any
`Website:
`https://www.rfc-editor.org/search/rfc_search_
`detail.php?rfc=793&pubstatus%5B%5D=Any&pub_date_type=any
`Not Used
`
`Declaration of Robert Horst, Ph. D. In Support of Petitioner’s
`Response in Opposition to Patent Owner’s Contingent Motion to
`Amend (April 4, 2018)
`
`x
`
`Ex. 1032
`
`Ex. 1033
`
`Ex. 1034
`
`Ex. 1035
`
`Ex. 1036
`
`Ex. 1037-
`1039
`Ex. 1040
`
`Ex. 1041-
`Ex. 1081
`Ex. 1082
`
`Ex. 1083-
`Ex. 1204
`Ex. 1205
`Ex. 1206
`
`Ex. 1207
`
`Ex. 1208-
`Ex. 1209
`Ex. 1210
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case IPR2017-01406
`U.S. Patent No. 7,673,072
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`The Board should deny Patent Owner’s Contingent Motion to Amend
`
`(“Motion,” Paper No. 25) for U.S. Patent No. 7,673,072 (“072 Patent”). Patent
`
`Owner has not met its burden to show it is entitled to the substitute claims because
`
`it has failed to show support in the original disclosure. Furthermore, it has
`
`improperly broadened the scope of a number of the substitute claims. Moreover,
`
`even if Patent Owner had met its burden, the majority of the substitute claims are
`
`indefinite and all 21 substitute claims are obvious over the prior art cited in the
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review (“Petition,” Paper No. 1).
`
`First, Patent Owner has used string citations to broad swaths of pages and
`
`figures in the disclosures (in fact, the exact same pages and figures in the original
`
`disclosure for each limitation of the three independent claims) without any attempt
`
`to explain how the substitute claims are supported by those disclosures. It is not
`
`Petitioner’s or the Board’s job to sift through these repetitive string citations to
`
`piece together Patent Owner’s claim of support.
`
`Second, Patent Owner has also impermissibly broadened the scope of
`
`substitute claims 22-29. Original claims 1-8 require that a “context” is created that
`
`includes “protocol header information” and that a “template header” is later created
`
`that includes the previously-recited “protocol header information” included in the
`
`context. However, substitute claim 22 is amended to delete the requirement that
`
`1
`
`

`

`Case IPR2017-01406
`U.S. Patent No. 7,673,072
`
`the context include “protocol header information.” As a result, the “template
`
`header” in claim 22 is described as “containing protocol header information” that
`
`is not previously recited as being included in the context. Thus, the amended
`
`“protocol header information” contained in the “template header” need not have
`
`any relationship to the context. Even the “IP address and TCP state information”
`
`recited in amended claim 22 is not tied to the previously-recited “IP address and
`
`TCP state information” included in the claimed context. Therefore, substitute
`
`claims 22-29 as amended encompass methods in which the “template header” does
`
`not include “protocol header information” that is also included in the claimed
`
`context. Such template headers are not covered by the original claims. Claims 22-
`
`29 as amended are thus improper.
`
`Third, substitute claims 22-29 (original claims 1-8) and claims 36-42
`
`(original claims 15-21) are indefinite. Patent Owner’s amendments to claims 22-
`
`29 create ambiguity about the scope of the claims, while the amendments to claims
`
`36-42 render them unintelligible. Because these claims fail to inform a person of
`
`ordinary skill in the art (“POSA”) of the scope with reasonable certainty, they are
`
`indefinite.
`
`Fourth, these claims are all obvious in view of the prior art cited in the
`
`Petition. The additional limitations require little more than the “context” including
`
`a MAC layer address, an IP address and TCP state information, information that is
`
`2
`
`

`

`Case IPR2017-01406
`U.S. Patent No. 7,673,072
`
`included in the headers of all TCP/IP packets transmitted over Ethernet. This basic
`
`concept is rendered obvious based on the prior art in the Petition.
`
`II.
`
`PATENT OWNER HAS NOT MET ITS BURDEN TO SHOW IT IS
`ENTITLED TO AMEND ITS CLAIMS
`“There is no disagreement that the patent owner bears a burden of
`
`production in accordance 35 U.S.C. § 316(d).” Aqua Products, Inc. v. Matal, 872
`
`F.3d 1290, 1340–41 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (en banc); see also, e.g., id. at 1305–06
`
`(explaining that “patent owner must satisfy the Board that the statutory criteria in §
`
`316(d)(1)(a)–(b) and § 316(d)(3) are met and that any reasonable procedural
`
`obligations imposed by the Director are satisfied”); Motion at 1. As part of that
`
`production, the patent owner must show that the amendment does not enlarge the
`
`scope of the claims and that there is sufficient written description support. 35
`
`U.S.C. § 316(d)(3); 37 C.F.R. § 42.121(a)(2)(ii). Here, Patent Owner both
`
`improperly broadens the scope of substitute claims 22-29 and fails to show written
`
`description support for any of its claims.
`
`A.
`
`Patent Owner Does Not Show Adequate Written Description
`Support
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.121(b), Patent Owner bears the burden in the
`
`Motion to Amend to set forth “[t]he support in the original disclosure of the patent
`
`for each claim that is added or amended,” and “[t]he support in an earlier-filed
`
`disclosure for each claim for which benefit of the filing date of the earlier filed
`
`3
`
`

`

`Case IPR2017-01406
`U.S. Patent No. 7,673,072
`
`disclosure is sought.” Here, Patent Owner does nothing more than include string
`
`citations to large groups of figures and lengthy blocks of text in App. A and B.
`
`Despite having almost seven additional pages in its briefing, Patent Owner
`
`provides no explanation for how the numerous pages and figures in its string
`
`citations support the various limitations for which they are cited. This merely
`
`shifts the burden on the Board, Petitioner, and the public to sift through these
`
`myriad citations and cull out Patent Owner’s support, which does not satisfy Patent
`
`Owner’s burden. Respironics, Inc. v. Zoll Med. Corp., No. IPR2013-00322, 2014
`
`WL 4715644, at *13 (P.T.A.B. Sept. 17, 2014) (“Zoll’s string citations amount to
`
`little more than an invitation to us (and to Respironics, and to the public) to peruse
`
`the cited evidence and piece together a coherent argument for them. This we will
`
`not do; it is the province of advocacy.”), vacated and remanded on other grounds,
`
`No. 2015-1485, 656 F. App’x, 531 (Fed. Cir. July 29, 2016); see also Office Patent
`
`Trial Practice Guide, 77 Fed. Reg. 48756, 48767 (Aug. 14, 2012) (“If the Board is
`
`unable to determine how the specification and drawings support the proposed
`
`substitute claims, the motion to amend may be denied.”).
`
`For example, for the three independent claims (the only substitute claims
`
`with new limitations), Patent Owner cites to the exact same 10 pages and 12
`
`4
`
`

`

`Case IPR2017-01406
`U.S. Patent No. 7,673,072
`
`figures in the original disclosure for every limitation.2 Patent Owner provides no
`
`explanation for how these 10 pages and 12 figures support either the original
`
`limitations or the modified limitations. For the original provisional application,
`
`Patent Owner cites to entire sections as it proceeds through the claims, again with
`
`no explanation. Accordingly, Patent Owner has not met its burden to show
`
`sufficient written description support. See, e.g., B.E. Tech., L.L.C. v. Google, Inc.,
`
`Nos. 2015-1827, 2015-1828, 2015-1829, 2015-1879, 2016 U.S. App. LEXIS
`
`20591, at *21-24 (Fed. Cir. Nov. 17, 2016) (finding Board did not err when it
`
`found that Patent Owner did not meet its burden where it “only provided a string
`
`citation to eighteen different pages .... without explaining how those various pages
`
`supported each of the proposed substitute limitations”).
`
`B.
`
`Patent Owner Has Improperly Expanded The Scope Of The
`Claims
`1.
`Substitute Claim 22 Broadens The Scope Of Claim 1
`Patent Owner contends that substitute claim 22 narrows original claim 1
`
`merely because it “include[s] additional limitations.” Motion at 2. While Patent
`
`Owner added limitations, it also expanded the scope of one of the original
`
`limitations. In doing so, Patent Owner expanded the overall scope of the substitute
`
`2 Patent Owner cites to Ex. 2019 for limitation 22.1, but this appears to be a
`
`typographical error as this is the earlier filed disclosure.
`
`5
`
`

`

`Case IPR2017-01406
`U.S. Patent No. 7,673,072
`
`claims to include methods that would not have been covered by the original claims.
`
`This is improper. In re Cuozzo Speed Techs., LLC, 793 F.3d 1268, 1283 (Fed. Cir.
`
`2015) (“[A] claim is broader in scope than the original claims if it contains within
`
`its scope any conceivable apparatus or process which would not have infringed the
`
`original patent.”) (quotations omitted).
`
`Original claim 1 requires “creating a context that includes protocol header
`
`information for the connection” and then later “creating headers for the segments
`
`... from a template header containing the protocol header information.” Motion at
`
`xiii (emphasis added). Only methods where the “template header” contains the
`
`same “protocol header information” as the “context” infringe claim 1.
`
`In contrast, substitute claim 22 removed the requirement that the context
`
`“includes protocol header information.” As a result, the amended claim is no
`
`longer limited to methods where the “context” and the “template header” both
`
`contain the same “protocol header information.” Motion at xiii (emphasis added).
`
`Even the claimed IP address and TCP state information in the template header are
`
`not tied to the context. For instance, if a method uses a processor on an interface
`
`device (i.e., the “second processor”) to create protocol header information for the
`
`segments (perhaps for an unrelated connection or protocol) instead of using
`
`protocol header information included in the context, that method would infringe
`
`substitute claim 22 but not the original claim 1, thereby making the new claim
`
`6
`
`

`

`Case IPR2017-01406
`U.S. Patent No. 7,673,072
`
`broader. As shown in the below figure, substitute claim 22 does not require the
`
`protocol header information to come from any particular source.
`
`
`While Patent Owner has added certain limitations to claim 22 (e.g., requiring
`
`the context to include specific information), this does not change the fact that
`
`substitute claim 22 has been broadened to include methods where the “template
`
`header” does not contain the same “protocol header information” as the “context.”
`
`Such a method would not have infringed original claim 1. In re Bennett, 766 F.2d
`
`7
`
`

`

`Case IPR2017-01406
`U.S. Patent No. 7,673,072
`
`524, 526 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (en banc) (“[A] claim is broadened if it is broader in any
`
`respect than the original claim, even though it may be narrowed in other
`
`respects.”). Accordingly, Patent Owner cannot meet its burden of demonstrating
`
`that substitute claim 22 does not expand the scope of claim 1.
`
`2.
`Substitute Claims 23-29 Broaden The Scope Of Claims 2-8
`Substitute claims 23-29, which are substitute claims for original claims 2-7,
`
`are dependent claims. Patent Owner states that “[p]roposed dependent claims 23-
`
`29 ... are identical to dependent claims 2-8” and “are, thus, narrower than the
`
`original, granted versions of those claims.” Motion at 2. Because claims 23-29
`
`depend on claim 22 which was broadened, these dependent claims would be
`
`broader than the original claims for the same reasons discussed in Section II.A.1.
`
`III. SUBSTITUTE CLAIMS 22-29 AND 36-42 ARE INDEFINITE
`A.
`Substitute Claims 22-29 Are Indefinite
`Patent Owner modified claim 22, but did so in a way that makes the scope of
`
`the invention unclear. Patent Owner first modified limitation 22.1 as follows:
`
`establishing, at a host computer, a transport layer connection,
`including creating a context that includes a media access control
`(MAC) layer address, an Internet Protocol (IP) address and
`Transmission Control Protocol (TCP) state information protocol
`header information for the connection
`
`Motion at xiii (emphasis added). However, in limitations 22.2 and 22.3, Patent
`
`8
`
`

`

`Case IPR2017-01406
`U.S. Patent No. 7,673,072
`
`Owner then refers to “the context information.” It is unclear what Patent Owner is
`
`referring to—the term “context information” is not previously mentioned.3
`
`Presumably, “the context” refers to the “context” identified in limitation
`
`22.1. However, it is unclear what “the context information” refers to. Ex. 1210,
`
`Horst Opp. Decl. ¶ 20. There are a number of different possibilities. For example,
`
`it could include all the information identified as being in the “context” (i.e., the
`
`Mac layer address, the IP